Talk:100 People Who Are Screwing Up America

POV
I am a liberal, but this should be NPOV reviewed
 * While a page like this may have a tendency towards becoming POV, presently it is okay. Remember, jokes are funny, but talking about jokes can be serious.  The patient is suffering from paranoia, not the doctor.  You can't sue a judge for slander if he hears a libel case.  While the content of this book is certainly POV, it is possible that the article is not. -Acjelen 04:29, 24 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Maybe, but Goldberg is labelled as a "conservative" in this article, and yet Jon Stewart (who does more or less exactly the same thing) is not labeled as a "liberal", nor are most of the people on Goldberg's 100 list. This seems like a POV issue to me. -Pangloss


 * Goldberg does get a chance to defend his choices in the last paragraph. I would say the author does a good job of keeping the article fair.Bjones


 * I simply reversed the "criticism" section with the "list" section. It would appear to have an obvious POV problem if before any detailed discussion of the book, a "criticism" section was presented. -Rapturerocks


 * The list is not a detailed discussion— it's just a long list, basically an extended quotation from the book. The "Criticism" section is the main discussion of the book. -Willmcw 19:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, but this is to be an encyclopaedia article and so I thought our first and foremost responsibility was to discuss what it is and then to discuss criticism regarding it. As it is just a big list, I assumed the list section would be pretty enlightening to those who want to know. -Rapturerocks


 * Right, but how is a quotation a discussion? The list doesn't discus the content - it is the content. In general we don't include source material at all, so this is a bit of an exception. Anyway, no big deal. -Willmcw 17:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't see it as a big deal either, but I think it makes more sense organizationally to put the list at the end, since it's more of a reference material. When someone looks at the page and sees the list, they might assume that's the end of the article and not scroll down to see the rest of it. -Maximusveritas 20:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Is the neutrality of this article still under dispute? I read through it and didn't see any POV statements.  If you still feel this article does not have a neutral tone than please speak up.  Otherwise I will be removing the tag at the top of the page.  Personally I feel that tags get left up way to long, and to me it seems like this article was POV at some point and has since been edited to be more encyclopedaic.  Thanks, CoolMike 22:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

List of Conservatives
The purpose of listing all the conservatives in the book is to provide support for the primary criticism directed at the book: that Goldberg targets only a small number of easy conservative targets, while spending the vast majority of his time attacking anyone associated with liberal causes.

Byrd is not a conservative by any reasonable measure. Every ratings system I know of marks him as one of the more liberal members of the Senate, which makes him ultra-liberal for WV. I suspect the only point of putting him in there originally was to attack him for his KKK service, which is fine, but it doesn't belong in that paragraph.

To simply change the word "conservatives" to "targets" in order to accommodate Byrd changes the whole intent of the sentence in the first place. We already have the list printed down below, so there's no point in just listing a few of them for no reason. Also, I think we should be a little more careful before throwing around charges of bias. I think we're all trying to make this article as fair and accurate as possible. - Maximusveritas 22:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * If you want to check some of those ratings systems I'm talking about, go to  You will see that Byrd has earned consistently high marks from liberal groups, while getting low marks from conservative.  Meanwhile, the nonpartisan National Journal has consistently noted him for voting more liberal on economic, social, and foreign policy than his colleagues.  There is overwhelming evidence that he is NOT conservative. -Maximusveritas 17:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

What matters here is not so much how liberal Byrd is, but if 1) Goldberg considers him a liberal and 2) if the critics we are discussing include Byrd in BG's list of conservatives. I see no evidence of the latter, and in the book Goldberg doesn't directly label Byrd either way but makes several references to Byrd's "liberal friends" and colleagues. So it's pretty clear that Goldberg isn't denouncing what he considers a fellow conservative. Gamaliel 20:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, if you would bother to read the book, you would find that Goldberg doesn't criticize him for his liberalism. Goldberg criticizes him for his racist extremism and his pork belly politics.  Never once does Goldberg condemn him for being a liberal.  Case Closed. WolframSiever 22:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You failed to address any of my points. You can't just address one person's complaint and then close the discussion. That's not acting in good faith. You have once again removed the whole meaning of the sentence, turning it into a meaningless list of a few of Goldberg's targets. What's the point of that when the whole list is printed down below?  The main point of that whole paragraph is to talk about the criticism that Goldberg's book attacks few conservatives.  The sentence you changed was meant to highlight that by listing all the conservatives targeted in the book (5 total).  Byrd is not a conservative, so he doesn't belong on that list.  It's irrelevant if Goldberg attacked him, a liberal Democrat, for racism, because that has nothing to do with the criticism.  I'm going to give you more respect than you gave us and allow you a chance to re-enter the discussion before taking further steps. - Maximusveritas 23:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, I did bother to read the book, as it is right here on my desk and I reread the Byrd section before I posted my last comment. It is not "case closed" as you have missed the entire point of the paragraph.  Unless Goldberg considers him a fellow conservative - which from the book he clearly does not - then Byrd should not be mentioned in a list of fellow conservatives Goldberg was willing to criticize. Gamaliel 00:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Moot, Goldberg obviously doesn't consider Duke a "fellow conservative", and he shares a common history with Byrd. WolframSiever 21:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Regarding the "criticism" section, let's remember that we aren't making this up oursleves, we're summarizing a source. In this case, the first source/critic is Cathy Young, who'd article is here. It isn't for us to decide who is liberal or conservative, only to report what others have decided. Cheers, -Will Beback 09:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Noting that people made the list in their biographies
Unless it is notable for some reason, I don't think that the fact that some on is on this list should be mentioned in their biography on Wikipedia. If it is someone who got a lot of attention about being on the list, it would be okay. Otherwise, I don't think that it is significant enough to include and people will add it to the biographies of people they don't like. For example, it is mentioned in the Matthew Lesko article that he is on the list, yet he is not well known for being on the list and I don't think that there was a lot of attention paid to him being on the list. While I hate him so very, very much, I don't think this is appropriate. -- Kjkolb 10:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The reverse applies as well, per WP:BLP. If mention of being in the book isn't important enough to be included in the article about the person, then that person shouldn't be mentioned here either. --Ronz (talk) 04:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

110 People
I don't know if anyone bought the new version of this book, but if so could you add the 10 additional people? I can't seem to find them anywhere on the internet, and I am quite curious. — Chris ( t c ) — 04:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I have Bernie Goldberg's new book and you can browse through at your next bookstore visit. (You may decide to buy it.) This is something I wanted to know also. There doesn't seem to be ten added to the list of 100 (some of which are categories of people, like Hollywood 'experts'.) I'm just reading the new chapters that introduce the list and there may be more than ten new people mentioned there. Buy the book! Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC) [Also, look at the copyright section below.]
 * The new lead chapters are really intriguing and very funny to read. You are missing out if you don't borrow from your library, go to the bookstore and read a bit, then BUY THE BOOK.  It's fun!  Anyway, let me quote from the very last page in which Bernie Goldberg mentions his list of 100.
 * Pg. 327, "A NOTE TO YOU, THE READER
 * "As I said in the introduction to this book, there won't be two people in the whole country who agree with every name on my list of 100. So please tell me who you would put on your list; that is, the one or two or twenty people you think are screwing up America, and—in a few words—why.
 * "There is no reason I should have all the fun.  Thanks, Bernard Goldberg"
 * I've removed the few words in the Article that said he added ten people to the list. The sentence reads better and is now accurate. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Is "the list" copyrighted?
I have no problem removing the list if it is a copyright violation. But if it can be included, it should be. Bytebear 00:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd guess that quoting the whole list would be excessive. -Will Beback 02:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

A recent edit added back the entire list, along with descriptions of each person. Is this the best approach? -Will Beback · † · 03:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Adding the list back was good for me, a reader. Don't think Bernie Goldberg minds. (Nor his publisher.)  It is good PR and advertising for their book.  I enjoyed reading through the list.  Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)  Without the List, the article would be lessened.


 * I would like to see the List in the book by Jack Huberman Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, the Article on Huberman's book lists 13 at the top of his List, and that is sufficient. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 17:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll contact Bernie Goldberg and get his permission (and he can ask his publisher, if necessary.) Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 17:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Answered: Bernie says he was maligned on the pages of Wikipedia and he is not a fan.
 * He says no to the request and he owns the copyright. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm guessing it should be removed then...? --Trevorrrj (talk) 17:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the most notable entries could represent the List. Can WP legal team give advice? Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 17:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've removed the list per WP:BLP. I imagine that sources might be found to justify mentioning a few individuals, if BLP were met. --Ronz (talk) 04:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Removed "101 People Who Are Screwing Up Canada" link
I've removed the link to this blog, as there is no evidence provided that this blog is notable in the slightest, and only gets about 150 Google hits. --Saforrest 06:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

John Stewart
Whomever keeps editing this article calling John Stewart "a prominent liberal" when the section detailing his encounter with Golberg comes up. Stewart is not a prominent liberal and even though he might be liberal, the inclusion of that phrase is unnessary to piece and should not be put in. The Daily Show is actually quite neutral. If you'd ever watch it, you'd know that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.229.176 (talk • contribs)
 * Look, dude..First of all, you're not registered as a user so I really can't take you seriously. Secondly, I've already been through this with an Admin, and have been cleared that the phrase is ok. Stewart IS a liberal, did you not hear of his hosting a victory party for John Kerry and Edwards in the 2004 election, or his disappointment at their defeat? Have you not heard of his political statements OFF of The Daily Show? Come on, no person in their right mind is going to say that John Stewart is not liberal. Additionally, he IS prominent because most people in the young adult category get their news from him (how ever phucked up that is), he also has an extremely popular TV show. Lastly, it IS important to identify the leanings of ANY interviewer who asks a question so that the people reading it will understand why the question is being asked. If John Stewert were a conservative, you'd be demanding that his conservativeness be included. Not including his political affiliation is like not including the race of the perpetrator of a crime, it's just idiotic. Chairman Meow 19:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You are going to learn to have to take other users seriously. Wikipedia is about collaborative editing.  Please treat new users with the same respect you would treat established users.
 * There is no such thing as getting "approval" or "clearance" for an edit from an administrator. This user has every right to object to that particular edit. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 23:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Man, you're just like a bad penny. I agree with the anon user that the Daily Show is actually quite neutral, as is the Colbert Report, both, unlike the terrible 1/2 hour news hour make fun of politics, not just left wing politics. However, to assert that John Stewart is not liberal just because his news show is fairly neutral is simply a logical fallacy, you must look at his political leanings and actions outside the show. Gamaliel, I take other users seriously when they state their case in a logical fashion, not whine like little children and throw a tantrum. If the Anon user had stated his case with facts and logic, then I would have responded differently; but, they didn't, so they got what they got. You of all people need to stop being condescending toward others..I mean seriously, did you not think I would have caught your attempt to censor comments on my own talk page? What were you thinking? How does that support your position of "taking other users seriously" when you'll edit their talk page to hide unflattering comments about yourself posted by others? Chairman Meow 15:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * But you didn't say "I can't take you seriously because you are throwing a tantrum". What you actually said was "you're not registered as a user so I really can't take you seriously." If you actually meant the former you should have said it.  If you have a problem with me, take it to my talk page or the administrator's noticeboard.  This page is for discussion of the 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America article only. Thank you. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 15:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

ok Chairman Meow, sorry I didn't take the time to create a Wikipedia account. Arrest me. Anyways, I understand your point, but I still don't agree. First, he is not a prominent liberal. You call him promeniant because of his show, but then you agree that his show isn't biased. He probably is liberal, but to even mention doesn't make any sense, since he is NOT PROMINENT. For example, a PROMINENT liberal or conservative would be someone like Al Franken or Ann Coulter who actively engages in discussion of their persuasion promoting it or denoucing the other. Last time I checked, John Stewart hasn't been exactly appearing publicly supporting one platform or writing books and article's about it. His only or relevant public exposure comes on the Daily Show where he has been neutral. I never really heard of his hosting a party for Kerry and Edwards, but even then, he hasn't done many, if any, liberal things that were publicly PROMINENT. Therefore, I am deleting the phrase as it is just a feeble attempt by you to undermine his critism to conservative readers of this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)
 * Yeah, you got me, I'm intentionally adding information in in an attempt to bias this article. I mean, the fact that his TV show is probably one of the most watch shows in the evening and he is a best selling author probably contributes nothing to his prominence. Chairman Meow 21:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all, the information you're adding is incorrect. Your adding an opinion of yours, which I beileve is an attempt to undermine his critisim to conservative and moderate readers of this article. The issue of prominence dealt with you insterting the liberal label on Stewart labeling him a prominent-liberal. He is a prominent person, obviously, BUT NOT PROMINENT AS A LIBERAL. Meow, think about it this way, Kelsey Grammer is a conservative. He is promenient because hof his TV and Movie work. So if I went into his article and labeled him a prominent conservative, would that be right or make sense? No, because Kelsay Grammer isn't prominent as a conservative (though he appeared at public functions supporting the president). Ann Coulter is a prominent conservative, since she is prominent as a conservative. Al Franken is a promient liberal since he is prominent as a liberal. John Stewart may be liberal, but he is prominent as a host of a comedy show (which you agree is pretty neutral), not promient for being a liberal. Therefore, I am deleting that phrase. It doesn't belong here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.247.166.28 (talk) 00:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree totally with your analogy and it is correctly on point with the example of Ann Coulter, but not with Kelsey Grammer. Grammer and Stweart are pretty much the same thing. If a person is in a prominent position and uses that position to further their political positions as Grammer and Stewart do and have done, then their political leanings cannot be simply ignored. Following your examples compartmentalizes things far too much. For example, Adolf Hitler was prominent, and was an anti-Semite. But he was not prominant AS AN Anti-Semite, he gained prominance through his political achievements and bringing Germany out of Post WWI depression. However, not calling him a prominent anti-Semite makes little sense. Now, from my position, I would call him a prominent anti-Semite because he used his prominent position to further his anti-Semite goals. Thus, because both Stewart and Grammer are prominent individuals who use their positions to further their political goals, labeling them as such makes more sense then simply compartmentalizing their prominence and their political leanings into two separate categories. In this case, Stewart's political leanings ARE relevant simply because they shed light on why he may or may not have asked certain questions. Likewise, if Goldberg was interviewed by Sean Hannity (who is an insane conservative) and Hannity did not ask him why his book has far more liberals in it than conservatives in it, I would want to know that Hannity is a conservative so that I could, perhaps, understand why he asked or did not ask that question. I'm changing the label back only because I don't know if you're watching the article page or the talk page and I would like your response. If you're watching the talk page let me know and I'll not edit the article until this is resolved. Thanks Chairman Meow 16:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Dude, you might want to look up the meaning of Prominent. John Stewart is not a prominent liberal. You say that Stewart is a prominent individual who uses his position to further his political goals. Exactly what Prominent Liberal Things has John Stewart done? I know you mentioned something about a party for Kerry and Edwards, but I've never heard of it. Even if he did, I'm sure it was private and not a public affair that made a big deal publically. John Stewart might be liberal, but he hasn't done any promient liberal things that more than 2 out of a 100 people might know about to label him as a prominent liberal. My Kelsey Grammer example was bad since he did attend public events boasting George Bush...John Stewart hasn't done any of that. Either way, the question he asked was balanced and a question that other conservatives asked as well. It doesn't belong here. HE IS NOT A PROMINENT LIBERAL. Period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.229.176 (talk) 01:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * So, basically what you're saying is that Adolf Hitler can ask why Israel is neglecting the rights of the Palestinians by bombing their houses and setting up draconian checkpoints..and the fact that he is an Anti-Semite is wholly irrelevant? Chairman Meow 18:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

What?? First all, don't try and compare Hitler to Stewart. Your example and this situation is completely different as Hitler is a prominent Anti-Semitie. The bottom line is if you want to call Stewart a "PROMINENT LIBERAL" in this article, prove to me he is PROMINENT AS A LIBERAL. Hitler was prominent as an Anti-Semite. Stewart is prominent as a comedian. He is NOT PROMIENT as a liberal. Do you not understand this or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.34.241 (talk) 21:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * ok, then what you're saying is that just placing "liberal" in the text is ok. Oh, and I'm not comparing Hitler to Stewart, I'm just using him as an example of your warped view of the situation. Hitler was prominent as a POLITICIAN, but he was also an anti-Semite. Stewart, as you say, is prominent as a COMEDIAN, but he is also liberal. Therefore, following your method, I can say either that Hitler was a Prominent Politician, or an anti-Semite, but not a Prominent Anti-Semite. Thus, the text in the article should read "Stewart, a liberal". Chairman Meow 21:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You have got to stop with the Hilter example cause it doesn't make sense. To most people, Hitler is more prominently known as an Anti-Semite first. A lot of people probably don't even know he was a politician. For me and perhaps the rest of the non-crazy world, Hilter is a prominent anti-semite and not a prominent politician. It's a dumb example. And no, it shouldn't say Liberal at all. For one, there is no conclusive evidence other than opinion that says Stewart is liberal. Two, by just having the name there, it implies to the reader he must be prominent in some way since the word liberal was there. If you wanted to put a liberal label on him, then we must go to every article on wikipedia and put a liberal, conservative, liberaterian tag in front of everyone's name. Dude, just let it go. Your reasoning is faulty and doesn't make sense. Until John Stewart starts to publically and prominently proclaim his liberal leanings you accuse him of, you cannot put a liberal, let alone prominent liberal, tag before his name.
 * [personal attack removed] I think that the mere fact that he threw a "John Kerry" party for the 2004 election is enough evidence to indicate that he is leans to the left. If you've got a problem with this argument I suggest that you first bone up on your history, and second, do some google searching about Stewart. I've already provided another individual with plenty of links supporting my claim that he is Liberal, therefore, I would kindly suggest that you provide ME with some links showing he is not.
 * Just to provide you with something to work on...here is how one actually supports their position.
 * "What's beyond a doubt is how much emotion the comedian himself had invested in the election's outcome. New York's Daily News notes that Mr. Stewart was "in a real bad mood" on election night, cutting out after spending only a few minutes at "The Daily Show" 's election party. His next show was uncharacteristically bitter." http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110006642
 * Now why would he be bitter and in a real bad mood if he wasn't liberal? If he were conservative, he would have been in a good mood. Chairman Meow 20:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't understand the urgency of labelling Stewart as a liberal, but if we're going to label folks we should label everyone, starting with the author of the book. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 03:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll refer you to the Media Matters discussion page for your answer. Maybe you don't like it, but it's important because it places the question in context. Context is important in these debates because when you understand who the person is who asked the question, you understand why they asked it. Just leaving it as "Stweart asked X" is akin to leaving Hannity's affiliation out when his questioned the father in Cali who wouldn't let his daughter say the Pledge of Allegiance. It allows the individual to make up their mind about the subject. And no, the subject in this case isn't John Stewart, it's the book. If the book is derided by someone with a liberal slant, that liberal slant is important to the person who reads the article because it allows them to put that derision in context, and not unfairly lay it against the book as a general, NON BIASED criticism. So no, we're not labeling everyone. Chairman Meow 14:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * What does this book have to do with Media Matters? Why shouldn't we report that the author is a liberal or conseravitve or whatever? Also, Stewart spells his first name without an "h". Please don't attack other people for being ignorant too. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 17:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Dude, seriously, what is with you and calling John Stewart a liberal. Your citation is the most idiotic source i've ever seen. I said that nothing other than opinion calls him a liberal and you cite a cite a "OPINION ARTICLE" of all things. I don't know why he was pissed after the election. Maybe he had bad food or maybe he just liked Kerry in THAT election. Even if he is Liberal, he isn't PROMINENT AS A LIBERAL. Please go read a dictionary about what Promient means. Sean Hannity is a prominent conservative because of his TV, Radio, Print, and Book exposure when he expresses those beliefs. Stewart isn't close to that. And before you bring up your stupid Hitler comparison of all things, let me just say that HITLER IS PROMINENT IN TODAYS WORLD AS A ANTI-SEMITE, NOT PROMINENT AS A POLITICIAN. Stewart is a PROMINENT COMEDIAN. Even if he is liberal, HE IS NOT PROMINENT AS A LIBERAL. to suggest putting that label behind his fucking name. This is getting fucking ridiculus (pardon my french) If you want to call stewart a liberal in this article, Cite me sources (NOT OPINION PIECES...[personal attack removed]) where he has profoundly expressed liberal leanings on more than one occasion on more than one topic. Then, by all means call him a liberal or even prominent liberal. BUT NOT UNTIL THEN. Just think of this. We all thought Dennis Miller was a liberal in the 90's..now thanks to his fox news exposure, we know that not to be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.247.166.28 (talk) 20:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Can I recommend Chairman Meow be banned from editing this article. He is ignoring the conversation here (espec. when he is so so so so wrong) and changing the article text anyways despite saying he wouldn't until this is resolved. I'm not a wikipedia editor nor can i pretend to know how everything works around here, but isn't the editing he's done the past two times akin to vadalism. The thing he is trying to write also violates wikipedia rules, since he is making an unsourced claim (i don't think citing an opinion article is good for this piece). It could be libelous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.229.176 (talk) 02:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * He's not going to be banned from this article at this point. The conflict would have to be a lot more serious for something like that to happen.  He has been quite rude, but others editing this article have been uncivil as well.  The best thing to do now is for everyone to calm down and limit their discussion to the article and refrain from discussing each other. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 02:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, here is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkscience.com. This article is about Steven Milloy, the person who runs Junkscience.com. Now, if you read this article, you will notice that everytime Milloy says something or writes something, the editor lists where he wrote this, namely Foxnews. And example of this is "Writing for FoxNews.com, Milloy said that". I equate this with my argument that John Stewart's political leanings are important as to why he asked the question. Just as Milloy's political leanings are important as to why he wrote what he did. I seriously can not fathom why, in a political debate, a person's political position is not at issue.....Chairman Meow 20:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

OMG..OMG>.. Seriously bro. Alright...lets take things one at a time. GET ME A SOURCE...NOT OPINION..that clearly states him as a liberal. For god sakes, the question he asked was pretty balanced and asked by others anyways. GIVE ME A GOOD AND RELIABLE SOURCE. And let me repeat, OPINION ARTICLE DOES NOT COUNT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.229.176 (talk) 22:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No, it's not going to work that way. You want to change how it was, therefore, you bear the responsibility of affirmatively proving your position. YOU get me the sources. Chairman Meow 18:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * In Wikipedia, it is generally accepted that the person who wishes to include particular material has a duty to provide sources justifying the inclusion of that material. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 18:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Please indicate the page where that is a generally accepted rule. It seems to me that anyone who wishes to change an article they just came upon should support their position. I've supported mine before to you directly, so I feel I've done my part, I would like the anon to support his position now. Chairman Meow 19:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * See WP:PROVEIT, a section of WP:V. It says: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Good, thank you. "or restores material"..that burden is now on Anon. Chairman Meow 01:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No, you are the last one who added/restored the material. The burden of evidence is on you. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 03:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Too bad I've already done that...Just ask Gamaliel Chairman Meow 18:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not the person who needs convincing. Your conflict is with the anon editor. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 19:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Be that as it may (and I realize that), I've already supported my position previously, and was clarifying the timeline of events for Will.Chairman Meow 20:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Just insert a linked source and be done with it. Unsourced material may be removed. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Why can't we block this guy Chairman Meow from editing this article. He is making unsourced accusations constantly. I'm sure thats some violation in Wiki-Law. And Meow, I believe its called innocent until proven guilty. If you want to accuse John Stewart of being liberal, then you have to have solid evidence to convict him of that. So far, the only "evidence" is your imagination. But seriously, can't one of you Wiki-Superdudes block this guy? This whole thing is so fucking stupid.
 * Censorship is what the biased individual defaults to when he knows he is on shaky ground. Notice I've not once suggested that my opponent be censored even though his position is as unsupported as mine. Chairman Meow 16:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

haha..you're funny. Bottom line bud..if you want to make any statements in Wikipedia, you must have legitmate sourced facts to back your claims. You don't have that. And if you continue to edit that statement in without sourcing you are breaking Wikipedia's biggest rule. That is why I think you should be blocked if you continue to break the laws of wikipedia-land. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.229.176 (talk) 02:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Tired (John Stewart)
I'm tired of this. Everyone know Jon Stewart is Liberal...you want sources...here is a source:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-goldberg22jan22,0,30005.column

BAM. The beeping LA Times. This is a column written by an author interviewed on the Daily Show. In it he says that even though he went through a 20 min interview, only 6 min were ever shown on air. The rest of it is Stewart taking offense (and position) that because the author's book insults liberals, the author could be dismissed. I quote "And because the title and cover amount to a giant insult to liberals (only Stewart didn't use the word "insult"), it can be dismissed out of hand."

That sounds a lot like a liberal to me. Chairman Meow (talk) 05:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This doesn't prove anything other than one conservative is annoyed by his appearance on the show. You've been at this edit war (and done precious little editing elsewhere on Wikipedia) since last year, it's time for you to let this go and move on. Gamaliel (talk) 05:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * One person's opinion is not a fact. It is completely POV (and irrelevent in the context of the paragraph) to label Stewart based on what you think of his politics.  In the case of disputes, it's better to use neutral language and let the facts speak for themselves.  Chairman Meow has been edit-warring over this word for almost a year now! It's absurd. --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, but when you take a direct quote from someone about that someone's politics, it's kind of obvious. Why do you think he hated Bernard Goldberg's book so much?  He's a liberal.  No liberal likes this book.  No person who likes this book could possibly like liberals, at least after the swill they did with their liberal response to it.  Saying how Middle American Bush voters are "hopelessly ignorant" is quite obviously why I hate the liberal response.  They just blame every conservative in power.  Bernard Goldberg even mentioned the calling of Middle American Bush voters  idiots by a liberal as a reason for putting that liberal in his book.  I love this book, it is well-researched and actually has people from his leanings in it.  I don't think any liberals are on the liberal version, which just proves my point.  Liberals can't take being made fun of, but can't make fun of their own people.PokeHomsar (talk) 11:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry guys, I'm not letting this go. I've read countless claims of left leanings on wikipedia and this is the first time I've had a personal experience with it. Jon Stewart is liberal, you can see this in the article that I cited and you can see this in his show as well as his sponsoring a John Kerry election party. He might not be like "hey, I'm liberal", but if you all open your eyes you'll see it. What's even more disgusting is that when I cite a source, all of a sudden it's not good enough...even though I've seen that cites EXACTLY like mine are used in other articles to support a left leaning edit. I'm not right or left, I'm neutral, but I will not back down when I see that a person political leanings are ignored because they're inconvenient to the left perspective of the administrators. Chairman Meow (talk) 19:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, obviously you're not letting it go since you've been obsessed with this single word and edit-warring over it for an entire year. Look, it's very simple.  You are trying to insert opinion as fact.  (hint: see the link you posted above? See the word "opinion" in that link?) Yes, we know what your point of view is.  And yes, you provided a link to an opinion piece (not a news piece) by someone that agrees with your point of view.  But pushing your point of view is not allowed on wikipedia.  That is one of the core principals.  Clearly in a case like this, it is better to stick with neutral language and let the reader decide their own point of view (rather than injecting yours). Your edit is even more egregious when you consider that this article is not about Jon Stewart.  Your opinion of him, whether true or not, is irrelevant to the subject.
 * And, really, what is this all about? Labeling Jon Stewart a "liberal" or a "prominant [sic] liberal" as you've done repeatedly doesn't add anything to the article. Why has this become a year-long obsession for you? --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

What the real question is is why was it left alone for over a year prior to my constantly editing it...No, the article is not about Jon Stewart, but it IS about the book, and under criticism. I don't know about you, but when someone criticizes a work of another, it is important to know what the background/viewpoint of the individual doing the criticizing is. You can block me, fine... but I won't stop. I'll keep editing this page back to the way it should be, and when you block me, I'll just keep doing so. What's going to be absurd is when you put a lock on this article because of your POV and just two words. I accepted that Jon Stewert is not Prominent as a liberal so I no longer edit him as that, so if you can convince me he is NOT a liberal I'll stop, but if you can't, and in order with everything I've read/heard about Stewert, I'll keep changing it back. It's been a yearlong quest for me because I'm fighting the machine of POV liberalism here, just as I fought the machine of Conservativeness over on the articles about science and religion... and I won't stop, ever (since I'm in academia that could be a very long time). You wonder why my convictions are so strong here..it's because you're not convincing me he ISN'T a liberal, you're threatening me with censorship if I don't step in line. Just convince me he isn't that's all I ask, don't attempt to beat me over the head with your Admin rank and blocking abilities, you'll never win any arguments that way. Just convince me.Chairman Meow (talk) 22:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I have linked Jon Stewart to his article, where is politics are discussed in the introduction, along with his open criticism of the Bush administration and FOX news. I do not think we need to call him "liberal" here, as he does not promote himself as "left" or "liberal", nor does he promote his show as a "mouthpeice for the left", etc. --Knulclunk (talk) 00:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I respect and agree with that idea Knulclunk. That had not even occurred to me to do, which is not surprising since I'm not a heavy wikipedi-er..however, it should have occurred to LoonyMonkey, Gamaliel, and Will Beback seeing that they are Admins. My problem never has been leaving it out, it has been the fact that neither of them even moved to compromise. All they did is change back and threaten to block while making no attempt to even open their mind. Instead they said "just stop" and used berating language diminishing my position...what they SHOULD have said was "here, let me show you some cites that show your position may be incorrect". That would have been polite and respectful instead of trying to beat me down with the rank of Admin. Thank you again Knulclunk, at least there are a few people here who still understand compromise and respect.Chairman Meow (talk) 15:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Praise Section
Is it important to list the individual as a conservative commentator in this section? Wouldn't doing so just mean that we'd have to list the political leanings of anyone who expressed a viewpoint on this book?128.118.184.22 (talk) 20:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Not necessarily, but you could certainly remove the "conservative" description of Jonah Goldberg. Croctotheface (talk) 20:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Fair, will do. Thanks for your answer, I wanted to make sure I was doing it correctly. 209.158.14.44 (talk) 04:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

More fluid approach may help
More text is devoted to the criticism of the book than the book itself, making the article seem unbalanced. Artifically adding "praise" does not POV balance "criticism". Rather, the article should be a reflection of all avaliable reliable source material. Perhaps rewriting the material in a chronological order may help. Also see WikiProject Books/Non-fiction article. Suntag (talk) 19:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think chronology is the answer. I think that writing about what Goldberg is saying in the book, though, is.  If the issue is that we're writing more about the reaction, then balance that out with more about the content.  Croctotheface (talk) 19:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Crazy Guy Not Relevant?
I think it is. He killed people, for crying out loud. A quote from the Executive Producer of Fear Factor (yeah, that Fear Factor) is relevant? — [ Unsigned .]


 * That a crazy person would cite the book as an inspiration for being crazy is not relevant to the book. If some killer cited, say, Crime and Punishment, I sincerely hope we wouldn't update that article to reflect it.  The reader gains no understanding about this book by being told that some unhinged killer found it to be an inspiration.  It's a trivia item and best and at worst is designed to disparage this book, which is a clear NPOV violation. Croctotheface (talk) 21:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree. The entry for the "Taxi Driver" movie, for instance, discusses the film's influence on John Hinckley, Jr. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxi_Driver#John_Hinckley.2C_Jr.) 5th Beatle (talk) 15:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That's a work of fiction; it doesn't have the same issues with drawing a parallel between the views of the author and the views of a killer. Having said that, I'd probably favor discussing the Hinckley-Taxi Driver relationship only in the Hinckley article on the same grounds: it lends insight into the person, but not the movie.  Croctotheface (talk) 02:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Right-wing media has been saturated with speech designed to incite hatred towards people who hold diverging points of view. This isn't a real discussion of the merits of the issues, but rather an enemies list of people upon whom that hate can be focused. It is on par with those websites that list the names of abortion doctors for the convenience of fantatics. If a "right-to-lifer" killed a listed doctor, the connection would be discussed. Whenever anyone responds to incitement, it merits attention. Dogger55 (talk) 15:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, not really, for all the reasons I've already enumerated. And your very strong opinion doesn't jive very well with WP:NPOV. Croctotheface (talk) 15:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * NPOV only requires the content be written with a Neutral POV; it doesn't mean I'm not entitled to an opinion. In addition, deleting all reference to the killings seems to reflect a point of view as well. Hinckley drew inspiration from "Taxi Driver" and "Catcher in the Rye", and Charles Manson claims the Beatles "White Albums" afforded him guidance. Rational people can process the facts in those cases, but you argue for concealing the facts so they don't get the chance to decide for themselves. Dogger55 (talk) 16:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Precedent: Wiki has (at a cursory glance) associated the following with crimes: 1) The Beatles White Album entry discusses the Manson Family murders. 2) The entry for Catcher in the Rye notes that "Mark David Chapman's shooting of John Lennon, John Hinckley, Jr.'s assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan, and other murders have been associated with the novel." 3) Entries for Taxi Driver and Jodie Foster likewise reference Hinckley's assassination attempt on Reagan. 4) The entries for the movie Natural Born Killers and the video game series Grand Theft Auto each discuss at length the crimes allegedly inspired by the film/game. The trend clearly favors full factual discussion, rather than cover up. Dogger55 (talk) 17:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As much as is pains me to agree with Dogger55 here, (as if left-wing speech was less inflammatory...sheesh!), the Unitarian murders seems appropriate. The reference seems quite specific, the murders notable, and the Wikipedia precedent set.--Knulclunk (talk) 17:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Is there a precedent (and does Wikipedia work on precedent?) for citing a work of non-fiction this way? Non-fiction is much more closely associated with the author and his views than fiction is.  I'm very concerned with drawing a parallel between Goldberg and a murderer here.  I know that, for instance, Keith Olbermann (whose show I watch from time to time) has made a point of emphasizing this connection as if Goldberg should feel some sense of responsibility for the murders.  It's very easy for a reader to get that same kind of impression here.  Croctotheface (talk) 04:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The current edit is a reasonable compromise here. It cites bare facts without POV or blame, and gives the reader a link where more information can be obtained. Please note that the police found the works of Hannity, Savage and O'Reilly when they searched the Jim David Adkisson home. I believe (my un-N POV) that those authors share the blame for inciting this crime, but he did not give them credit in his manifesto so I did not do so via Wiki. Dogger55 (talk) 07:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The new edit is good. It sounds like Olberman is a buffoon.--Knulclunk (talk) 14:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * True, but everyone knows it, so whomever Olberman criticizes is actually praised. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup
I replaced the cleanup tag. I thought it was obvious enough that the article was in need of it. Of the three main sections, not including references, we've got "Reception", "Reviews", and "Responses". That's it. And that's really probably better for one section, as it's all pretty much in the same category or what people thought of it. There's no "Synopsis" or "Overview" section, which is basic for any book article; no "Publication details"; and no "Background" section, which could serve this article well if there are sources to fill it. The major stuff aside, there are stylistic issues, such as the misuse of the cquote template, and a need to work stubby paragraphs into prose in the last section. لenna vecia  12:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that there's stuff missing from the article that should be in there, but wouldn't that be an expansion issue, not a cleanup issue? As far as the rest of that stuff, I'm not sure it rises to the level of a cleanup job.   Croctotheface (talk) 19:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It's a clean-up issue. The sections are not as they should be, the prose needs to be worked on, the templates removed/swapped. You can hit it with an expansion template, too, but there are enough issues that cleanup covers it. لenna  vecia  20:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Still disagree about expansion vs. cleanup; doesn't cleanup refer to the stuff that's already in there needing to be cleaned up? In any case, I didn't realize until now that you had just added the tag, so I just want to say that I would not have removed it if I realized how new it was.  Croctotheface (talk) 04:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * My point is that in addition to needing expansion, what is there now needs to be cleaned up. All current sections need to be merged, the templates removed and the quotes worked into the prose. The paragraphs in the last section are stubby and need to be written into larger paragraphs. So, it's not just a matter of expanding. There's a need for cleanup. لenna  vecia  04:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Well...
Since we added the 100 people, how about we add the 10 additional people he added to it? I don't own that version of the book, so I can't add it myself.PokeHomsar (talk) 15:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have the book; you should buy it also; if you look, the new ten are interspersed (not added on the end of the list) FYI. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You could buy the book as a Holiday gift. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 18:53, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Dead link
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!


 * http://www.boston.com/news/globe/living/articles/2005/08/02/attacking_liberals_is_high_on_his_list?mode=PF
 * In 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America on 2011-05-23 01:58:03, 404 Not Found
 * In 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America on 2011-05-31 21:21:05, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 21:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Notable?
While I find the article well written and interesting, (Could this really be Wikipedia!?) the book is not notable. (The article itself (NYT) points out why it's just mindless formulaic slop.) Per Wiki guidelines, notability should be established in the Lead section. Please do so or remove this puff. Cheers!  --2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:20F5:A671:420C:2943 (talk) 20:34, 13 October 2018 (UTC)Doug Bashford