Talk:Bernard Goldberg/Archive 1

Needs a Picture
This article needs a picture. Should also be searchable by "Emmy Award-winning Journalists" and Dupont Award Winning Journalists."

Also, why not add links to each of the stories that he got Emmies for?

Discussion
Is there any particular reason for including the Daily Show appearance? It seems like a rather unimportant sidenote, lacking any real significance to the man or the book.
 * I see no reason not to include it. When a public figure gets publically embarassed by his own hypocrisy, that's notable. 68.47.175.214 23:31, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * That seems to be a rather tenuous justification. For one, the information contained in the article does not indicate that Goldberg is a hypocrite; rather it indicates that he is somewhat sloppy in his argumentation and analysis of his chosen issue, but that is hardly noteworthy. This is especially so considering that the criticism comes from a fake-news program. While the Daily Show does have many merits and virtues, in-depth critical analysis is not one of them. But in the end I suppose it comes down to a rather simple question: in a year will anyone care that Goldberg even appeared on the Daily Show, much less what happened there? Thought 02:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

First of all, the Daily Show cuts through the BS and political correctness of politicians and pundits like Bernard Goldberg a heck of a lot better than any "news" network. Second of all, you're completely missing the point. The point Stewart was making (that you obviously chose to ignore), was that it was highly hypocritical of Goldberg to write a book blaming the ills of America on people who don't have any power in Washington, while giving George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, Karl Rove, Richard Perle and their ilk, a free pass. Stewart nailed Goldberg on this hypocrisy, and that's why it's worth mentioning. Ericster08 06:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

A better-sourced critic might be The Daily Howler, which gives counter-examples to Goldberg's writing, with references. The Daily Howler is shrill, but there's verifiable research behind it.--RattBoy 00:57, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Ericster08, you seem to be a liberal, so I'll explain something to you. Since The Daily Show is not live, Jon Stewart can edit the interview to fit his own viewpoint and make anyone on his show look like an ass. He is a shame to news networks everywhere. The point of Goldberg's book was to show those who are popular tend to gain political clout. He left the "ilk" off the List because he likes those guys and the jobs they're doing. He despises Michael Moore for trashing the American people and anyone (every Republican alive) who disagrees with his leftist, not gonna find out why things are the way they are and instead push my illogical agenda agenda. Moore is a blowhard who doesn't back up his "films" with logic or facts, but instead with guilt and emotion.PokeHomsar (talk) 13:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * PokeHomsar, you seem to be a conservative, so I'll explain something to you. I don't know if you know this, but EVERY interviewer on television can edit their interviews to suit their point of view. So, how is Stewart any different? I admit freely that he's made certain conservatives out to be asses when in fact they're good people. But come on - how can you defend Bernard Goldberg, a man who claims to be an authority on media bias? He deliberately focuses on only one part of the problem. I'm a liberal, yes, but I still want to hear the unbiased truth on the news, even if it's an unpleasant truth. Goldberg would be a lot more successful if he went after CONSERVATIVE media bias as well. He totally ignores the biggest producer of conservative media bias, Fox News.


 * He left off his ilk purposely? Thanks for proving my point that he's a hypocrite. Of course he did - because he thinks the way they do and he wants the liberal bias out of the way to make room for his conservative bias. Anyone like Goldberg who would trade one media bias for another media bias is no truth meister.


 * While I think Moore did a good job in Sicko, I have a huge problem with Fahrenheit 9/11. My problem was that Moore politicized it by not interviewing Democrats who are for the war (Joe Lieberman) and Republicans who are against the war like John Duncan, Ron Paul, Lincoln Chafee, Chuck Hagel, Pat Buchanan, Lou Dobbs, etc. etc. If he had done that, he would have made it clear to everyone that true conservatives don't like starting needless wars without a plan to win the peace. Michael Moore does use facts in the film (the studio carrying the film wouldn't let him make a film without facts in it), but he sprinkles emotion on them so the viewer is left with the impression that all Democrats are against the Iraq War (which is a fallacy) and all Republicans are for the war (another fallacy). So on Fahrenheit 9/11, I totally agree with you that Moore did a terrible job. Ericster08 (talk) 21:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * ? "a shame to news networks everywhere"? Jon Stewart is a comedian, on the Comedy Channel, playing the part of a news reporter. Unlike FAUX News, he doesn't pretend to be an impartial source of news. This is like complaining that Rush Limbaugh is not a representative member of America's criminal drug addict population; Rush never claimed to be! -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  14:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Tit for tat
Cut from article:


 * Many of his critics argue that this is similar to how conservatives whom he supports often view the world and that therefore he is ignoring certain biases in his own political camp.

Is it really necessary to include in every article about liberalism critics, the standard rebuttal that liberals think it is not they who are biased but really the conservatives? This POV is as well known as the sphericity of the earth; the media swims in it. At most, it's one click away. Uncle Ed 16:21, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is necessary to include balance in articles. Just because you disagree with this viewpoint does not give you the right to annihilate it. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Davfoster88 (talk • contribs) 01:09, 7 September 2005.

[redacted comment by 137.146.149.212]

Bias.
Is this section necessary? it doesn't add anything to the article, nor does it make much sense

"Some have criticized Goldberg for his biases though. In "100 People Who Are Screwing Up America", Goldberg ranks President Jimmy Carter (number 6) above the Unknown American Terrorist (number 23). The book is an attack on liberals for the most part."

[redacted comment by 64.122.235.85]

Balance?
In the interest of balance, then, would it not be fair to include some of Goldberg's less extreme quotes? Perhaps one or two which provide a bit of context would be fair.


 * Yeah, I'm certainly taking the one about Rush and Bill out. The ONLY reason it was put in there is because Rush and Bill are somewhat unpopular with moderates and liberals alike.  Whoever put that quote in there was politically motivated to do so.  I took out a couple others too that were obviously just put in there to make him look bad.  I put the one about the evening news though his criticism of modern news programs is certainly one of his recurring topics.  This is also a completely neutral statement.  It doesn't make Goldberg look good or bad, it just reflects a belief that he feels very passionately about.  -Brad  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgj08 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I put them back. Saying the people on the coasts of the USA are responsible for cultural meanness, that he admires Limbaugh and O'Reilly a lot, and that telling Leahy to fuck himself was overdue; can be taken by people who agree with him as positive, and people who disagree with him as negative. "To keep you is no benefit, to destroy you is no loss." certainly makes the Khmer Rouge leadership look bad to people who disagree with it - why should we remove well sourced strong comments if some people think it makes the people who said it look bad? -- Jeandré, 2007-10-20t21:10z

Conservative?
There's a mini-revert war going on with the first sentence, between those who want to list Goldberg as a conservative and those who don't. The most recent edit, by Irwing, simply says "(this (i.e., his conservatism) was not confirmed)." I'm not certain how one would "confirm" someone's conservatism, but I think Goldberg's conservatism is obvious on its face. Since his spat with CBS, he's literally made a career out of attacking liberals. He may claim to balance, but his latest book attacks liberals at a far greater rate than the few "safe" conservative targets he lists. (He lists Jimmy Carter high, for e.g., but doesn't choose to mention Tom DeLay, Duke Cunningham, or Jean Schmidt. He lists George Soros, but not Richard Mellon Scaife or Grover Norquist; he lists Michael Moore, Dan Rather, and Al Franken, but not Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, or Ann Coulter...etc. ¿Does anyone see a pattern here?) In IMHO, he should be listed as a conservative.--RattBoy 10:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, sorry that I didn't explain my revert, but it referred to previously revert of the same word done by BigDoginTallGrass which included also some source. Back to my "not confirmed" note - I wonder how can someone imply that man is conservative simply from the fact, that he's criticizing liberals (and vice-versa, of course, but that is not this situation). This is not about the balance - even if all people he's attacking were liberals, only this fact wouldn't make him a conservative. That's why I think you should source such statement based on his opinions, not from what he is doing. Irwing 14:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Does it matter?  Conservative and Liberal are poorly defined terms, especially in the US.  Goldberg considers himself to be a JFK liberal.  There's been quite a few prominant conservatives in the GOP (including Reagan, Sen Phil Gramm)  who also were Democrats in those days, they often argue that it was the party who changed, not them.  So it's possible to simultaneously be a liberal in an old-fashioned sense, and a conservative in the present sense. --Asm71 15:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It should. If this is encyclopedia, it shouldn't join usual term mess. Irwing 07:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Criticism
Problem paragraph: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bernard_Goldberg&diff=prev&oldid=113606700 I do not own this article. I have no opinion for or against Goldberg or his critics. Please contribute accurate encyclopedic content which is attributable to reliable sources. --Lexein 12:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) The Bozell article cited is written as a mock-jealous swipe at Goldberg's opportunism, and does not literally contain the criticisms stated above.
 * 2) The Franken reference is already in the article in NPOV form.
 * 3) The "convenience researcher" remark is unsupported by citation.

In Not Your Father's Encyclopedia, Brent Bozell cites this article as fodder for criticism of Wikipedia. Asteriks 09:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That's interesting. I intend to concisely re-insert Bozell's actual humourous criticism after a cool-down period. --Lexein 11:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I've been at Wikipedia now, for over 5 years. This kind of thing goes on quite a bit.


 * The "NPOV" policy is broken, because enforcement depends of "good faith" contributions. There is not, however, any effective mechanism for distinguishish between good faith and bad faith.


 * The result is that if 'enough' contributors band together they can 'own' the page and suppress any attempts to make the text conform to stated policy.


 * It ought to be possible to make an immediate appeal to an editorial board, who would extract the disputed text pending resolution. But Wikipedia is geared toward anonymous amateurs and has by design no editorial board. This is the problem that old-timer User:Larry Sanger tried to address, and which I have also tried to address. In fact, I'm "on probation" because I mistakenly thought the arbitration committee would (or could) serve as an editorial board, but they just said that my attempts to preserve neutrality were "tendentious" and "POV-pushing". Ironically, each edit cited as evidence for this was precisely the opposite: I was removing unsoureced 'original research' assertions and adding contrary "well-sourced" assertions.


 * To the extent that a "Liberal point of view" has become the "consensus" of Wikipedia, its reputation will suffer. I suggest that Wikipedia actually have a policy of scrupulous neutrality on every matter of significant public controversy. Not that a flat earth has any considerable following of course - that view just gets a single, isolated entry. But on something like global warming, which Ellen Goodman of the Boston Globe says US registered voters are split 50-50, I'd expect Wikipedia to tread lightly. At least, they should not endorse the US Liberal POV that the science is settled or that there is a scientific consensus. --Uncle Ed 18:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Please keep discussion to improvements to the article.
 * The misquotation which I took to Talk was done by a user who professes counterintent to WP policy and blanked his User:Talk page to hide my notes (look up his User page history and User:Talk history)
 * "Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. "
 * Bozell's valid complaint about this article a)referred to its appearance before I policy-edited it and b)did not address his shared responsibility to edit it. --Lexein 01:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops- my mistake, he a) did refer to it post-edit--Lexein 06:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Because the Bozell "criticism" was not a criticism, and I won't be putting it back in the Criticism section. Perhaps Humor.  There may be a need for a counterbalancing Support section. --Lexein 01:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Quotation
I've removed the quotation. No sources have been found for it, and I can't find anything supporting this. Ral315 » 18:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It was referenced in a blog about an interview, but that doesn't really count. I hoped it was in his book, but I don't have it.  It can be resurrected later if sourced. --Lexein 22:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Revisions
I did some moderate editing to the article today. I am by no means a fan of this guy, but I did try to snip some of the POV wording out. I also tried to put in more details about his early career. And I ordered the article so that the awards/recognition and criticism is in the same section - I believe, especially with contentious subjects, that accomplishments and criticism should be grouped together to provide as balanced and NPOV a narrative as possible. NickBurns 21:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Undocumented deletions
There have been a number of undocumented deletions to this article. They were likely done in good faith. Such edits have triggered a revert war in the past. In this case, I have reverted such a deletion with the request to Please supply an Edit Summary or discuss in Talk for any deletions which might be controversial. Thank you. --Lexein 03:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Quote Section
Most of those quotes show Goldberg in a negative light, there needs to be a few more neutral quotes so there is a balance. 71.211.211.189 00:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protect
Just saw him bash Wikipedia on O'Reilly and knew his page was in for an assault. Should it be semi-protected? Stan weller 01:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

go for it. this talk page is proof that people are trying to keep it encyclopedic though. fair and balanced 76.182.229.209 03:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I looked on the O'Reilly website and could not find the Goldberg interview. &rArr;    SWAT Jester    Denny Crane.  04:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind I found it. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Denny Crane.  01:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Bill Steigerwald has an interview with BG in Liberals in Love. Asteriks (talk) 15:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Criticism section
I actually don't get to bent out of shape over these sections in bios as long as they aren't given undue weight. For a bio like this at its current length, this seems a bit much. What do others think? --Tom 20:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have already edited the "offending" passage. It seems to me that a section called "Criticism & Controversy" should include some actual and specific "Criticism". It was deleted several times yesterday, causing a mini-edit war and risking a 3RR violation. I have voluntarily edited it to appease the critics and shorten its length, but there is zero justification under Wiki for deleting it altogether. It seems that people's personal biases against Olbermann are fueling the objections, but the reality is that he takes to task a book whose entire purpose is to attempt to characterize the "liberal" media. Who better to respond than Olbermann, a proud member of that same media, and one who works on the very network attacked? Further, his criticism is a verbatim recitation of his objections to the book, specifically quoting what he argues are the offending passages. Frankly, this edit war just seems to be motivated by political partisanship, not an effort to improve the article. Wiki editors should keep their personal and political biases out of their editing. Got an agenda? Write a blog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.246.93 (talk) 21:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Please stop, --Tom 22:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Excellent advice. Please take it. 68.183.246.93 (talk) 02:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I suggest that we all try to calm down just a bit and work things out here before continuing with the edit war on the main article page. Okay? Mark Shaw (talk) 06:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It's absolutely more than a bit much. The IP editor 68.183.246.93 needs to stop restoring the Olbermann screed until we can achieve consensus on how it will be structured, if it needs to be included at all (which I oppose).  Note that s/he is already in violation of 3RR; I don't have time to report him/her right now, though - perhaps someone else will do this. Mark Shaw (talk) 22:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * (I have moved the two passages just above - by 68.183.246.93 and Tom - from the "Awards" section to here.  Note that the argument is over the edit war represented by this reversion: ) Mark Shaw (talk) 23:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * To the contrary, rather than constantly removing the "screed" as you called it, the fair and judicious thing to have done would have been to subject it to consensus BEFORE you unilaterally removed it in violation of 3RR. So if anyone is to be reported for a violation, I fully expect it to be you.


 * You misunderstand. I was referring to my having moved the discussion text - here - to its proper place.  It's interesting that you apologized for having misposted it to the wrong section (see your text, which I have struck out), but have done nothing to correct that misposting.  But, whatever. Mark Shaw (talk) 06:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There was no need to remove the mispost because it was done before I realized the error. Nice of you to notice. Just like I noticed the multiple 3RR warnings you've been receiving since 2006 because of your determined reverts to suit your own political hyperpartisanship. Neither you nor Tom have been able to provide anything that comes close to a REASONABLE, coherent or rational objection to the inclusion of the Olbermann paragraph. In the interest of working with you, I even cut it from 3 paragraphs to 1, yet that still wasn't sufficient. Bottomline, there is a Criticism & Controversy section in this article. I made a legitimate and sourced contribution to that section, which meets or exceeds Wikipedia standards on every level. Neither you nor "Tom" have managed to concoct a single Wikipedia-supported objection to the inclusion. Just that the source fails your own arbitrary, wholly capricious, and pathetically hyper-partisan imaginary litmus test. Well tough. That doesn't cut it. Delete or revert the section again, and I WILL contact the admins, which interestingly neither of you are. Fair warning. 68.183.246.93 (talk) 23:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Moreover, I have happily shortened and edited the passage myself, and also even assisted in formatting your own edit. Had you originally simply extended the same basic courtesy to me, we would have avoided all the frustration and unpleasantness from the beginning. 68.183.246.93 (talk) 02:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Whatever the merits of your subsequent edits, I suggest we all work things out here before editing the main page again. Mark Shaw (talk) 06:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Apparently you will have difficulty getting Tom the master troll, and rabid partisan hack to cooperate. But I'm certainly willing. Good luck. 68.183.246.93 (talk) 23:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Time to stop feeding the trolls it seems. --Tom 13:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * So people who don't share your obvious political bias are now "trolls"? Apparently there are no mirrors in your little world. You and Mark Shaw both have a clear political agenda. Wikipedia is NOT the forum for biases. Welcome to an edit war and 3RR warnings if this continues. I call for consensus, and if you revert this edit again, I WILL ask admins to intervene. Enough is enough. 68.183.246.93 (talk) 23:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) No more food for you, sorry. --Tom 23:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * 68.183.246.93's 3RR vio reported: . Let's see where this goes. Mark Shaw (talk) 01:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Someone wanna fill me in on what's wrong with the controversial edit? Do so without spending time detailing how they have been uncivil or rude, as I've noticed and we don't need to dwell on that.
 * Though I do have to say, 68, the insults and jibes aren't helping your cause. I'd recommend cooperating with rather than trashing editors. Master of Puppets  Call me MoP! :D  02:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Master of Puppets, first to be fair, I will say that I found it rather uncivil of you to make the comment you did directed to me, while remaining curiously silent about another editor's entirely unhelpful and obnoxious references to "trolls" and "food".


 * However, second, I do welcome your review of this article. Actually, as you'll note, I requested it. Editors Tom & Mark Shaw persist in deleting my legitimate additions to the "Criticism & Controversy" section of this article. If you check the log you will see that their reasons are either wholly capricious, or they leave no reason whatsoever. What has become clear from looking at their previous contributions, and their prior 3RR warnings, is that they are both extremely politically partisan, and abuse their roles as editors to further their partisan agendas.


 * Here's the bottomline: The article is a bio of a living political author/commentator who leans to the far right. He has written several books attacking what he argues is the hyperpartisanship of the media on the left. That's fine. But then I add a rebuttal from a notable member of the media who attacked the author/commentator for what he argued were blatant misrepresentations in his book. What's more, he pointed out the specific quotations where he compared what was written in the book with the actual transcripts of the events described, to prove the misrepresentation.


 * I added the transcript of his broadcast where it belonged in the article: under the "Criticism & Controversy" section. I included it verbatim and without editorial commentary, in its entirety to provide the complete context, and sourced and linked it to video of the actual broadcast. That is all. But because the editors in question are unhappy with his comments, they consistently delete the entire passage. Not edit it, mind you; not open it for discussion or consensus - but simply delete it. This is consistent with past practices for both editors, and both have been disciplined for this behavior in the past.


 * Moreover, I even voluntarily edited my original addition from 3 paragraphs down to only one in a good faith attempt to work with these fellow editors. Their response? To again repeatedly delete the entire addition - and at one point, the entire section itself.''


 * It really is as simple a question as: Should Wikipedia be used by its editors as a mechanism for furthering those individual editors own transparent, and politically partisan agendas? If that is what Wikipedia is allowed to become? Seriously? Then Wikipedia's credibility is further compromised. 68.183.246.93 (talk) 03:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your reply, but remember how I asked if you could leave it free of blame on the other editors? The reason I ask this is because you'll say that they're doing another thing, when they're doing something else, nobody will agree, and we'll get nowhere (especially since I'm in no place to take sides). That's why I want the facts. The relevance of the issue, the source, the notability, etc. From what you've said, it is relevant; however, I'd like to hear why they don't want it included before I decide what's going on.
 * As for leaving out Tom when I told you to stop the jibes, I guess that's fair. I'm sorry if it appeared as though I was implying you're the only wrongdoer here; other have been less than civil, and yes, that was noted. Master of Puppets  Call me MoP! :D  04:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * To be clear: I don't think we're really that far apart here. 68 has certainly whittled his/her addition down to a more reasonable length from the original, and it is a point of criticism.  But as far as the controversy goes, it still amounts to an unsupported (as far as I'm aware) allegation that Goldberg intentionally misquoted something someone else (Brokaw) said about yet a third party (Obama).  I'd like to see some support for this, beyond the claims of the person making the allegation (Keith Olbermann), before considering it appropriate under the constraints of WP:BLP.  And I'd certainly prefer that we work out a wording for the passage (if it is indeed to be included) here on the talk page before inserting it into the article proper. Mark Shaw (talk) 05:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You have a valid point in not wanting to violate BLP policy; however, if you look at this subsection, note that it only talks about unsourced and poorly sourced material. An MSNBC source would classify as a verifiable, reliable source, and therefore should be ok. Remember, as long as the text makes it clear that this is what Olbermann alleged, and the text doesn't imply that we believe the allegation to be true, I think the proposed addition could go in. The current wording seems fine to me.
 * Now, that's just my opinion; please treat it as if it was just another user's opinion (too many people give extra weight to admin views, which I don't want to happen). Your thoughts? Master of Puppets  Call me MoP! :D  05:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't agree that Olbermann, in particular, is a reliable source, but I do take your point. As long as the passage is rewritten to make it clearer that the allegation is his, and that he's responsible for it, I can agree to this.  (Obviously, this implies that I also disagree that the current wording is "fine" - although, as I said previously, I think it's close to acceptable.)


 * I'd still be much happier were we to find an independent confirmation of Olbermann's claims, of course. Otherwise, it's just something some guy who makes his living saying politically charged things (rightly or wrongly) said.  And I'd like to try some rewrites here on the talk page before they go into the article itself - that's supposed to be at least part of what a talk page is for, no?


 * Oh, and I'd like to wait to hear from others as well. So far it's only been the three of us (not counting yourself). Mark Shaw (talk) 06:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * And here we have the problem illustrated. Mark Shaw alone attempts to determine if Keith Olbermann is a reliable source. As you pointed out, Master of Puppets, there is nothing anywhere in Wiki that allows for that arbitrary standard. As you indicated WP:BLP states specifically: "reliable sources". Meanwhile WP:RS states: "Wikipedia articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources. Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand", and goes on to state under "News Organizations": "Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed." I would invite Mark to find within Wiki a countervailing rule that allows him to supplant his own personal interpretation of what constitutes "reliable sources", to trump the simple statement that a "News Organization", which MSNBC obviously is, plainly and clearly qualifies as a reliable source according to Wiki rules and definitions.


 * Further, my original argument is still germaine, and remains unanswered. Here's the link to what Olbermann actually said, which was my original addition. It's the third of the three pieces: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#28882720.


 * Olbermann, on MSNBC, is, in point of fact, refuting specific allegations made by Goldberg against MSNBC and Tom Brokaw, an MSNBC correspondent. How can his response to Goldberg's indictment of MSNBC be anything less than relevant? Remember, I put it in the "Criticism & Controversy" section, and did so without editorial comment. It's their fight. It is not necessary, nor should Wikipedia try to take sides. All we need to do is present both sides for the reader. Otherwise, then what you're saying is that Goldberg, and his alleged bias, detailed in the books that he writes, are noteworthy of inclusion in the article - but no rebuttals, from those he attacks, are noteworthy for inclusion - because of their possible bias in responding to his charges of bias? How is that even remotely logical?


 * As for Mark's request for "independent confirmation" apart from Olbermann - where is his request for "independent confirmation" request regarding Goldberg's original claims? And why don't we have that "independent confirmation" of Goldberg's claims, before even allowing Goldberg's books to be included in the article? See how silly that would be? But more to the point, where under Wiki does Mark even have the right to "disqualify" Olbermann's WP:RS qualified comments from inclusion until they are "independently confirmed"? What is that? These are Olbermann's words in response to Goldberg's words. The request for a third party's words to somehow mediate is completely irrelevant. Wiki should not be judging their controversy. But Wiki should be reporting their controversy.


 * But then Mark goes even further in his demands. He now goes so far as to demand proof that Goldberg "intentionally misquoted something", as though the fact that the misquotes appear in his published book does not in itself suggest that he did it "on purpose"?! And where in Wiki is Mark permitted to impose this new and arbitrary standard? I mean, c'mon... Calling Goldberg directly for comment would be a WP:NOR violation. This is not to personally attack Mark, but there just is no real substance to any of these objections. To the contrary, there are just too many obvious double-standards in these objections for them to be taken seriously.


 * The article justifiably has a very standard "Criticism & Controversy" section. Keith Olbermann's comments contained elements of both. Olbermann is WP:N notable. Olbermann's comments are relevant. Olbermann is published. Olbermann's published comments appear on what Wikipedia specifically states is a reliable source. They conform to WP:SOURCE which specifically notes: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Seriously, what else is there? 68.183.246.93 (talk) 08:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth this is commonly misread, as you've done. It states that the *threshold* is verifiability. It cannot be used to assert that "A is verifiable, therefore A belongs in the article". It can only be used in the reverse sense: "if A is not verifiable, A does not belong". Also, your talk page comments are too long. You need to restrain yourself William M. Connolley (talk) 08:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I know it's typically not all that helpful to draw comparisons like this, but just to put things in perspective: suppose we were arguing over what to include in a "criticism" section in the article on Rosie O'Donnell, and the item in question was that Rush Limbaugh had said that she eats dog biscuits. (Yes, he really said that.)  I think most people would argue - and rightly so - that this doesn't really belong. Mark Shaw (talk) 13:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Mark, Her bio is about 15-20 times the size of Goldberg's and has no criticism section which is fine by me. The criticism is sprinkled throughout. Here, the criticism section is now 1/3 of the article?? --Tom 14:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, that's not really the point. Pull back just a bit and consider the more generalized question of whether an accusation made by a single person with significant ideological baggage really belongs in a WP article about another person with significant - but oppositional - ideological baggage.  This should, in my opinion, raise an eyebrow and suggest a need for corroboration, no matter who the principals are. Mark Shaw (talk) 17:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent/ec) Why is an accusation by Keith Oberman against Goldberg relevant or noteworthy enough to warrant inclusion in this bio? Has this criticism/accusation been covered or reported by other independent sources? Is this due weight? As stated correctly by William, just because it is verifiable dosen't mean it automatically belongs. Bill O'reilly criticizes people all day long, do we include his criticism's in every bio he mentions? Of course not, that would be silly. Listen, if this "material" becomes a "story", or whatever, then maybe we can revist this. Right now, this is a questionably noteworthy accusation introduced into a BLP for what specific purpose? Maybe a RFC or straw poll could help?--Tom 14:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * In response to William, I'm quite comfortable that I did not "misread" WP:SOURCE. To the contrary, it states: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." Exactly. Every objection to date has questioned truth, not verifiability, precisely what WP:SOURCE expressly instructs editors not to do. In response to Tom, why the Olbermann comments are both relevant and noteworthy has already been discussed and answered several times. No one has offered any objection that is supported by Wiki rules. So I too would happily welcome input from other editors and admins. 68.183.246.93 (talk) 19:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Quoting 68: Every objection to date has questioned truth, not verifiability.... This is precisely incorrect. The truth or falsehood of Olbermann's accusation is a direct function of its verifiability.  What is of greater interest here is whether an unsupported accusation made by a person who is the ideological polar opposite of the subject of the article has any place in that article.  If the accusation can be verified (and corroboration by others would go a long way towards that), I'd favor inclusion of it in the criticism section, after editing to remove Olbermann's specific and intemperate language.  (I mean, c'mon: Goldberg is the "worst person in the world?"  Please.) Mark Shaw (talk) 21:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Once again, Mark demonstrates he simply does not understand, and/or refuses to accept WP:SOURCE Yet it is "an official English Wikipedia policy." 68.183.246.93 (talk) 21:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Okay, if we're not going to propose actual changes here, I'm going to try them in the article itself. I've cleaned up the passage. I still don't think it belongs at all, but let's see how this flies for now. Mark Shaw (talk) 22:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I also object to any edits of the paragraph until consensus has been reached. I especially object to the re-write as reconstituted. It's nothing more than an attempt to hawk the entire title of the book again, while minimizing the actual Olbermann criticism of it, as though Wiki should now be used as an advertising mechanism to sell Goldberg's product. How is this edit better? 68.183.246.93 (talk) 22:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, I take your point. Using the book's complete (and overly long) title is redundant, given that the complete title is given earlier in the article.  I've changed it back to the short form. Mark Shaw (talk) 22:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. But I still think no one should edit the article until we get a consensus. I also still prefer the original addition I made, as it was a legitimate one. Primarily because it provided the full context for the criticism. But I admit it was long, and would agree to work with you and other editors on cutting it down, just as I subsequently did on my own from three to one paragraphs. But now only two actually quoted words of criticism remain: "journalistic malpractice" without any real context provided. 68.183.246.93 (talk) 22:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I still think no one should edit the article until we get a consensus. What do you propose, then? If you truly wish to work for consensus, you should participate.  Note that the passage should 1) make it clear that the allegation is just that - an allegation, not an unquestionable fact, 2) make it clear that the allegation is Olbermann's, and 3) not include his absurd conclusion that Goldberg is somehow the "worst person in the world." Mark Shaw (talk) 23:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sigh. Well, so much for that: .  68, I'm done dealing with you.  The passage stays out. Mark Shaw (talk) 05:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Noteworthyness has not been established at all. Oberman names a 1,000 people as worst in the world each year. If you have other 3rd party sources that discuss this accusation, please link it here so others can comment. The ownous for establishing noteworthyness is on folks who want to include this "material". Again, why is this so important to add to the article as it stands now? --Tom 00:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This is similar to when Bill O'Reilly makes accusations of George Soros giving money to liberal groups who deny it. The consensus was to leave it out of the Soros bio since this is denied.  Goldberg says this allegation by Olbermann is b.s. so by this standard it should be left out.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.165.103.212 (talk) 21:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Per Mark's request, I rewrote the section. I also more than met him halfway and kept it to a single paragraph with a single direct quote. My edit also clearly stated, per his other concerns, that the criticisms were exclusively Olbermann's. His other problem relative to Olbermann's "absurd conclusion" was simply Mark imposing his own opinion again, which has no place in the article. The article shouldn't judge Olbermann's broadcasts, just as it shouldn't judge Goldberg's books. Neither should editors. As for Tom repeatedly deleting the paragraph on his own without waiting for consensus, I'll pursue a remedy for that independently. Keith Olbermann, whether you like or agree with him politically or not, is notable, and his criticism of Goldberg's book is relevant. The network that his response appeared on is also notable and relevant. The Olbermann paragraph satifies WP:SOURCE in every way, another fact that has never been constructively denied by anyone. As for 71, you allege that Goldberg has responded to Olbermann's charges, but you show no proof of that, nor indicate where that response is available. However, if he has responded, that actually only strengthens the argument that this is a legitimate controversy that merits inclusion in the appropriate section of the article. Put in Olbermann's comments and Goldberg's response, then the reader can judge for themselves. Isn't that what we're supposed to be doing in the first place? 68.183.246.93 (talk) 01:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) No, that is NOT what we do. We add accusations and criticism IF they reach a level of notablitity and they are not undue weight compared to the rest of the article. Has any other source covered the "material" you want included? Didn't I ask that before? If so, provide that source and let the community evaluate it. There are lots of muckrackers out there on both sides of the political spectrum. Fortuneately we don't include most of that "material" in this project. --Tom 15:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * To be fair here, a bit of googling will reveal a second source (probably Olbermann's primary source, but I'm speculating): mediamatters.org.  This source is as biased as is Olbermann, though.  The real problem, of course, is undue weight -a  quick read of the mediamatters material suggests that they're complaining that Goldberg attacked the gist of what Brokaw said rather than the specific words he used.  This seems petty to me; a means of blowing a purported misrepresentation up to obscene proportions to make a cheap political point.


 * A third source, interestingly, includes Goldberg's response to this accusation: The TVNewser blog. I include it here just for completeness:


 * My position remains the same: that the accusation is overblown and the accusers are severely biased, so the passage should stay out. Mark Shaw (talk) 15:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh no. Keith Olbermann disapproves of a conservative voice. Keith also took the time to lie about said conservative. This is valuable and shocking information. Next up, let's edit every page of a liberal Hannity complains about. Wikipedia will be a better place. Go back to Daily Kos.--Dsticker (talk) 07:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Tom, the very fact that the mere mention of Keith Olbermann sends you into complete apoplexy supports his notability. You've obviously heard of him. He is notable. End of story. I have said repeatedly, he meets the Wikipedia definition of notability WP:SOURCE. So whether he meets your personal litmus test is itself irrelevant. If you are determined to continue to argue he is not notable, I have asked you repeatedly to cite a Wiki rule that supports your contention. Until you do, your argument is specious and sophistic. Your argument is identical to saying that if I write a book accusing you of x, y, and z, YOUR PUBLISHED RESPONSE to that book is irrelevant and not notable. A wise admin once referred me to WP:TE. I now pass it on to you. Mark, thanks for doing the additional research. Both TVNewser, a well-known blog on the right, and Media Matters, a well-known media outlet on the left, have clearly both taken note of this controversy and covered it. Your fine research adds weight to the conclusion that this is indeed notable and worthy of inclusion. I recommend we work together to craft a passage that objectively discusses the controversy. Then subject that passage to WP:CONS from uninterested third parties. To Dsticker and Tom - that IS what we do. 68.183.246.93 (talk) 19:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Again what "controversy" is there? Just because muckrackers say there is one doesn't make it so. Maybe add this to the KO article if you want but this horse is beyond glue. --Tom 15:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You're being redundant. And who are you to decide who is a "muckracker"? You need to consider that the real muckraker is the guy who wrote the "controversial" book that started this. 68.183.246.93 (talk) 22:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Just one editor. He might be one, not really agruing that point. --Tom 22:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Best answer you've given IMO. Care to help with improving the article? Your imput with mine will insure a balanced reference to this material. 68.183.246.93 (talk) 04:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Awards section
This is already covered in the lead, if you can call it that since it covers almost all the bio material. I would preffer to remove both the awards and criticism sections. The whole article could use a rewrite. --Tom 20:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Shooter letter
What's up with the battle over whether the knoxville church shooter's direct mention of Goldberg's book and its 100 people is controversial or not? How could that not be controversy surrounding Goldberg? Just as Timothy McVeigh is mentioned in the Turner Diaries page. This particular addition to Goldberg's controversy section seems to be of a NPOV. I assume that the "notability test" that was referenced as reason for removal is a reference to the notability guidelines here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability. Those state that the notability guidelines refer to whether a topic is notable enough to warrant its own topic, and specifically state that it does not relate to whether something should be used as content. If you're (Mark Shaw and Tom) removing this because you think it's biased, please recommend what needs modified. Otherwise, you're repeated removal of controversy surrounding Goldberg makes it look like your removals are all that's biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikihogger (talk • contribs) 17:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I started a new section and moved your comment here. What do others think?--Tom 18:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This material belongs on the shooters page, not here unless it has been widely covered by 3rd parties who say it is noteable, ect. --Tom 18:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It is getting covered by 3rd parties-
 * http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/we-can-see-why-bernie-goldbergs-book
 * http://mediawhoresusa.blogspot.com/2009/02/bernard-goldberg-was-inspiration-for.html
 * http://scottsbookshelf.blogspot.com/2009/02/mass-murderer-sites-bernard-goldberg-as.html
 * Not sure about whether that qualifies as "widely", but I'm also not sure how much that matters. The association between the killer and the book is clear. The notability of the shooting is clear. The topic is obviously controversial, judging by the eagerness to keep it off the page juxtaposed against the desire to get it on this page. I understand that it might be uncomfortable for Goldberg that this association exists, yet it exists nevertheless. Innocent people are dead, and Goldberg's book is the sole book mentioned as motivation in the killer's manifesto. Controversial, notable, very widely discussed in the first link above.
 * Those are not WP:RS. Can you also please use 4 tildes(~) to sign your posts, thanks, --Tom 18:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What is it that you're wanting a reliable source of? A reliable source that Goldberg's book was referenced in the killer's manifesto? Is that what's being doubted? Or are you claiming that this association is just happenstance and it could have just as easily been a mention of anyone's book? How can the motivation for such a grave event not get any mention in the motivator's wiki page? I'm not saying that any POV should be included with this inclusion, but if a complete Goldberg-illiterate happens across this page, mightened this page be a little bit whitewashed if it doesn't even mention that Goldberg's name and book were solely referenced by a killing spree perpetrator's manifesto? --Wikihogger (talk) 19:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I consider Goldberg a contemptible liar and scumbag; nonetheless, he is not responsible for the bizarre misuse of his work by his followers. Mention of this idiot's ravings in Goldberg's article constitutes undue emphasis until and unless it becomes a major issue covered extensively by reliable sources. It's not like those newsletters that went out in Ron Paul's name and which thus became relevant to the articles on Paul. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  19:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Concur (at least, with the major point). The shooter letter has no place here. Mark Shaw (talk) 21:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Orangemike for taking the time to write more than a one-sentence (if that) justification for this removal. I'll watch for coverage in the media and see where it goes. The manifesto and its contents didn't get released until three days ago. --Wikihogger (talk) 21:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * What's more, here's an Olbermann commentary on the Goldberg shooter & Goldberg just yesterday: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#29170852. Good luck getting it in the article. Orange Mike  would note this is exactly what he was asking for. It is also interesting to note that Tom now also seems to think he can censor my comments on this "discussion" page. 68.183.246.93 (talk) 00:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)68.183.246.93, it is not that I want to censor your comments, please read WP:FORUM which applies to talk pages. Please comment about how you want to improve this article and not about editors, thats all. If there is a consensus to include material, then fine, include it. It seems that a few editors have chimmed in. As far as Olberman goes, I made my thoughts pretty clear previously, see above.


 * I am aware of WP:FORUM, which says that problems with articles should be addressed on their discussion pages. I am also aware of WP:TE, which discusses tendentious editing, which I have referred to you previously. I sought to reach consensus earlier, which you rebuffed. In fact, I even invited you to assist me in improving the article. You did not respond, see above. And yes, as far as Olbermann goes, your thoughts are quite clear. As is WP:SOURCE which you have also never reconciled with your position. I am interested in improving this article, and have said so from the beginning. But that requires balance and objectivity, which you don't seem interested in. 68.183.246.93 (talk) 00:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 68.183.246.93, if you want to discuss the Olbermann thing and how it might be included in the article, there's a section already in place for that. If you want to talk about other improvements to the article, please start a new section.  If you want to argue with other editors, I suggest you use their talk pages.  This section of this page is for discussion of the Knoxville shooter's connection (or lack thereof) to Bernard Goldberg. Mark Shaw (talk) 00:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm actually not sure which "Olbermann thing" you're referring to? Do you mean the original inclusion I sought to make, or the one I linked above? They're obviously separate. I have no interest in arguing with editors, I only have an interest in improving the article. If you'd like to start a separate section of the article entitled "Knoxville Shooter" and either put it under the Controversy section or as a separate section, I have no objection, and will even help write it. 68.183.246.93 (talk) 00:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Hyokano has added a single sentence to the article, referring to the Knoxville shooter and his mention of Goldberg's book:. I'm personally inclined to accept this brief note as acceptable. The factoid is as trivial as it was yesterday, but no undue weight seems to be implied. I'd like to hear what others have to say about it, though. Mark Shaw (talk) 00:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I had no objection either. I actually just did a minor edit for clarity and grammatical structure. 68.183.246.93 (talk) 01:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And I need to explain my reversion of your edit: as it was, Hyokano's addition was fine (in my opinion). Moving it to its own paragraph gave it undue emphasis.  And I have a further suggestion: let's just leave it alone until others have had a chance to comment, okay?  (I didn't notice any changes for grammar, just the reformatting as a separate paragraph.  If you choose to re-edit it to restore any purely grammatical improvements, I will have no objections.) Mark Shaw (talk) 01:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It would be helpful in improving this article, if you would simply let editors improve this article. Constantly reverting good faith edits neither improves the article, nor is it helpful. My changes were minor: I included the phrase "in a letter" to complete the sentence. Otherwise there is no clarity to the phrase "The book was also cited". Cited where and how? I see nothing objectionable in the clarification. Also, what relevance does the incident have to the sentence where it currently exists? Unless David Adkisson has some connection to Boston Globe journalist Cathy Young, his reference doesn't belong in the paragraph about her criticism. So let's do this: hopefully now that I've explained it, you agree. I've reverted it. If you still object, rather than reverting it again, just hold your objection until we get additional comments. Fair? 68.183.246.93 (talk) 01:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You are given a centimeter, and you take a kilometer. I am reverting the article to the last good version until we can work this out here. Mark Shaw (talk) 05:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I explained my edit. Without discussion, you undid it twice. Centimeters you give? Please see both WP:DBF, and WP:OWN regarding collaboration, and explain why a minor edit even requires debate. You already stated no objection to grammatical edits. 68.183.246.93 (talk) 10:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)68.183.246.93, again, please stop accusing other editors of owning articles and pushing agendas on this talk page, this is not a forum for that. Maybe use a WP:RFC, get others involved, run a straw poll here, whatever. If a number of editors think that this material belongs in the article fine, it will get included, if not, drop it. You are not helping your cause by assuming bad faith on the part of others in here. Also, I talked about Olberman above in the sense that he criticizes people all day long and most of that criticism isn't all that relevant or notable unless it is reported widely by other parties, thats all.--Tom 12:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, let's get back to discussing this here, please. At the moment we have three proposals:


 * 1) No mention of the Atkisson incident, as including it here implies that Goldberg was in some way partially responsible.  In addition, the fact that Goldberg's book was claimed, by Atkisson, as an influence on his actions is already noted at Knoxville Unitarian Universalist church shooting.  I believe this is the best option.
 * 2) The brief mention by Hyokano as indicated by this diff: .  I regard this as acceptable.  It notes the incident, and directs the reader to the article on the incident itself, but seems (to me) not to endow the connection with any undue weight.  (I will say that I don't know that it really belongs in the "Criticism" section, though.)
 * 3) The same, but with the text given its own paragraph, as indicated by this diff: .  This, in my opinion, emphasizes the incident too much for an article on a living person, and I oppose it.
 * Now then: can all involved editors please discuss these options - or propose others - without getting into speculations about each others' motives and character?
 * Mark Shaw (talk) 14:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Has this "material" been covered by other 3rd parties? If so, lets post those links here, thanks, --Tom 15:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No thanks, folks. I'll save any edits until after the issue of how this page, and the article, are "managed" is resolved. But feel free to delete my comments in the interim. 68.183.246.93 (talk) 16:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Atkisson's letter is cited at Knoxville Unitarian Universalist church shooting: . It's worth reading, in that it turns out that his reference to Goldberg's book amounts to seven words in one clause of one sentence.  This is, in my opinion, supportive of the position that no reference to that letter and that incident is appropriate here. Mark Shaw (talk) 17:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

REINDENTed: I've put all criticism into a single paragraph (all that's needed). I have provided solid links for the shooter's manifesto, so that readers can judge for themselves; and a single link to a typical critic of Goldberg, the Daily Kos, to show how they allege he is to blame for the guy's actions. More links would be piling on; this is an easily-accessible source, and its ideological stance is well-known. (The Olberman links are all videos, and text is always preferable because there can be no question of what it says; also more accessible to low-bandwidth Wikipedia readers.) -- Orange Mike  |   Talk  16:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I would like to see this paragraph rewritten, if nothing else. First, change "cited favorably" to "briefly mentioned."  Second, remove the final clause ("this has led critics of Goldberg....") and the blog it references; blogs are not WP:RS .  I'd prefer to leave any mention of the letter out altogether, for the reasons noted above. Mark Shaw (talk) 17:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * On second thought, I'm not sure about removing the final clause (see strikeout above). Let me think about that a bit. Mark Shaw (talk) 17:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * To clarify: at one point, I felt that the manifesto was obscure and irrelevant, and supported removing it entirely. Since then, however, this matter has become of note to the general public, mentioned on a major network, in well-known online venues, etc. It has now become relevant to the article, and I've stricken that part of my previous argument which is now outdated. I'll see what we can do about some of the edits Mark suggests, to maintain NPOV. This is not some pajama guy blog; this is one of the world's best-known blogs making these accusations, and thus it becomes a reliable source as to what they said (not, of course, as to the accuracy of their accusations). -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  17:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * While Mark is right that the mention is brief, it is nonetheless crucial, in that the shooter favorably cites Goldberg's book as a source of his laundry list of people he wants to kill and calls upon his fellow Americans to kill. A "brief mention" is ambiguous as to favorable or critical mention. The Daily Kos reference is a reliable source of what was said there by them, and for those limited purposes it does fit the criteria of reliable sourcing. I'm striving to avoid undue emphasis here; but it's a major issue now among people who even know who the heck Goldberg is. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  17:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * At this time I'm inclined to accept the changes thus far, with the modification of the one-word addition I just made. I'd like to reserve final judgment for a bit,though.  I do have to say that I think we're making good progress here. Mark Shaw (talk) 17:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I"m also very pleased with Mike's edits. The article certainly says far more about the incident now than I would have been allowed to. Well done, Mike! 68.183.246.93 (talk) 18:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Daily Kos is full of contemptible liars and scumbags, lets keep it real. --Tom 22:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed the portion not supportted by the citations. Nice work folks, looks good. Everybody happy? Awesome.--Tom 22:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a major issue? According to whom? Daily Kos? Why are we using them as a citation again? Because they are slamming Goldberg? That link can be removed since we already have a citation about the shooter mentioning Goldberg's book which is sufficent. --Tom 22:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * For the record: I object to the removal of the Kos reference, and the text upon which it depends. Without this material, there's no reason for the Atkisson thing to appear in this article at all.  And whatever the nature and character of the Kos blog, it is both significant and representative of anti-Goldbergian sentiment.
 * I also exhort all editors to discuss major changes like this here before implementing them in the article itself. Mark Shaw (talk) 06:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I also object to the removal of all the references and citations that discuss this incident in detail. It's been well covered in the news by multiple sources, so there is no reason not to include it. 68.183.246.93 (talk) 06:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) it is both significant and representative of anti-Goldbergian sentiment, significant?? According to whom?? "Vyan" has zero credibility and is not notable. It's been well covered in the news by multiple sources, any of note? --Tom 16:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The Kos reference is significant because it's representative of anti-Goldbergian sentiment on this point. I thought that was clear; sorry if it was not.  I'll leave it to the other editor(s) to come up with those other sources, if the consensus is that Kos is not acceptable.


 * It's my opinion that, without some reference to criticism of Goldberg over his having appeared in Atkisson's "manifesto," any mention of this is out of place in a "Criticism" section - and, indeed, amounts to nothing more than a point of trivia (which we all know is deprecated on WP). As such, it should be removed and we should go back to this version:  Mark Shaw (talk) 18:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * because it's representative of anti-Goldbergian sentiment on this point according to whom? This seems like OR. Again, I would preffer to see what RS have to say about this "matter" and so far haven't really seen anything except the usuall blogs. I agree that this "factoid" dosen't need to be added, but have left it in the article while discussion is taking place. --Tom 18:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Since the Daily Kos isn't notable enough, I put in a network television show reference instead. Is that adequate, Tom? -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  14:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed "favorable" from describing the shooters intention since this is not cited or really known unless you have a source for that. I also attributed the criticism to KO unless we have more folks saying this, not blogs of course. Otherwise, I guess this is a start. What do others think? I understand your dislike for the subject of this article so I appreciate you trying to work this out here so the article complies to the endless policies and guidelines, cheers, --Tom 15:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm mystified by your edits, Tom. The shooter cites Goldberg as a source for his shopping list of targets (that's not OR; that's "water is wet"); how is that not a "favorable" reference? Olbermann is just one of the critics pounding Goldberg; the current wording could be read as implying that it's just a feud between the two talking heads. Just because many of his other critics are bloggers doesn't make them mythical, any more than criticism of Olbermann by, say, Little Green Footballs or Freerepublic makes those conservative critics mythical. Would a compromise phrasing like "critics such as KO" suit you? -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  16:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * (For archival purposes, Tom is referring to this diff: .) My opinion is that "some" and "such as" should remain. It wasn't only Olbermann, but also others of his, uh, ilk.  I also wouldn't mind seeing the Kos reference restored in addition, to accentuate the plural nature of this criticism.
 * (I should reveal that I have an ulterior, perhaps slightly non-NPOV motive here: adding more references from the ranks of the Angry Left, and none from more temperate commentators (I looked), accentuates the fact that this particular point of criticism is rather unserious.) Mark Shaw (talk) 16:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) OrangeMike, what does "favorable" even mean? The book made up part of a list this guy wanted to kill, no more, no less. Does that mean "favorable"? If the shooter had written "Goldberg's book was awesome and right on the mark, ect" then maybe, but the shooter went into zero detail about that book except that he wanted to kill everybody in it. Also, saying "critics such as KO" doesn't seem like a problem to me, since its factual and citable. I also don't see why we would link to the Kos, do you know who this YVan(sp?) "editor" is? No need for it. The link to KO is more than sufficent. --Tom 21:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, after reading it, I am not sure I like the "anti-liberal rhetoric" part. Ideally, I would stick to matching the citation as closely as possible, ie KO mentions "formenting violence" or such not. Anyways, not that big a deal :) Cheers and hope everybody had a safe and enjoyable Holiday! --Tom 21:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * We seem to have reached a reasonable compromise version at this point: all of us are a little dissatisfied with it, which probably means that it's NPOV. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  01:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That is actually how I know when I am doing a good "job" around here. When both "sides" are accusing me of having an agenda or whitewasher or whatever :). Anyways, this is always a work in progress and having as many editors comment or add suggestions here seems to help...or create more drama whichever the case maybe :) --Tom 13:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * My concern is that it's listed under "Criticism", not under the former title of "Criticism & Controversy" or simply under a separate title of "Controversy". The shooter had no criticism of Goldberg. If anything it's clear he endorsed the book's POV. So the incident doesn't belong there. But his actions are obviously controversial, so that's the section where it should go. Either a revert back to the orginal heading or a separate one would be fine with me. Revert to C & C seems easiest and doesn't confer undue weight. 68.183.246.93 (talk) 23:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) But 68.183.246.93, that is the rub, you said his actions are obviously controversial, I assume you are talking about the shooter's actions there? If so, that is his contraversey, not really Goldberg's. KO is critical of Goldberg so that fits the section as it stands. But this is all OUR opinion and analysis. If a few RS say that there is a contraversy ect., then maybe that would help sort this out. Anyways, I agree that the current version seems to work. --Tom 14:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's just go with what we know. Goldberg's book provided a list of 100 people. The shooter wanted to kill those 100 people because they were identified by Goldberg's list, but "settled" for other people he could actually get to. Goldberg's list provided Plan A, a contingency list was Plan B. The "controversy" was that Goldberg's book provided the Plan A list. Anyway, I agree the current version seems fine. 68.183.246.93 (talk) 23:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, according to whom? Why not just stick to the sourcable "facts". I also removed the anti-liberal labels, no need to insert folks POV into the article, rehtoric and violence is fine. --Tom 15:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I added back "against liberals" or would "anti-liberal" violence be better? --Tom 15:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Criticism section
Where is the huge contraversy and according to whom exactly? The is a very good reason for WP:AVOID. Also, why are we adding info about other authors attached to the Regnery publishing? Also, if we are going to say "others" for the violence link, can you provide citations. This can probably be worked out but this is already more than enough, imho. Anyways, --Tom 00:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The Controversy heading has already been discussed and settled - why are you bring it up again? The shooting inspired by the book is not a criticism. It is a controversy. The authors were added as more info on the company that published the book, and its niche. 68.183.246.93 (talk) 04:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Settled where? Tom 04:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)ps, you have not answered my repeated question, according to whom is this a contravesy? I know you think it is one. And also see WP:AVOID. Tom 04:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyways, I agree that the current version seems to work. --Tom 14:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC) 68.183.246.93 (talk) 07:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Added additional sources. 68.183.246.93 (talk) 08:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * IP68, this article has been changing back and forth faster than who knows what. I was probably, don't even know for sure at this point, referring to how we introduced KO's criticism and the shooter "material". This isn't cold fusion, intelligent design, or 911 conspiracy. This is a talking head who wouldn't even have anybody here if it wasn't for his rants on BO's show. Enough already. We have introduced some "material" and everybody seems to think it could be better so as OrangeMike pointed out, that is probably as close as to a consensus as we can get. Again, this can be revisted anytime. If Goldberg becomes the center of some fire storm any lots of RS start to cover whatever, then MAYBE we can escallate this to "controversy", but right now this seems like run of the mill spit balling amoungst the usuall suspects. Anyways, as always, if a few or more editors say I am a jackass, I will saddle up and ride off. Cheers, --Tom 15:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've reverted the article to the consensus version. I request - again - that any further changes to the section in question be hashed out here before implementation in the article itself.  It took a lot of moaning to get to this point, though, so my inclination is to leave it as it is. Mark Shaw (talk) 15:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) moaning? Ok, you can put that on me :) Sounds good, thank you, --Tom 15:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want to revert to consensus version, that's fine. But the consensus version was NOT Criticism only for the heading. Please review the log: We seem to have reached a reasonable compromise version at this point: all of us are a little dissatisfied with it, which probably means that it's NPOV. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC) I will leave out my additional sources if that'll make you happy - which again Mark removed before discussion - but then there can be no future suggestions that the Controversy tag is either unwarranted or unsourced or just Keith Olbermann. Frankly those sources were more than sufficient to make Controversy a separate section altogether, which is the direction I'm inclined to go in, if the article keeps getting nitpicked to death, but only in one direction. Either we have consensus, and ALL of us agree to leave it alone at this point, or we don't. 68.183.246.93 (talk) 20:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * IP68, I didn't remove your additional "sources" from the article?? Also, for the 3-4 time, whom is calling this "material" a controversey? If anything, the section could be called critique, ect. Anyways, maybe we should get more uninvolved editors to comment and see where this goes. --Tom 20:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Tom, I'm aware that Mark removed the sources. I've corrected it. I've also tried to explain to you several times that a shooting incident is not a criticism, it is a controversy. I continue to scratch my head wondering why you don't get that. Again, would you rather go with a separate section with the heading "Knoxville shooter incident"? That would work too. It's one of many ways we can go with this. Sure we can always bring in more editors, the more the better. Or we can all just agree to leave well enough alone. 68.183.246.93 (talk) 20:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Mark, did you miss this conversation? Or did you just revert my edits before you read it? If you are inclined to leave the article as is, and if Tom agrees, then fine. But I will also note that your revert also removed my attempt to fix a dead link. Did you even notice, Mark? Or did you just click the undo button? Again. It would be very helpful if, in future, you would comment here beforehand. Thanks. 68.183.246.93 (talk) 21:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The purpose of an article's discussion page is, among others, to work out the details of any proposed changes when there is disagreement about their appropriateness. Your refusal to use the discussion page for this purpose is frustrating.  You have been reported for violation of the 3RR. Mark Shaw (talk) 21:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Had you bothered to actually read this discussion page before reverting my edits you would have seen the above discussion, and could have contributed to it. Instead, you resort to undoing the edits without comment, then issuing equally unhelpful 3RR warnings when you don't get your way. None of it is helpful, and I wish you would reconsider these unhelpful tactics, and treat other editors with the same courtesy you would like to receive. 68.183.246.93 (talk) 21:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Probably best to get other(s) involved again. --Tom 00:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Tom, you really need to explain why you persist in reverting this heading to one that does not have consensus. Why Tom? 68.183.246.93 (talk) 21:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You answer my question first, then I'll anwser yours :P --Tom 21:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

IP adding unsourced commentary to part about KO's comments
An ip keeps adding a "rebuttal" to the KO crtiique about violence which I keep removing. I get the idea, but this needs to be written "properly" and "sourced" and yadda yadda yadda. I don't really care however. --Tom 13:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The way it's been rewritten (this diff: ) seems better but self-contradictory - as though Olbermann is both blaming and not blaming Adkisson's actions on Goldberg. But even that contradiction is reflected in the actual source, so I'm leaving it alone for now. Mark Shaw (talk) 18:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Can we remove the KO "commentary" now? It is completely non notable and contradicts itself. Even the mention of the shooter material's relevance is questionable but whatever I guess. Anyways, Tom 13:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be fine with me. I've always felt that including it was obvious POV-pushing, and more suitable for the Olbermann page.  But given the contortions and gyrations necessary to get it to the current version, I'd like to see a few more editors' opinions on that. Mark Shaw (talk) 13:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Olbermann is the only notable source that has achieved anything resembling consensus. If it's removed, then it needs to be replaced with another source that says the same thing. When I listed several additional sources that did just that, they were removed, so Olbermann is all you've got left. I've removed the other ip's edit because it is obvious POV pushing that quotes Olbermann out of context and creates the appearance of contradiction where none exists. Might be wise to stick with the consensus version, otherwise all that "debate" was a waste, and it's doubtful that anyone really wants to travel that road again. 68.183.246.93 (talk) 23:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 68.183.246.93, Might I suggest that you read the cited source before making claims about quotes out of context? Mark Shaw (talk) 00:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Mark Shaw, Might I suggest that you read the cited source? When you do, you will see the comment was clearly misinterpreted and taken out of context. To assist you, I've even pulled the source quote in question:
 * "None of us at any end of the political spectrum can be responsible for what the ultimately hateful or the deranged wrongly infer from our work. But the same week it is revealed that this terrorist was partially inspired by Bernard Goldberg, maybe Mr. Goldberg could skip the lines about screw them or the reference to dead roses, or the one last week where he said, “I would probably have gotten a baseball bat and gone down to the ‘New York Times‘ with it and found the person that wrote the editorial, but that‘s me.” Wait until Monday until you give the next Jim David Atkinson something to work with, sir."  Including only the first part of the paragraph while omitting all the rest, especially the quote in Goldberg's own words, made the same week as the attack, is textbook: "taking the quote out of context".


 * I also wonder why the phrase "violence against liberals" is appropriate. Does one of the sources say the victims of the attack were "liberals"? If not, shouldn't that be removed?


 * Also the tag sentence is not in the consensus version. It's a recent edit . If you can point me to where consensus was reached on this new edit by 98.64.30.171, then I'll happily defer. 68.183.246.93 (talk) 04:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Are there any other reliable sources that claim that Goldberg's rehteric has lead to violence? If not, then the stand alone KO commentary should be removed. Can folks who want to keep this "material" please post any links here so people can take a look. Thanks Tom 00:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure. This "material" was posted a while ago . If having Olbermann stand alone concerns you, first recall that we've already reached consensus with Olbermann - a consensus that you were a part of, and agreed to. But feel free to reinsert any or all of these additional sources in addition to Olbermann if you like. I'd have no objection. 68.183.246.93 (talk) 04:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * So nothing new. So no reliable sources are claiming Goldberg incited violence except KO?. Then remove the trivia about the shooter mentioning his book. Maybe put that in the shooter article. Tom 04:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)ps, it is already there, perfect. Tom 04:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * At this point I don't think there is any way to keep the Atkisson/Olbermann kerfuffle in the article in any way that will be acceptable to all parties. So, yes, leave it out. The current version - represented by this diff - is the most reasonable under the circumstances. Mark Shaw (talk) 04:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Why the interest in revisiting an issue that already took so long to achieve consensus on? Especially when all the current parties participated and agreed on that original consensus? 68.183.246.93 (talk) 04:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Lack of consensus or interest in consensus building on this article
Two editors do not constitute consensus. The removal of any reference to the Knoxville Unitarian Universalist church shooting, Keith Olbermann, or any other notable, reliable or critical sources from this article, is not only POV pushing, it is tendentious editing; and while one must always assume good faith, the editing patterns of Mark Shaw and Tom on this article regarding reverts and deletions, may reasonably be seen as violations of policies and guidelines from WP:TAGTEAM, WP:DISRUPT, WP:OWN, WP:TE as well as WP:WELLKNOWN. May I suggest that all editors re-read these. May I also simply remind ALL editors that such practices damage the credibility of this project and defeat its purpose, and ultimately do not serve to improve the article. Also the consequences for repeatedly violating these policies can be severe. Can we all please just work together to build a fine, factually accurate, and balanced article, instead of "protecting" an incomplete and one-sided one? Thanks! 68.183.246.93 (talk) 21:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If you look at the career section, there is criticism by Al Franken and then more by Cathy Young and not much if any outside praise commentary. Again, there really didn't seem to be that much outside coverage tieing Goldberg to the Knoxville shooter other than that the shooter wrote one sentence I believe mentioning Goldberg's book. Anyways, hopefully this article isn't too one sided :) Tom 00:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There is nothing to "[tie] Goldberg to the Nashville shooter," and Olbermann admits as much even while he does just that. This is an unjustified attack on an author by a media personality; and whatever the merits of that attack, that author, and that media personality, it's not worthy of inclusion in this article.


 * Oh, and if the IP believes there is anything behind his/her accusations of, among other things, tag-teaming, perhaps s/he should bring that up in the appropriate forums. Mark Shaw (talk) 05:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The disputed content seems to have first appeared on 12-Feb-09, which quoted Adkisson as having written, "Who I wanted to Kill was every Democrat in the Senate, & House, the 100 people in Bernard Goldberg's book." I haven't personally checked to see if that quote is correct, but if it is, then I definitely think the content should be included in this article.  Goldberg's book provided Adkisson with his ideal list of targets for assassination.  He ultimately lowered his sights to lesser-known liberals, but only because the targets identified by Goldberg were not within his reach.
 * The disputed content remained in some form for over a month, from 12-Feb-09 until nearly 15-Mar-09. Why the relatively sudden need to "sanitize" such a key, verifiable fact from a reliable source?  I intend to put it back in unless persuaded otherwise in a timely manner.  Thanks.  --Art Smart Chart/ Heart  06:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * As I have always said, I agree. The efforts to "sanitize" this article have continued unabated for some time now. Going back as far as May 2007, there was a "Criticism & Controversy" section. Despite objections to changing it, that was soon whittled down to simply "Criticism"., first by  Tom, then by Mark Shaw . Even that has since been removed, and everything that isn't applicable under the article's "Awards" or list of "Books" sections, is now relegated to the generic heading of "Career". The often-repeated contention that there is nothing tying Goldberg's book to the Nashville shooter as Mark Shaw suggested, is factually disproven by the shooter's own, widely reported, manifesto under the heading "III. This was a Symbolic Killing", . Art Smart Chart/ Heart , your quotation is correct, but this information was deleted by Tom.
 * To further suggest that this connection wasn't widely reported, or that only Olbermann criticized Goldberg for it, as Tom stated, is equally disproven by the facts, especially given the numerous notable sources already placed in the article, only to be deleted by Mark Shaw . This is by no means a full history of the reverts and deletions on this article by these editors, but the pattern is apparent. As Mark Shaw suggested, perhaps this needs to be brought to the attention of the appropriate forum, as there appears to be little interest in changing the pattern, or in self-regulating the behavior. 68.183.246.93 (talk) 09:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Art Smart:I haven't personally checked to see if that quote is correct - it is (and, yes, you should check), but it amounts to a total of seven words in a long, rambling, handwritten "manifesto" from Atkisson, who seems to have been seriously disturbed.
 * Why the relatively sudden need to "sanitize" such a key, verifiable fact... There was a rather shaky consensus reached after a good deal of bickering (as you can see from the talk page history). Another couple of editors, not previously involved, made some further minor changes, leaving us with a version that included the fact that Olbermann admitted - during the same attack on Goldberg - that there was no justification for blaming him (Goldberg) for Atkisson's actions. The IP objected to his and started poking at the article again, and I have (and, apparently, Tom has) lost patience with him/her.


 * If the reference to Atkisson via Olbermann is to be restored, I'm going to insist on something like this version, to make it clear that not even Olbermann thinks Goldberg should be held responsible for Atkisson's murders. Mark Shaw (talk) 13:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Did Olbermann really add that contradiction? I don't remember seeing that in the citation, I guess I need to reread it. If so, that makes it all the more reason not to include imho. Anyways, Tom 13:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. From the cited reference, Olbermann says: None of us at any end of the political spectrum can be responsible for what the ultimately hateful or the deranged wrongly infer from our work. Mark Shaw (talk) 13:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't consider Goldberg responsible for Atkisson's actions, and it wouldn't have occurred to me that anyone would. Nonetheless, to use a thought experiment, if a famous person is killed by some natural disaster, that does not mean we should exclude all mention the disaster from that person's article, just because he/she wasn't responsible for it. To me, it is insulting to the reader for us to need Olbermann's or anyone else's reminder that Goldberg wasn't responsible for Adkisson's actions.
 * We all agree that mention of Goldberg belongs in Adkisson's article. We disagree on whether or not mention of Adkisson belongs in this article.  First priority is to abide by WP:BLP, which is met by using a verifiable, reliable source.  Second priority is WP:NPOV with its explicit need to avoid WP:UNDUE, so the mention, if any, needs to be brief. But ultimately, the needs of the reader should be borne in mind.  If I were a reader of this article, and saw not even a single mention of Adkisson having used Goldberg's book for his initial list of assassination targets, I would feel that the article was incomplete on this key element.  Therefore I favor at least a brief mention of the connection to Adkisson.  Other ideas?  --Art Smart Chart/ Heart  13:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) How is your thought about leaving a disaster that killed a person out of that bio relevant to this or relatable? Of course we would mention that disaster. That is a straw man arguement at best. How is mentioning that a person read or mentioned a book relevant to this bio? Keep it in that person's bio or related event. Tom 13:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Again: If the reference to Atkisson via Olbermann is to be restored, I'm going to insist that his (Olbermann's) disclaimer be included. Look at it this way: without it, it certainly does read as though Olbermann is blaming Atkisson's murders on Goldberg. Given the way this episode has gone, though, I'd be happiest to see it excluded entirely. Mark Shaw (talk) 14:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree with both Tom and Mark. However, out of respect for Tom who has been blocked for 48 hours, I will defer this issue until after his block has expired.  Thanks for your patience, and over and out for now.  --Art Smart Chart/ Heart  15:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If I may point out: Atkisson's reference to 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America is noted at that WP article, which is in turn referenced at Bernard Goldberg. This should be enough; I really don't see the need to bring Olbermann into it. Mark Shaw (talk) 16:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As it is apparent that Mark Shaw has missed my comment here earlier (perhaps because he was too busy losing "patience" with another editor - so much for assuming good faith?), I will happily repost it here. It puts to rest once and for all any legitimate discussion of whether Olbermann either contradicted himself, or requires a disclaimer:
 * ''Might I suggest that you read the cited source? When you do, you will see the comment was clearly misinterpreted and taken out of context. To assist you, I've even pulled the source quote in question:
 * "None of us at any end of the political spectrum can be responsible for what the ultimately hateful or the deranged wrongly infer from our work. But the same week it is revealed that this terrorist was partially inspired by Bernard Goldberg, maybe Mr. Goldberg could skip the lines about screw them or the reference to dead roses, or the one last week where he said, 'I would probably have gotten a baseball bat and gone down to the ‘New York Times‘ with it and found the person that wrote the editorial, but that‘s me.' Wait until Monday until you give the next Jim David Atkinson something to work with, sir." [13] Including only the first part of the paragraph while omitting all the rest, especially the quote in Goldberg's own words, made the same week as the attack, is textbook: "taking the quote out of context"....68.183.246.93 (talk) 04:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Any "disclaimer", or attempt to simply insert the first sentence, without it's contextual basis, would be nothing less than a transparent effort to cherry-pick the quotation to fashion it to conform to your desired result - which is, as you've already indicated, to have the reader (and the editor) draw a conclusion that the quotation itself does not draw. If a quote is needed, I would, to use Mark Shaw's twice-used term, "insist" that nothing less than the full unedited quote be included. Then the reader can decide for themselves the amount of weight, if any, they choose to give it. That is not only balance, it is also what is required by policy underWP:WELLKNOWN. And Art Smart Chart/ Heart 's argument is precisely on point. There is no logic in suggesting that Goldberg can be in the Adkisson article, but Adkisson cannot be in Goldberg's. And once and for all, Keith Olbermann, is notable, reliable and a legitimate source as defined by every policy and guideline. Whether or not you personally disagree with him is irrelevant, and should have no place in editorial decisionmaking. That is tendentious editing. But as Tom has been blocked for 48 hours, I too am prepared to wait to receive his imput, as well as that of other editors. The more the better. 68.183.246.93 (talk) 20:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I would have to contradict you on whether Olbermann's quote is appropriate for this BLP article, 68.183.246.93. From the Reliable sources page, Reliable sources, Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact..  The way I read this is that Olbermann's opinion is not necessarily notable, and should not be considered factual.


 * As far as Atkinson referencing the book, it should be included - providing that a reliable source with an exact quote is found.


 * You must remember that in the case of BLP articles, keeping the article free of defamitory statements that are not impeccably sourced trumps all other policies, including WP:NPOV.


 * For full disclosure as to where I came from, I was asked to come here by User:Mark Shaw, with whom I have collaborated on a few other articles. McJeff (talk) 21:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks McJeff for your imput. I particularly appreciate your candor in disclosing that you were asked to join the conversation by Mark Shaw, and understand your issues. But I believe you aren't reviewing the applicable section of BLP for guidance. I would refer you particularly to WP:WELLKNOWN, which states:


 * In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. 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. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out.


 * So it's really not a question of statements being presented as facts. They are simply being presented. One is in a manifesto. The other is in a commentary. The standard is to: "simply document what these sources say. 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." Both statements meet the criteria: they are notable, relevant, and published by a well-documented and reliable source, and we are simply documenting what was said. Both are also "documented by reliable third-party sources." Any weight given to either, is for the reader to decide - not the editor.


 * As to your other issue, the shooting incident, and quote, are also "notable, relevant and well-documented by reliable published sources." The actual manifesto was published, so we can quote the relevant passage directly. FYI, it's at "III. This was a Symbolic Killing", . So I believe BLP does support that the incident, quote, and commentary, "belong in the article".  68.183.246.93 (talk) 13:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 68.183.246.93, I appreciate your argument. I still believe that this "material" doesn't rise to the level of notability that it deserves mention in this bio. As pointed out, it is mentioned in the book article which I feel is more approriate. Also, the same goes for Olberman's commentary. I will admitt that I fell less adament about this issue than before so I would defer to others at this point. Anyways, --Tom 14:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

(Undent) I read the section WP:WELLKNOWN. It says that sources need third party documentation. So in the case of Olbermann's allegation, we'd need a reliable third party source that discussed it rather than just a video of him saying something. McJeff (talk) 15:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Welcome back Tom, and thanks for softening your stance. I believe guidance for notability is found in the "nutshell" of WP:PEOPLE: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Also WP:NNC is useful: "The notability guidelines determine whether a topic is notable enough to be a separate article in Wikipedia. They do not regulate the content of articles, except for lists of people." Indeed, if notability is established in the book article, it's also established here, as BLP doesn't offer a separate notability standard, except for WP:WELLKNOWN. McJeff, reliable third party sources for Olbermann were in the article at one time. As you note, returning them complies with WP:WELLKNOWN. 68.183.246.93 (talk) 21:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The thing I keep coming back to is this: Atkisson's brief mention of Goldberg's book in his "manifesto" is barely notable on its own merits, since the reference to it was pretty much only in passing, and he (Atkisson) seems quite obviously to have been seriously disturbed. How does Olbermann's exploitation of this endow it with any additional notability - particularly given that Olbermann himself said that Goldberg shouldn't be held accountable for Atkisson's actions?


 * The Atkisson thing is noted at the book's article page, and that should be enough. If it's to be noted here as well, though, I don't see how the Olbermann connection is at all relevant - third-party discussions notwithstanding. Mark Shaw (talk) 23:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * We've already discussed at some length, how your read of the Olbermann commentary relies upon lifting its first sentence from the context of the rest of its paragraph, and is therefore misleading. Your other issues regarding notability were also addressed by Tom, and I responded by providing the policies that I believe are applicable here. If there are policies or guidelines that you believe are more applicable than the ones I've presented, please provide them, and we can discuss them. 68.183.246.93 (talk) 02:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 68.183.246.93, [my] read of the Olbermann commentary relies upon lifting its first sentence from the context of the rest of its paragraph is not correct. I suggest you reread what I've written on this point.


 * By the way, may I suggest that you obtain a WikiPedia account so we have something to call you other than '68.183.246.93'? Mark Shaw (talk) 03:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Mark Shaw, I've read your view of the Olbermann commentary each time you've presented it. What I've missed is your addressing my response also made each time, beyond suggesting that I re-read yours. I've expressed my view on your interpretation of the commentary, and explained why I believe it is flawed. Context is everything. You simply cannot lift a sentence that was part of a larger paragraph - then try to present it as a stand-alone conclusion. But that is what you're doing. And you have yet to address that. As for my obtaining a Wiki account, you'll note that my contributions generally consist of pro forma, style and content corrections of existing articles. Since I currently have no interest in creating new articles, and am only actively involved in this one, an account for now holds little appeal.

68.183.246.93 (talk) 05:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Keep current version. I was unaware of this information until just reading it so I bring no particular bias here. I do think it is perfectly relevant to include a discussion of the motivations of the killer in the article Knoxville Unitarian Universalist church shooting but not particularly useful information to include in the article about Goldberg himself. Ngaskill (talk) 03:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)