Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:36, 13 February 2009

Biography: Arts and Entertainment Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.

The following Misplaced Pages contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. Bernardgoldberg (talk · contribs) / Goldberg, Bernard Goldberg, Bernard

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: L. Brent Bozell III (March 20, 2007). "Not Your Father's Encyclopedia". Media Research Center. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Journalism Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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 | 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.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Davfoster88 (talk • contribs) 01:09, 7 September 2005.

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."

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/search/?title=Bernard_Goldberg&diff=prev&oldid=113606700

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.

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)

In Not Your Father's Encyclopedia, Brent Bozell cites this article as fodder for criticism of Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, its reputation will suffer. I suggest that Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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.

1. 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)
2. "Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. "
3. 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 Misplaced Pages 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. ⇒ SWATJester 04:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind I found it. ⇒ SWATJester 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 Misplaced Pages standards on every level. Neither you nor "Tom" have managed to concoct a single Misplaced Pages-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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages be used by its editors as a mechanism for furthering those individual editors own transparent, and politically partisan agendas? If that is what Misplaced Pages is allowed to become? Seriously? Then Misplaced Pages'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: "Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages specifically states is a reliable source. They conform to WP:SOURCE which specifically notes: "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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/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 | 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)

Good luck, Wikihogger. But you should be receive fair warning that you have encountered two editors whose life mission is to remove ANY reference to potentially negative or controversial material from Goldberg's page. Check their histories and this page. Neither is admin. either. You will need to get intercession to include anything that remotely resembles proportion into this article. By the way, don't even THINK ANYTHING from MSNBC or Keith Olbermann will be considered "notable". These editors are laughable, and their bias is reprehensible. But to paraphrase the "Blues Brother's" movie: "They are on a mission from God-berg." Good luck! 68.183.246.93 (talk) 22:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• Start-Class biography articles
• Start-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Unknown-importance biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Arts and entertainment work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Articles with connected contributors
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Unassessed Journalism articles
• Unknown-importance Journalism articles
• WikiProject Journalism articles