Talk:Let Freedom Ring: Winning the War of Liberty over Liberalism

Cause and effect

Since none of the editors adding info will start the discussion, I will. Nobody disputes the factual content of saying that a copy if this book was found among the personal effects of a killer. What IS in dispute is the weight of the information. While it doesn't clearly state that this book was a cause, including the entry, without anything else, strongly IMPLIES that it is a cause of the murders. Does anyone have a NPOV article that shows a cause and effect role of this book? Not someones opinion that it might have had an effect, but someone who will go on record and say that this book was a cause. For that matter, could anyone here even say for sure that the man even read the book? I actually own some books I haven't read. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Here the news states that "[Officer] Still seized three books from Adkisson's home, including 'The O'Reilly Factor,' by television commentator Bill O'Reilly; 'Liberalism is a Mental Disorder,' by radio personality Michael Savage; and 'Let Freedom Ring,' by political pundit Sean Hannity." Officer Still could not have done so without probable cause to believe all three books were materially involved in the shooting, if for no other reason than providing a motive or inspiration for the killer, but materially involved nonetheless. --Art Smart (talk) 07:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Nobody disputes the fact that the books were there. What is in dispute is the weight. Your legal knowledge is lacking.He could absolutely have seized the books without probable cause.The house is a crime scene and EVERYTHING in it is subject to seizure. Forfeiture is another matter. You are talking about an implication that the books had a causal effect. And you are extrapolating (which is your opinion) that there must be a relationship based on the fact that police took them. Further, you base that OPINION, in part, on faulty legal theory. Can you even show evidence that the man ever read the book? Niteshift36 (talk) 07:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

So you claim to be an expert on criminal law in the state of Tennessee. Fine. On a sworn affidavit, Steve Still wrote, "During the interview Adkisson stated that he had targeted the church because of its liberal teachings and his belief that all liberals should be killed because they were ruining the country, and that he felt that the Democrats had tied his country's hands in the war on terror and they had ruined every institution in America with the aid of major media outlets. Adkisson made statements that because he could not get to the leaders of the liberal movement that he would then target those that had voted them into office." Do you really see no connection between the book and Adkisson's motives? You seem much too intelligent for me to believe that. --Art Smart (talk) 07:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

No Arthur, I do not claim to be an expert in Tennesse law. But search and seizure law is very similar in most jurisdiction and I am an expert in search and seizure. Notice that while your quoted passage makes use of words like "liberals", it never says that he got the idea from any of the books he read. Further, look at the affadavit you linked to. In 3-9 Still says Adkisson stated he has held these views for about the last TEN YEARS. The book was only published 6 years ago. Also in 3-9, you see Still list items to be searched for (as required by the Constitution). He listed items that he expected to look for. Note that he listed generic terms (books, DVD's etc, which would be normal). If Adkisson had mentioned those books by name, don't you think he would have mentioned it in the warrant application? Next, look at the warrant return (page 20 of the attachment). They seized cash, insurance bills, bank statements and his house lease. Now, you claim that they would only seize things they had "probable cause" to believe that they were "materially involved" in the shooting. Would you like to hazard a guess how his lease agreement or insurance bill were "materially involved"? Like I said, almost anything can be seized at that point. I ask again, do you have any evidence to show he even read the book, let alone that it influenced him 4 years before it's publication? Or is it all a GUESS at this point? Niteshift36 (talk) 08:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Please call me Art, not Arthur (the latter being a first name I haven't gone by in the last 31 years). Thanks. Okay, since common sense doesn't seem to work, let me try this approach: We have a reliable, third-party, published source, namely the Knoxville News Sentinel, stating that a copy of this book (the subject of this article) was seized from Adkisson's home. That's exactly what this article now states, nothing more, nothing less. It's factual, it's highly notable, and it shouldn't be whitewashed out of this article. If you feel that the one sentence represents undue weight, then feel free to add content that is positive about the book (while citing verifiable, reliable, third-party, published sources) to improve balance; but I can't see how we can reduce weight below a single sentence without it being a complete whitewash. If you can't find enough verifiable, reliable, third-party, published positive content about the book to satisfy your sense of balance, then feel free to ask for an RfC. But I see no point in continuing this discussion between just you and me. The two of us are at diametrically opposing points of view on this subject, and based upon our respective user pages, a whole host of other subjects. If other editors wish to voice their views, I am open to continuing the discussion. But with just you and me, we must now agree to disagree. I hope you will take either of my above constructive suggestions, and not edit war this article. Thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 14:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The fact that the book was there has never been in dispute. You claim that its mere presence in the mans house is "highly notable". Why? You've demonstrated no connection to the crimes, just an implication. I also resent your insulting "since common sense doesn't work" line. You say that after asking me to do you the courtesy of not addressing you by your given name. Having read your "defense" of this topic on other editors pages, I see how your bias works, especially when you classify anyone who refer to people who disagree with you as someone brainwashed by "gun loving arch-conservatives". In the end, you have let your bias make you draw a conclusion that you evidence simply doesn't support. Now here is the real rub, you expect to leave it up there and just "agree to disagree". You invite me to balance it, knowing full well that anything I could post stating a case against the idea the book had no part in it would be strictly opinion. And while you talk about common sense, you deftly dodge every single question I asked you, based on your own evidence. How do you explain a book published 6 years ago being a cause of beliefs the man held for 10 years? If the book was mentioned by name in the interrogations, why wouldn't it be specified in the warrant application? Why aren't things like the insurance bill "highly notable"? Shouldn't you be posting mentions in the article about State Farm insurance? Shouldn't you be adding this mention to the Ford Escape article? Of course you won't. Why not? Because you have no evidence that the Ford Escape influenced him to do this heinous act. Nor do you have any evidence here. All you have is mere presence and a bias against "gun loving arch-conservatives". So you tack it to the article, hoping the implication will make people thing that there is actually something to this theory of yours and not bother to think critically. You might have a leg to stand on if there were highlighted passages in the book that implied violence should be used, but all you have is mere presence. Again, you can't even show that he actually READ the book, just that he had it in his house. In reality, since the material is in dispute as to relevence, it should be removed until a more clear consensus is reached (one in THIS article, not in some other article)Niteshift36 (talk) 15:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

First, I would advice everyone to be civil here. Now, The person may have carried those beliefs for more than 10 years and the books he read may have just added strength to his beliefs. We dont have to spend time discussing about it since that is not what we are including in the article. You really think a book which proclaims war against liberalism is similar to the insurance he had and the car he owns? I dont know what is a warrant application and so cant comment on it. But, I may not have to because our edit does not deal with all those implications. It simply cites a fact. As per WP:PRESERVE, it could definitley a part of the article. Dock^Hi 15:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Notice what you said "MAY have" strengthened his beliefs. But there is no NPOV source stating that they did, or again, that the man even read the book. Next, you state the book "proclaims war against liberalism". I read the book. I missed that part. Would you care to cite where it does? Or more importantly, where it even suggests that one should use violence to achieve political change? If that was in the book, I might be more inclined to agree. (I strongly suspect neithe of you has read the book). There is a clear implication that the book was a contributing factor and I believe it is a weight issue. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The title of the book is "Let Freedom Ring: Winning the War of Liberty over Liberalism". I take your point well. Let us not forget we are talking about including the follwoing sentence A copy of the book was seized from the home of Jim David Adkisson after his terrorist attack against "liberals" at the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church. I dont want to discuss about anything which is not included in the sentence (because I dont want to defend something I am not supporting for inclusion). Dock^Hi 15:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I doubt you think the "war on poverty" involves killing people. So why would you presume that he book suggested anything like that or would lead a rational person to think so? Or the "war on illiteracy"? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, let us talk about A copy of the book was seized from the home of Jim David Adkisson after his terrorist attack against "liberals" at the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church. Dock^Hi 15:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

AGAIN, nobody disputes it was there. Can you show evidence that he ever read it? If not, why are we making the implication that it was any more connected to the cause of the shooting than his SUV? Niteshift36 (talk) 16:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

When we find evidence for it, we will add one extra sentence. Dock^Hi 16:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The paragraph about the shooter having a copy of the book should go; he probably had the Bible and other books as well. Should those books have the shooter mentioned in their articles? The criticism needs to have conservative views of the book as well; otherwise, the entire article looks like a smear cooked up by the loony Media Matters crowd.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 16:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you pls cite some wikipedia policy. Dock^Hi 16:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

An excellent observation has been made that there is no notability in the fact that this book was found in the home of the killer. Unless someone can establish this third part reliable link, the line will go. As was mentioned many items were in the killers house, unless someone makes the case, through sources, that this was special, I don’t believe it belongs here and will remove it until there exists some consensus to include, which there isn’t as of now. CENSEI (talk) 03:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Role of Book as a Potential Inspiration to Church Shooter

Updated the article per consensus at Talk:Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder#Church Shooting, which doesn't just have similar circumstances, but identical circumstances. It is inconsistent to have the content in one place and not the other. Please do not remove that content again without a consensus here. Thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 07:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Back up Arthur. First, I really don't care what happened in the discussion of a completely different article. Those discussions are not universal and do not apply to any other article. Neither of the editors that have removed that content here even participated in that discussion. You can't transfer discussion. That's not "inconsistent". This is a different article with different editors involved. Second, I invited discussion TWICE. You refused TWICE and added the info back in before having any kind of discussion. Third, telling me not to remove it until there is a consensus here is what is inconsistent. You want a seperate discussion here, yet want to apply the other one to here at the same time. I am asking you to demonstrate WHY it belongs here and why this is not a matter of implying something evil against someone with whom you disagree politically. Can you actually do that? Niteshift36 (talk) 07:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Our messages keep crossing in cyberspace. Please see my comments in the section above. Thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 07:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

This shouldn't be in either article, and to use the faulty logic for inclusion over their as justification for inclusion here is problamatic. As Niteshift has stated, and I have stated as well, to include this information here implies that the book has a cause and effect relationship with the shootings. However, the only way to reach that conclusion is original research into the reason for why the shooter had the book in his house. Art, unless there is a cause and effect relationship determined between the two events (the shooting and the shooter owning the books) there can be no valid reason for inclusion here or in Savage's book. Arzel (talk) 16:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

why dont we discuss about what is included "A copy of the book was seized from the home of Jim David Adkisson after his terrorist attack against "liberals" at the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church". I dont want to be distracted into defending a strawman argument. Please ask for RFC if you are not satisfied. Dock^Hi 16:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

How about we stop trying to make a cause and effect argument when there is NO evidence that the book was the cause. These implications are bordering on libel. Arzel (talk) 16:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The inlcusion of this seems to be a bit of a cheap shot against Hannity, to say the least. Would the individuals who added it to this article object if similar material was added to the Michael Moore article? CENSEI (talk) 21:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

"Mr Faisal also quoted from American satirist Michael Moore's book Stupid White Men and other anti-western texts." [1]

Aside from objecting to the characterization of Stupid White Men as an "anti-western text", I would support the inclusion of this fact in the Stupid White Men article. Are you done accusing everyone of being hypocrites now? Gamaliel (talk) 21:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to demonstrate your above statement to equality and fairness. CENSEI (talk) 21:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't have to rush over to another article to prove anything to you. You, however, are required to treat other editors with civility and not assume the worst of them until they prove otherwise to your satisfaction. You've had your fun, now let's shelve the hostility and accusations, please. Gamaliel (talk) 21:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

By not "rushing" to another article you have made my case for me, and as far as civility goes, you should take your own advice.

All I am saying is that someone with an axe to grind against the topic of this article is using it as thier own personal weblog. CENSEI (talk) 23:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Since you are relatively new to Wikipedia, I'll explain. You don't make up arbitrary tests you demand other users fulfill. You don't accuse other editors of having an axe to grind. You address other users with civility and you assume good faith on the part of other users. This isn't a message board, this is a collaborative project where users are expected to work harmoniously. Hostile comments such as yours inhibit the atmosphere of collaboration, so please refrain from such comments in the future. If you have any questions about our policies, please let me know, but remember that they are policies here and you are required to follow them. Gamaliel (talk) 02:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I detest Michael Moore. Still, I wouldn't be too supportive of adding that mention to the article. Although there is a stronger case for it, since the person actually quoted the book. Nobody can even show me evidence at this point that Adkisson read Let Freedom Ring, let alone found it influential. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP does not prohibit an opinion from being expressed on a talk page. If that comment was in an article, I'd expect it to be removed. But opinions ARE allowed on talk pages. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

BLP applies to every page on Wikipedia: talk pages, user pages, policy pages, discussion boards. The rules are quite clear. If you don't believe me, ask another administrator or inquire on an appropriate noticeboard, but do not restore those comments or post similar ones. Gamaliel (talk) 02:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't prohibit me from reposting the comments of another from a NPOV source does it? Niteshift36 (talk) 03:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It does if they are unrelated to legitimate talk page discussion. Since those comments on Michael Moore obviously have no place in this particular article, they have no relevance to any legitimate discussion here. We take the BLP policy very seriously here. Don't play games with it, please. Gamaliel (talk) 03:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for walking into that one. In WP:BLP is this: Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association.. Isn't that EXACTLY what is being done when we put the little "mention" in that Hannity's book was found in the home of a murderer? Niteshift36 (talk) 03:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

You should take note of this: WP:POINT. Gamaliel (talk) 03:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Way to avoid the question. Care to actually address what I asked? Also contained in wp:blpstyle is "If someone appears to be promoting a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability. Going to avoid that one too? Niteshift36 (talk) 03:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

See my comments to CENSEI above. I'm not obligated to participate in your games, and if you are deliberately violating BLP to gain the upper hand in a debate, these kinds of tactics will get you blocked. Gamaliel (talk) 03:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not playing a game friend. You are an administrator. I am telling you that I believe the inclusion of this violates wp:blp and have stated why. How is asking an administrator to discuss a possible violation of policy "playing games"?

The article is about a book and not about a person. Instead of trying to engage editors in an offensive way, please request for RFC, if you are not satisfied with the outcome of the discussion. Docku^Hi 09:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up Docku. I had no idea that this was about a book and not a person until you pointed that out. Oh wait, my bad, I knew that all along. WP:BLP is still applicable here since the implication applies to the author, who is a living person. As you see above, gamaliel applied the policy to my comments about someone not even connected to this article. This implication is guilt by association. You keep pushing the RFC, which is a waste of time. gamaliel pretends that discussing a policy violation is "playing games". So far, from what I see, the "consensus" is to remove it. There are more people who feel it doesn't belong that believe it belongs. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Pls read WP:POLLS. The edit there was added after reaching some level of consensus. Your willingness to remove it without following proper procedures including RFC may be considered disruptive editing. Docku^Hi 12:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

What level of consensus? Are you referring to a discussion that happened in a totally seperate article? Those discussions don't apply universally. As you can see here, there are editors involved that didn't take part in that discussion, which could change that "consensus". Further, has it ever occured to you that some may feel THAT book might be more likely to incit violence, while not feeling this book was the same? There has been no consensus for keeping it here. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Reference

ToNiteshift36: Could you please help me pointing to the page and line number in the reference you just added which supports the claim of car keys, insurance and electric bills, his bank statement and cash. Thanks. Dock^Hi 15:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The last page. Called the return, where items taken are listed, as required by law. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Handwritten. Got it. Thanks. Though I dont think it is worth including it, I am not going to contest it as of now. Dock^Hi 16:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

What is the problem with this

A copy of the book was seized from the home of Jim David Adkisson after his terrorist attack against "liberals" at the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church. Let us see which wikipedia policy it violates. Dock^Hi 17:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

1. Who said that he was a terrorist?
2. This implies causation when there is no proof that his actions were caused by the book. Arzel (talk) 17:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion a person who shoots people are terrorists and in your opinion???? Well, since it is an opinion, that word can be removed? I want you to focus only on policies. Pls dont waste my time. Dock^Hi 17:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

wp:undue. The only "relevence" is that it was present in his home, just like his insurance bill. There is no other relevence shown. But linking it to the shooting IMPLIES that there was a relationship. Do you have any other claim to relevence beyond mere presence? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Come on, that is an invalid argument, insurance bill and the book are not same. Why WP:UNDUE doesnt apply here has been discussed before.Dock^Hi 17:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

If you can show me any part of the book that endorses the idea of using violence to achieve political change in the US, not only will I shut up, I'll apologize. Until then, you are doing exactly what people have told you not to do all your life: "Don't judge a book by its cover". You are taking the title of a book you haven't read and trying to link it to an act of violence. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

That is not required. The title is sufficient. Dock^Hi 17:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

LMAO> You really believe that don't you? You think you can tell more about the book by the title than someone who actually read it knows. Well, since you want to be so literal, how can you assume that the word "war" means violence? The dictionary defines war as: "a struggle: a war for men's minds; a war against poverty." or "to be in conflict or in a state of strong opposition". Note that neither of those require VIOLENCE to be "war". Niteshift36 (talk) 17:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I am surprised about the unwillingness of you in focussing and discussing about the content of the article. Dock^Hi 17:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

(EC) Dock, your lack of civility is starting to wear thin. Your assumptions about the book based on the title in conjunction with your attempt to correlate the book with the actions are original research. Arzel (talk) 17:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

No more surprised than I am at your unwillingness to look at the issue of relevence Niteshift36 (talk) 17:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, I am not correlating anything. I am just talking about including a factual occurence related to this article. Dock^Hi 17:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

It is totally irrelevant to the book. It is just your attenmpt to smear him. Thus, it needs removing.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 17:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Did you read the reference. Dock^Hi 17:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I did. You cherry picked, in order to smear. It still has no business in an encyclopedia.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 17:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Please be aware that I was not the one who first added it. Pls explain cherry picking. Dock^Hi 17:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Bedford's specific issues

Bedford, as the editor who tagged the article, please make your specific case in this section. Thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 20:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I would think it was obvious. Between blaming the book for the shooting, and having nothing but negative reviews from those who had negative reviews written for it even before they read the book, if they ever did, there are neutrality problems. The insinuating of the shooting link also caused me to add the weasel tag, although admittedly it is a lesser charge.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 20:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

No one is blaming the book for the shooting. Where in the article does it, or has it ever, said that? The KnoxNews writer found the seizure of the book from Adkisson's home to be notable enough to put into his news story. Why do you have a problem with that relable, verifiable, published fact being included in this article? You claim a lack of neutrality. Then please edit the article by adding positive reviews if you can find them from relable, verifiable, published sources. On the other hand, if the book has only been given negative reviews (which I doubt, but it's possible), then why is the article non-neutral to report those negative reviews? Please respond with specifics. Thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 20:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

By having that section on the shooting, it is a weasely way to blame the book on the shooting. As for positive reviews, as soon as I am done with all the sources for another articles, I'll deal with this one.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 21:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't speak for other editors, but I don't have a problem with removing the section heading. However, the one sentence needs to remain. As for adding your positive reviews, how long do you expect that to take? Hours, days, weeks? A guess would be fine, because the tags need to be removed as soon as reasonable. Thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 21:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll try before going asleep tonight. Tomorrow, otherwise. (I'm on US East Coast time).--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 21:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. As an expression of good faith, I'll remove the section heading. I look forward to your edits. Thanks again. --Art Smart (talk) 21:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Losing the section heading is an acceptable compromise IMHO. Gamaliel (talk) 22:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I know it is wikipedia policy to assume good faith. But in the course of this debate, looking at the original editors page, looking at the names he calls those who disagree and the lack of reasoning aside from "well, it was there", I can't assume it any longer. Nobody here is gullible enough to believe that this entry has been argued so long without there being more than "well, it was there" behind this. One would have to be totally gullible to believe that there is no implication intended with this entry. I'm not fooled and apparently I'm not alone. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Expanding the reviews section is a good thing, but there are some problems with the recent edits. It labels all critics of the book as liberals (the reviewer from People is a liberal? How do you know? Citation please.) and then attributes comments about the church shooting to these same reviewers, with no evidence of a connection between the two. Gamaliel (talk) 00:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It needs some rewriting. Docku^Hi 00:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Rewriting done. I removed the "conservative" and "liberal" labels to avoid synthesis, reformatted the reviews into a bullet list for easier reading, moved punctuation to be within quotes, changed quotes-within-quotes to apostrophes, cleaned up and added more details to on-line references to comply with templates, and removed the two tags. King Bedford I, please replace the tags if you feel they are still needed, but I suspect with all the work you and I both put into it, they won't be needed anymore. Thanks. --Art Smart ^Chart/Heart 09:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I can live with this. I might actually own a copy, so if I find it, I'll give a better summary of its content.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 12:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Who labeled the book testicular cancer? Unless this can be attributed to someone it should go. Arzel (talk) 13:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Both praise and criticism sound more partisan, thus attribution of all comments may be necessary.Docku^Hi 13:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem isn't that the quote is unattributed, it's that nobody bothered to look at the cited source. The "testicular cancer" quote, which sounds like something a reviewer might actually write, does not appear in the source and is likely uncaught vandalism. An older version of the article reveals that the source was actually attached to a quote which reads "an unapologetic diatribe against liberalism, questioning its logic and posing questions about the outcome of its agenda for Americans". I will edit the article accordingly. Gamaliel (talk) 14:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

lead section

The lead has only a negative review. It might be important to add a positive review also for balance. Docku^Hi 14:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It's negative? I placed that particular quote in the lead because I thought it was a neutral description of the book and it was not from an opinionated review, but from a neutral reference source, Contemporary Authors Online. Gamaliel (talk) 14:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

"Diatribe" is a loaded term; good for a review of the book, but not for the intro. Putting the bracketed word "thesis" keeps the gist of the statement as an intro, without a loaded word.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 17:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but then we are drastically changing the character of the quote. If you don't think it should be in the intro, we can move it or remove it, but we shouldn't alter it. Gamaliel (talk) 18:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I dont support altering it or removing it. But moving it is an option. Docku^Hi 18:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Reliable source?

A source was reinstated with the claim is was reliable. Have you actually SEEN the quote? Can you say, with certainty, that is is accurate? Niteshift36 (talk) 02:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Gamaliel (talk) 12:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll AGF and presume that you are telling the truth. Can you make it available for those who might not be inclined to just take your word for it? Niteshift36 (talk) 12:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a very common reference source and is available at thousands of libraries if you wish to verify the quote. Gamaliel (talk) 14:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't it strike you as odd that out of the entire internet, the best quote we can find is one not available online? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure if online availability is the definition of best source. Docku^Hi 19:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

No, but it certianly can defuse a situation like this in a big hurry. Gamaliel said he would post the source and we should give him the time to do so. CENSEI (talk) 19:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware there was a situation. The quote is cited to a widely available, respected reference work from a reputable publisher. That's pretty much the end of it. Gamaliel (talk) 19:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the "situation" is that some here are questioning the accuracy of a quote they do not have ready access to. I think if you do have access to the quote, you should post it. CENSEI (talk) 19:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

What reason is there to question the quote's accuracy? Gamaliel (talk) 19:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not questioning the accuracy, Niteshift has the issue with it and whatever issue is present could be moot in 5 seconds if the full quote was posted. CENSEI (talk) 20:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Then he can explain what the issue is. Gamaliel (talk) 20:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

No need to be short, just trying to save everone some grief. CENSEI (talk) 20:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, that was not the intent of my comment. Gamaliel (talk) 20:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Gamaliel, is there anyway you could provide the entire passage? I would be interested in seeing it. CENSEI (talk) 15:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Next time I log into that database I will try to remember to dig it up. Gamaliel (talk) 16:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I think it will put this issue to rest. CENSEI (talk) 16:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. I expect that sort of thing. Databases like Lexis/Nexis and Gale Biography Resource Center are more comprehensive and reliable than a Google search and I've found them much more useful than Google for writing Wikipedia articles. They are available from most libraries and I recommend them to all WP editors. Gamaliel (talk) 16:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I asked the question because I saw a situation in the past where an administrator disallowed something relevant and factual (not controversial) because it wasn't available online. The editor putting it in had the magazine it was from. I had it too and knew he was representing it accurately. But the admin disallowed it because it wasn't available for him to see. Essentially, his opinion was that if he couldn't click to see it, then it wasn't reliable. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

That's appalling, frankly. There are plenty of reliable, acceptable sources that aren't available instantly with a mouse click. If this is the only reason that this administrator objected to the source, then he's flat out wrong to do so. Gamaliel (talk) 01:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, that is what motivated my question. I thought it sounded ridiculous too. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Church shooting

Despite comments made to me that there was a consensus against including this material, I see nothing more than two some editors who disagree. I'm going to restore it because I see no compelling reason offered here to remove it. There are plenty of examples of noting relevant facts - see Shine (Collective Soul song and The Catcher in the Rye. We should be conscious of BLP concerns, but no one would imagine invoking BLP to remove an imaginary slur on the reputation of Collective Soul or J.D. Salinger, so we should not do such a thing here because we are overly sensitive to potential connotations to factual, sourced information. Gamaliel (talk) 01:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

So far we have this breakdown

In Favor of inclusion: Gamaliel, Art Smart

On the Fence: Docku (correct me if I am wrong)

Against Inclusion: CENSEI, Niteshift, Bedford, Arzel

That looks as if more have argued against inclusion than for inclusion. CENSEI (talk) 01:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Such a small difference doesn't really mean anything. Gamaliel (talk) 01:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't "2 editors". It was 2 administrators who agreed that the inclusion conflicts with WP:BLP and other issues. The issue is settled. Removing it now is simply reverting vandalism. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned to Censei, when I said two editors, I was responding to the wrong section. My mistake. So who are the administrators who agree with your view? I don't see any administrators on Censei's list. Please post a link to the relevant discussion. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 01:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say the administrators were on Censei's list, did I? Here is your link to the discussion on the AN: [2] Note that administrator CIreland said: "CENSEI was correct to revert your edits and you should not restore them. Even if BLP were not an issue, the edits are problematic with regard to a number of other policies too". Then administrator Guy/JzG, agreed that the info was based on a false premise. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I'll be God damned! I knew I saw it on a noticeboard somewhere! Good catch. Anyhoo ... this would seem to end this debate. CENSEI (talk) 02:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, you are mistaken about Wikipedia policy if you think you can declare a discussion over and all relevant edits after that "vandalism". Consensus can change, assuming there was even consensus before, and I don't think 3-4 is consensus for anything. I abandoned the previous discussion due to uncivil conduct by you and and Censei. I plan on reopening it now and perhaps opening an RfC. Gamaliel (talk) 01:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

This was solved at the AN. Why do you refuse to accept it? The ruling was that inclusion is a violation of WP:BLP. Finding more friends to come here and say it isn't won't change the ruling. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

A ruling? That's not how Wikipedia works, generally. Can you please point me to this "ruling" with a wiki link? Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 02:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh please. Now you want to play semantics? Fine, I'll re-phrase it: 2 uninvolved administrators reviewed the situation and opined that the inclusion is a problem with wp:blp and other policies. I have given you the link to that, as well as a very specific quote. Now that you no longer have semantics to fall back on, please answer my question: Why do you refuse to accept what was decided at the AN? Niteshift36 (talk) 02:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

When I can read the relevant discussion, I will answer. For the third time, where is this discussion? Gamaliel (talk) 02:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

AGAIN, I have provided you with the link. It is in this very secion, in my response where I say "Here is your link to the discussion on the AN" I'm not sure how much more plain I can make it. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It was actually 4-2 and thats enough to pass a constitutional amendment. You not only abandoned the discussion, but did not revert my las edit, until today that is (and why today who knows). Open the RfC, the more voices the better. CENSEI (talk) 01:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

4-2 to pass a constitutional amendment? In what country? Here, such a small margin is not generally considered consensus. Gamaliel (talk) 02:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

4-2 is a two thirds majority, insnt it .... wait ... let me get my calculator. At any rate, there is the ANI post on me as well. CENSEI (talk) 02:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I think RfC's are usually a waste of time, particularly when the matter has already been ruled on. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, here is the link. By the way, who was the second uninvolved editor who commented on this.Docku^Hi 02:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I have already stated this Docku, in this section. Administrator Jzg/Guy agreed that it was contrary to policy. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Finally, some one has something practical to add. Thank you. I will read the discussion and post my thoughts tomorrow. Gamaliel (talk) 02:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

That is the same exact link I have already provided in this section. Censi saw it. Why do you keep pretending that I have not provided it? Niteshift36 (talk) 02:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Niteshift, Are you sure it is really his (Guy's) comments? Docku^Hi 02:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

He said "Ahem, I think you'll find it's blackguard. But I agree wholeheartedly.". He agreed with what CIreland said: "Stating that Book X was found in the house of notorious blaggard Y is doubly problematic. On the one hand, it serves to imply that the book is dubious by association. On the other hand, it also implies that Y is an adherent of the ideas in the book. Both ways round, this is problematic with regard to neutral point of view, original research and wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. To the extent that it implies something about a living person, WP:BLP is thus also relevant. Guy may not like the politics involved, but apparently doesn't think the info should be included. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I do understand. If you go back and read the section again, you will find the comments of Guy and Dravecky little different. Dont you find it a little odd? I am not sure if the comments really belong to them. Docku^Hi 02:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Odd or not, CIreland, who is an Admin as well, clearly stated that inclusion violates several WP policies, backing up the opinion of several editors here. Most important is that his opinion was asked not from the point of view of what he thought about inclusion, but about Censei's actions. With a completely impartial point of view CIreland's opinion was that Censei was correct. This should really be the end of this issue. Arzel (talk) 03:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not discussing about this. Dont you think their signatures are vandalised. Docku^Hi 03:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, going over their edit histories, they both made edits to Censei's ANI section. It would appear that unless someone hacked their accounts it is they who made those comments. Arzel (talk) 03:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything that makes me think vandalism. I'm not sure what you are talking about Docku. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I am nisunderstanding. I am just copying from there. What is this supposed to mean. Docku^Hi 04:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• That article qualifies for a template:

Sadly the problem is the book as much as the article... Guy (Help!) 15:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no reason to believe that isn't his. While Guy may not like the Hannity's politics, and he is free to express that as far as I'm concerned, he still saw a problem with the inclusion of the material. You don't have to like it for the rule to be applied correctly. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, The problem is I dont understand. I will be very happy if you help me understand. Docku^Hi 04:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Not sure exactly what he is talking about there, but it appears Guy made that comment without logging in, and then came back and added his sig. Arzel (talk) 04:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that signature change. I wanted to clarify with him right away. Anyway, I will drop him a word. It says he is retired though. It is all strange. Docku^Hi 04:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks like he is simply tired (the re is crossed out), as he is still making contributions. Arzel (talk) 04:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Damn. didnt notice it. Thanks. Docku^Hi 04:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

All I see is that he put that template in there to express his opinion about the content, but was clear on his opinion about the application of the policy. Regardless, as we've pointed out, an uninvolved admin was very clear in his opinion that the Adkisson blurb doesn't belong.

I would support an RFC. There is nothing wrong in getting more outside opinions. Docku^Hi 14:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Turner Diaries and catcher in the eye

What do you say about edit by an anonymous IP. The Turner Diaries and The Catcher in the Rye. I found the rational proposed by the IP in this instance quite interesting. Docku^Hi 21:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The Turner Diaries actually advocates the use of violence. TD was shown to have been a strong influence for the crimes committed. I fully agree the mention belongs there. This book does NOT advocate violence as a means to make political or social change in the US. This is merely guilt by association. Please note for those who think this is strictly a political argument with me, I haven't said a word in the article about Savages book. In my opinion, Savage is inflammatory and a much stronger argument could be made for inclusion. I don't see ANYTHING in this book that would lead anyone to violence. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I havent read both the books and so cant confirm whether I agree or disagree with you. What about The Cathcer in the Rye? Docku^Hi 00:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I skipped reading Catcher, that's why I left it out of my response. Nor do I plan to argue it, because I believe that since I haven't read the book, I can't give an informed opinion one way or the other. I find it odd that nobody who is arguing FOR the inclusion of the Adkisson mention has stated that they actually read the book. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It is because we are not the ones who are making the connection between the book and his actions. We are writing a connection reported in a newspaper which is a reliable source. This is actually one of the core principles of wikipedia. We are not news organisation, we are just an encyclopedia. Quote from verifiability guidelines The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Docku^Hi 00:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

You are missing the point entirely. The "connection" reported was mere presence. The cited article doesn't make a connection between the book and the actions, it only reports on the presence of the book in the home. Yet when I tried to add that other items like his insurance bill were also seized, the entry was deleted. Under WP:BLP we have to avoid guilt by association, which is EXACTLY what this is. Inclusion under BLP isn't limited solely to verafiability. There has to be relevence. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

As for your claim that is simply has to be true to be included, I cite WP:BLP: "Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Editors should also be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be promoting a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability." While you have a 3rd party source, you have NOT come close to establishing any relevance to the book. In fact, as far as I can see, the only argument you've made for inclusion is that you can verify it was in the mans home. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with you. The connection is only the presence of the book. Isnt that what we chose to include in the article? Docku^Hi 00:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't. Because the inclusion is guilt by association. It implies that the book took a role in the event. Try this for an experiment. Go to the article on the Ford Escape and include the info that Adkisson had a Ford Escape. See if anyone agrees it is relevant because of its mere presence. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we both have merits in our argument, that is why we might need opinions of more uninvolved editors. One opinion is not enough among thousands wikipedians. Docku^Hi 00:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, go put the info in the article about the Ford Escape and see if they see the "merits" of your argument. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

If you are so confident that my arguments have no merit, why are you worried about getting more outside opinions. Dont tell me it is a waste of time, I dont see any let up in you arguing with me. Docku^Hi 16:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

You keep talking about a RfC. I can't stop you. My opinion on everything else seems inconsequential to you, so I don't know why you feel you need my consent on this. And yes, I DO think it's a waste of time. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Neutrailty

There has been a lot of criticism regarding the book's inaccuracy and bias but the reception only notes praise. User:HumanFrailty 21:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• The article used to contain 2 positive and 2 negative reviews. Instead of fooling around with tags, why not just restore the negative ones or come up with a couple of your own? Niteshift36 (talk) 23:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

CSD nomination silliness

The nomination is absurd and obviously motivated by bias. A NYT best selling book, written by a notable person, meets every criteria for notability there is. If the nom has an issue with the tone, revision suggestions should be made, not a CSD. Niteshift36 (talk) 11:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Let Freedom Ring: Winning the War of Liberty over Liberalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070213220421/http://www.nationalreview.com:80/script/printpage.p?ref=/lopez/lopez082802.asp to http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.p?ref=/lopez/lopez082802.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:54, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Let Freedom Ring: Winning the War of Liberty over Liberalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081007050258/http://www.conservativebookclub.com/products/bookpage.asp?prod_cd=C6024 to http://www.conservativebookclub.com/products/bookpage.asp?prod_cd=C6024

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:09, 21 December 2017 (UTC)