Talk:100 People Who Are Screwing Up America

message: The purpose of listing all the conservatives in the book is to provide support for the primary criticism directed at the book: that Goldberg targets only a small number of easy conservative targets, while spending the vast majority of his time attacking anyone associated with liberal causes.
Byrd is not a conservative by any reasonable measure.  Every ratings system I know of marks him as one of the more liberal members of the Senate, which makes him ultra-liberal for WV.  I suspect the only point of putting him in there originally was to attack him for his KKK service, which is fine, but it doesn't belong in that paragraph.
To simply change the word "conservatives" to "targets" in order to accommodate Byrd changes the whole intent of the sentence in the first place. We already have the list printed down below, so there's no point in just listing a few of them for no reason. Also, I think we should be a little more careful before throwing around charges of bias. I think we're all trying to make this article as fair and accurate as possible.
- Maximusveritas 22:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to check some of those ratings systems I'm talking about, go to   You will see that Byrd has earned consistently high marks from liberal groups, while getting low marks from conservative.  Meanwhile, the nonpartisan National Journal has consistently noted him for voting more liberal on economic, social, and foreign policy than his colleagues.  There is overwhelming evidence that he is NOT conservative. -Maximusveritas 17:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

message: Is it important to list the individual as a conservative commentator in this section? Wouldn't doing so just mean that we'd have to list the political leanings of anyone who expressed a viewpoint on this book?128.118.184.22 (talk) 20:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not necessarily, but you could certainly remove the "conservative" description of Jonah Goldberg. Croctotheface (talk) 20:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fair, will do. Thanks for your answer, I wanted to make sure I was doing it correctly. 209.158.14.44 (talk) 04:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Praise Section 

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

message: I think it is. He killed people, for crying out loud. A quote from the Executive Producer of Fear Factor (yeah, that Fear Factor) is relevant?  — [Unsigned .]
: That a crazy person would cite the book as an inspiration for being crazy is not relevant to the book.  If some killer cited, say, Crime and Punishment, I sincerely hope we wouldn't update that article to reflect it.  The reader gains no understanding about this book by being told that some unhinged killer found it to be an inspiration.  It's a trivia item and best and at worst is designed to disparage this book, which is a clear NPOV violation. Croctotheface (talk) 21:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. The entry for the "Taxi Driver" movie, for instance, discusses the film's influence on John Hinckley, Jr. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxi_Driver#John_Hinckley.2C_Jr.) 5th Beatle (talk) 15:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's a work of fiction; it doesn't have the same issues with drawing a parallel between the views of the author and the views of a killer.  Having said that, I'd probably favor discussing the Hinckley-Taxi Driver relationship only in the Hinckley article on the same grounds: it lends insight into the person, but not the movie.  Croctotheface (talk) 02:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Well, not really, for all the reasons I've already enumerated.  And your very strong opinion doesn't jive very well with WP:NPOV. Croctotheface (talk) 15:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: NPOV only requires the content be written with a Neutral POV; it doesn't mean I'm not entitled to an opinion. In addition, deleting all reference to the killings seems to reflect a point of view as well. Hinckley drew inspiration from "Taxi Driver" and "Catcher in the Rye", and Charles Manson claims the Beatles "White Albums" afforded him guidance. Rational people can process the facts in those cases, but you argue for concealing the facts so they don't get the chance to decide for themselves. Dogger55 (talk) 16:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

text: As much as is pains me to agree with Dogger55 here, (as if left-wing speech was less inflammatory...sheesh!), the Unitarian murders seems appropriate. The reference seems quite specific, the murders notable, and the Wikipedia precedent set.--Knulclunk (talk) 17:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is there a precedent (and does Wikipedia work on precedent?) for citing a work of non-fiction this way?  Non-fiction is much more closely associated with the author and his views than fiction is.  I'm very concerned with drawing a parallel between Goldberg and a murderer here.  I know that, for instance, Keith Olbermann (whose show I watch from time to time) has made a point of emphasizing this connection as if Goldberg should feel some sense of responsibility for the murders.  It's very easy for a reader to get that same kind of impression here.  Croctotheface (talk) 04:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The current edit is a reasonable compromise here. It cites bare facts without POV or blame, and gives the reader a link where more information can be obtained. Please note that the police found the works of Hannity, Savage and O'Reilly when they searched the Jim David Adkisson home. I believe (my un-N POV) that those authors share the blame for inciting this crime, but he did not give them credit in his manifesto so I did not do so via Wiki. Dogger55 (talk) 07:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

text: The new edit is good. It sounds like Olberman is a buffoon.--Knulclunk (talk) 14:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but everyone knows it, so whomever Olberman criticizes is actually praised. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crazy Guy Not Relevant? 

message: I replaced the cleanup tag. I thought it was obvious enough that the article was in need of it. Of the three main sections, not including references, we've got "Reception", "Reviews", and "Responses". That's it. And that's really probably better for one section, as it's all pretty much in the same category or what people thought of it. There's no "Synopsis" or "Overview" section, which is basic for any book article; no "Publication details"; and no "Background" section, which could serve this article well if there are sources to fill it. The major stuff aside, there are stylistic issues, such as the misuse of the cquote template, and a need to work stubby paragraphs into prose in the last section. لennavecia 12:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that there's stuff missing from the article that should be in there, but wouldn't that be an expansion issue, not a cleanup issue?  As far as the rest of that stuff, I'm not sure it rises to the level of a cleanup job.   Croctotheface (talk) 19:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a clean-up issue. The sections are not as they should be, the prose needs to be worked on, the templates removed/swapped. You can hit it with an expansion template, too, but there are enough issues that cleanup covers it. لennavecia 20:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Still disagree about expansion vs. cleanup; doesn't cleanup refer to the stuff that's already in there needing to be cleaned up?  In any case, I didn't realize until now that you had just added the tag, so I just want to say that I would not have removed it if I realized how new it was.  Croctotheface (talk) 04:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  My point is that in addition to needing expansion, what is there now needs to be cleaned up. All current sections need to be merged, the templates removed and the quotes worked into the prose. The paragraphs in the last section are stubby and need to be written into larger paragraphs. So, it's not just a matter of expanding. There's a need for cleanup. لennavecia 04:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

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

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.boston.com/news/globe/living/articles/2005/08/02/attacking_liberals_is_high_on_his_list?mode=PF
** In 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America on 2011-05-23 01:58:03, 404 Not Found
** In 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America on 2011-05-31 21:21:05, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 21:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

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