Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bedford (talk | contribs) at 12:20, 4 August 2008 (→Bedford's specific issues). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 12:20, 4 August 2008 by Bedford (talk | contribs) (→Bedford's specific issues)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
WikiProject iconBooks Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook
???This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Template:Comment Guidelines

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 " 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 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 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 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 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 16:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you pls cite some wikipedia policy. Dock 16:55, 3 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 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)

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 17:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Did you read the reference. Dock 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 17:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Please be aware that I was not the one who first added it. Pls explain cherry picking. Dock 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 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 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 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 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 /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 12:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Categories: