Wikipedia

Talk:Alan Berg/Archive 1

< Talk:Alan Berg
Latest comment: 5 years ago by 192.34.131.212 in topic Poor wording - "Radio Career" section
Archive 1

Public life

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Berg had a very public life that involved much more than just his assasination. This article needs to be fleshed out with more detail. StudierMalMarburg 21:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Problematic

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Like the entries on David Lane and George Lincoln Rockwell, this was clearly written by somebody who is sympathetic to the white supremacist movement. There's an attempt at non-bias, but the devil is in the details, ie the identification of Berg as a 'Jewish' talk show host, and the mention that Lane is seen by his admirers as a 'hero and prisoner of war'. Hate speech is becoming a real problem on this site.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 170.20.11.116 (talk) 03:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

If you can think of better wording, feel free to change how it currently reads, but both statements in some form seem relevant to the article. The fact that Berg was Jewish was one major reason he was murdered, so it would be odd to leave it out. David Lane did become something of a martyr to white-nationalists as a result of his conviction in relation to the murder, so that also seems worth mentioning. I do agree with a previous comment that more on his actual life should be in the article. --Delirium 20:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Unconfirmed info, reference to non-reliable source

Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

"During his trial, it was revealed that after he received death threats from The Order, Berg, a proponent of gun control, applied for a handgun permit with Denver Police Chief Ari Zavaras less than a year before his death. Zavaras denied it"

the grammar is a bit extravagant for wiki, is it not? I will not edit as I do not know the facts --Kvuo 05:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The source given for that allegation is not a news organization, but an article on an advocay site. That article gives Stephen Singular's 1987 book Talked to Death: The Life and Murder of Alan Berg as its source for the information. Singular also advocates a wildly implausible, sensationalist theory regarding the death of JonBenét Ramsey (child pornographers; father complicit in cover-up) here, which goes to show that he is not a reliable source. Moreover, a combined Google search for "alan berg" and "handgun permit" yielded only links to Wikipedia mirrors, discussion boards and advocacy sites. See WP:REDFLAG. Unless someone can provide a reference to some hard evidence (e.g. a handgun permit application form filled in by Berg) or an interview in which the police chief confirms rather than denies that there was an application from Berg, the information should not be in the article. I have removed it. --Bwiki 23:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The police chief denied the permit in the sense of denying (turning down) the application. Denver had a discretionary permit system and applications were routinely denied in the sense of not being approved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.7.138.39 (talk) 02:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I notice Bwiki's user page describes Bwiki as Danish. Here he uses "deny" in the sense of "to confirm or deny" the report when the original usage was in the sense of "to approve or deny" the application.
  • From: Clayton Cramer and David Kopel, "Shall Issue": The New Wave of Concealed Handgun Permit Laws," Tennessee Law Review 62:3 [Spring, 1995] 679-757, October 17, 1994:

""Denver talk-show host Alan Berg was Jewish, passionate, highly provocative, and fond of insulting people with whom he disagreed. When Berg began receiving death threats from white supremacists, he went to a local police department to ask for a handgun carry permit. The police chief attempted to talk him out of applying, and finally rejected his application. Shortly thereafter, Berg was assassinated by members of Aryan Nations. [10] No one will ever know whether, had Berg been armed, he might have frightened off the men who came to murder him; what is known is that without a gun, Alan Berg was speedily killed."" ""Footnote 10. Stephen Singular, Talked to Death (N.Y.: Beech Tree Books, 1987), p. 142. The police department in question was in Englewood, a suburb of Denver.""

Oliver Stone's movie Talk Radio (1988) is based on Stephen Singular's book Talked to Death (1987). Yes, Oliver Stone is scarcely more a reliable source than Singular, but what Singular wrote is not a matter of theory, it is a matter of fact about the Alan Berg case: Berg was under death threat, was denied a permit to carry for self-defense, and was murdered by the Bob Mathews gang Bruder Schweigen aka Silent Brotherhood aka The Order who were not hampered by the gun laws.Naaman Brown (talk) 18:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Who she?

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Who's Ellen Kaplan? She needs explaining. --Cunningham 09:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

There has never been an Ellen Kaplan who has served as Colorado's Secretary of State. During most of Berg's career in Denver, the office was filled by Mary Estill Buchanan. At the time of his death, the S of S was Natalie Meyer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.238.225 (talk) 04:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The information

"After receiving a flap from former Secretary of State Ellen Kaplan, he invited her on the show and berated her"

from http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0073686/bio ist probably wrong, --Rosenkohl (talk) 23:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

There is currently a conflict about the inclusion of the Censorship in the US link under "See also".

From the article (which might be lacking, of course) I see no indication that censorship played a role in Berg's life. I think the one case that's cited now as censorship is his own murder, which was indeed partly as a reaction to what Berg said, but still this is not censorship.

According to the article Censorship: "Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions.[1]"

Censorship is about the suppression of speech, not about revenge for speech. Whereever the is censorship, people are (either by the state or by other bodies) prevented from publishing their opinions. Berg was not prevented, he very forcefully said what he had in mind. That someone murdered him for his opinions is quite a distinct matter.

Of course, one might argue a connection between this act and censorship, but then it should be argued (based on source, for which currently there are none) and not simply sneaked in without explanations as a "see also" link.

Str1977 (talk) 06:51, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

It is ambiguous enough to have a minor note as a "see also". His murder certainly acted to censor him, and he was murdered as an act of censorship, in a similar way to the murders of the Mohammad comic people and the comparable Charlie Hebdo shooting. In that article, you will note a see also to censorship. It seems to be a similar issue, and there is already precedent. It would be strange not to have a see also here. Indeed, we should probably have a lot more than just a see also, but I think at this stage it should be up to another editor than myself and Str1977 to make the change. Mister Sneeze A Lot (talk) 11:48, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, these examples are not censorship either but murder. Censorship comes before publication, not afterwards.
But my main point is: as long as the connection towards that other article is that fuzzy that you cannot bring yourself to connect the two with words, it shouldn't be there in the first place. Simply putting this link here is lazy writing/editing. Str1977 (talk) 21:44, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Since you broke WP:3RR with this, I am not going to undo it again, but I urge you to undo it yourself. This is the clearest example of censorship that exists. You are, quite simply, wrong. Please can someone else interject. Mister Sneeze A Lot (talk) 01:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Repeated deletion of referenced material

Latest comment: 8 years ago41 comments4 people in discussion

@Gob Lofa: You deleted a statement in the lead that was clearly referenced in the body of the text, then deleted the reversion when the reference was added to the lead. You made the incomprehensible comment “No, that was a reason given, not necessarily the actual reason”. Since you seem to know the “actual reason”, in contradistinction to the “reason given” by the trial court and was provided in the references, please explicate. Otherwise, your repeated deletions will constitute vandalism. N0TABENE (talk) 19:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

@Gob Lofa: Additional external references to support statement that Alan Berg was assassinated in part because he was Jewish was added to main body of text. Wikipedia common practice does not require references in the lede if it is supported in the main text. There are now three citations to support this statement, whereas you have provide no source for your contention the statement is not supported, or is "not the actual reason". Unless you can provide verifiable sources to support the deletions you have repeated made, you should refrain from unconstructive editing.20:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
You say "Alan Berg was assassinated in part because he was Jewish" and I agree wholeheartedly; I've no doubt Berg's Jewishness was a factor for his killers. But your edit made it look like the sole reason. Gob Lofa (talk) 20:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Actually, your edit removed any reference to the fact that his murderers considered his being Jewish as a motive. I merely replaced your deletion and provided further documentation from one of the men convicted of his murder that in fact it was his Jewish religion that was their motivation. You never provided any documentation to the contrary, nor explicated your meaningless statement "No, that was a reason given, not necessarily the actual reason”, as if you are privy to some unreferenced source. N0TABENE (talk) 20:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Allow me to explicate. You write "I...provided further documentation from one of the men convicted of his murder that in fact it was his Jewish religion that was their motivstion." Once again, this comes across as if his Jewishness is the sole factor, when other factors are mentioned in the article. I've no objection to having his Jewishness as a motive. My objection is to having it as the sole motive, as your revert did. Gob Lofa (talk) 00:05, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Then how would you suggest rephrasing the lead to address your concerns? The only motive that was agreed upon by the 3 referenced sources (the producer, the prosecutor and the witness) was the fact that he was Jewish. I am amenable to a more inclusive statement, but remember that the lead is supposed to be a brief précis of the article, not a restatement. Your original objection and deletion was that the statement in the lead was not supported in the article, when in fact, there was a reference for the statement. There are now 3 separate references to support the statement, while the other possible motives differed according to the source. N0TABENE (talk) 17:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
He was killed because he was an outspoken liberal Jew. Gob Lofa (talk) 11:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Except neither the adjective "outspoken" nor "liberal" was stated by anyone as a motive for his murder. The only common element was his Jewish religion. Your statement now includes undocumented inferences. N0TABENE (talk) 11:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
You're right, they in fact said "anti-white" and "mouthed his hate-whitey propaganda" instead, but I took the liberty of paraphrasing. Gob Lofa (talk) 13:30, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for admitting that I am correct. Now stop deleting properly referenced material. You did not provide any reference to the contrary, so your repeated deletions constitute destructive editing. N0TABENE (talk) 13:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Contrary to what? I'm not disputing Berg's Jewishness was a factor, I'm challenging the emphasis you're giving it. Gob Lofa (talk) 14:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm not emphasizing it - the Federal prosecutor, the chief witness to the murder and the person who arranged the murder were the ones who emphasized it, if you read the cited sources. That was the only factor mentioned by all of the parties, the "other factors" as you put it varied by source. His religion was the only common factor mentioned by all of them. N0TABENE (talk) 14:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
You're re-emphasising it, at the expense of the other reasons given by the supremacists. You're making it look like Berg was killed for no other reason. Gob Lofa (talk) 15:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
And your repeated deletion ignores the fact that it was mentioned by every party involved in the murder and the prosecution. I have added additional verbiage, but now your repeated deletions are just disruptive and unsubstantiated. N0TABENE (talk) 09:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I have Gob Lofa's page on watch given several interactions on British and Irish articles so I saw your warning. Having looked at the material I think he has it right this time. The references do not say Berg was killed simply because he was Jewish. They are clear that he 'baited' the group for their anti-Semitic views and that was the provocation. As much their egos as anything else from the sources. I've made a change which seems consistent with the sources and hopefully that will help. ----Snowded TALK 09:21, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

@Snowded:There are 5 separate references in this article (ref. 2, 3, 4, 10 and 11) which all say that his being Jewish was a reason for being targeted for assassination. Here is the text in the body of the article:
Berg was on a death list according to a former producer because he was Jewish and he challenged on the air the beliefs of an author who wrote that Jews were from the family line of the devil.[2] At the trial for his murder, prosecutors contended that he was singled out for assassination because he was a Jew and because his personality incurred the anger of white supremacists. [10] At the conspiracy trial of members of The Order, the white supremacist organization which was responsible for organizing the assassination, a founding member of the group Denver Daw Parmenter was asked why Berg was targeted, he responded “He was mainly thought to be anti-white and he was Jewish".[11]
Baiting was not mentioned by the prosecution, nor by the leaders of the group. That was how the press reported it. His Jewish religion, as well as his views (which I added before you deleted it) were mentioned by ALL of the referenced sources, so while I respect your opinion, the reference all say that his Jewish religion was definitely the major factor. Your edit to the lede does not summarize the content of the body of the article which is what the précis is supposed to do. N0TABENE (talk) 18:48, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
We go from the sources and they do not say be was killed because he was jewish per se, but because he baited a bunch of anti-semitic nutters. I doubt he would have been on a death list if it wasn't for his public position and the press are obviously reflecting that. You are interpreting primary data not reflecting sources. ----Snowded TALK 18:52, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
The sources do say he was targeted fro being Jewish, as above. Perhaps if he had been a more docile Jew he would not have been killed, but is that really an argument you want to make? When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 19:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
I'll make it. Gob Lofa (talk) 20:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
That's a pretty disgusting argument, of the 'blame the victim' variety. But not surprising to see you make it. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 20:07, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't know what argument you think I'm making. Gob Lofa (talk) 20:10, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Presumably , the argument that if he had been a more docile Jew he would not have been killed, which is the argument I asked Snowded if he wants to make. That's what you were responding to. Have you read up on your Gricean maxims lately? When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 20:23, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
If he had been docile, I doubt he would have been killed; why does that disgust you? It doesn't absolve his killers in the slightest. Gob Lofa (talk) 21:14, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Because it is an exact analogue of "if she wasn't wearing that short skirt, she wouldn't have been raped", or "If he wasn't walking around in a Nation of Islam t-shirt in a white neighborhood, he wouldn't have been lynched" It a disgusting "blame the victim argument" which no decent human being would make, even if it has a grain of truth to it. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 21:43, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Its not a matter of being docile, the fact is that he (to my mind legitimately) brought out the nonsense of a rather nasty anti-semitic group. That got him killed and it is what the sources say. Call an RfC if you think otherwise but (i) stop edit warring and (ii) stop the personal attacks. You should also read people's comments more carefully. I said I was sympathetic to him bating them, not to the bating argument. Taking on facist idiots like that group is to be commended and brave. That it resulted in his death is a tragedy. We are all on the same side here so stop trying to portray things otherwise. What matters is that the text corresponds with the sources. Please focus on that ----Snowded TALK 21:20, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
As I explained in my edit summary, what is legitimate or not to your mind has no relevance here. We go by reliable sources, and the sources clearly say he was killed because he was Jewish - "When asked why Mr. Berg was a target, Mr. Parmenter said the talk show host was considered very belligerent. 'Antiwhite and He Was Jewish' - [http://www.nytimes.com/1985/09/17/us/death-list-names-given-to-us-jury.html} -I've bolded the relevant part for you. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 21:39, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
very belligerent. Antiwhite - I've bolded the relevant text for you. Gob Lofa (talk) 21:44, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
feel free to add those as well, but don;t remove sourced material you don;t like. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 21:46, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
No one has reverted sourced material, your interpretation of that material is being challenged ----Snowded TALK 22:10, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
That's completely false. You have reverted it twice, as has Gob Lofa. Again - the fact that he was killed because he was Jewish is sourced - here is one such source for you, yet again: "When asked why Mr. Berg was a target, Mr. Parmenter said the talk show host was considered very belligerent. 'Antiwhite and He Was Jewish' - [http://www.nytimes.com/1985/09/17/us/death-list-names-given-to-us-jury.html} -I've bolded the relevant part for you. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 22:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
No. I bolded the relevant part for you just over an hour ago. Gob Lofa (talk) 23:00, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, and I responded to that. Learn to read. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 23:01, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
You didn't respond to the point you simply asserted again that you are right and now you are adding insults - as you do with your edit summaries. Your points have been read and two editors disagree with your interpretation of that material. It happens on wikipedia and you need to deal with that in a civil manner. You can call an RfC if you want to continue with this. Otherwise, checking your history I see that you were indefinitely banned from wikipedia earlier this year and only readmitted because you agreed to use the talk pages more and be less belligerent. You don't seem to be abiding by those reassurances on this article. Please moderate the tone of your comments or I will ask for a review by the unblocking admin----Snowded TALK 05:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
I most certainly responded to the point. A false claim was made by you and the other editor, that the claim was not supported by the source I provided you with a source that made that claim, explicitly. Misrepresenting others' comments is a very serious violation of WP:CIVILity. You need to moderate your own behavior. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 04:55, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Feel free to take that accusation to ANI if you are confident of it. Otherwise I think we are done here unless you have some new sources or argument. ----Snowded TALK 05:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I provided sources to support my claim, I am under no obligation to bring "additional sources". We are indeed done here - if you fail to address my argument , I will be restoring this content shortly. You can't stonewall your way to the version you prefer When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 05:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Revert without talk page agreement and I will raise your behaviour as an issue with the admin who agreed to remove your indef. Your choice ----Snowded TALK 06:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
@Snowded: Whoa whoa whoa, we ain’t done because you say we’re done. And in fact YOU reverted my well documented edit during this discussion without Talk page consensus, so WP:Don't call the kettle black. You launched an ad hominem attack on When Other Legends Are Forgotten for non-related issues totally irrelevant to the current discussion, then you threaten to have him banned again and say the discussion is over because of your selective reading of FIVE sources documenting the material both you and Gob Lofa have repeatedly deleted despite being amply supported in the references. And you’re asking for additional sources? May I remind you Focus on article content during discussions, not on editor conduct; comment on content, not the contributor. I am disappointed in your personal attacks on WOLAF. When you couldn’t comment on his well-reasoned remarks you brought up unrelated past events, and then issued threats of banning his account to “win” your point. Now back to the discussion of the content.
This discussion should be about what the sources state. The only fact that was mentioned by every party involved – the killers, the witnesses, the prosecution, the judge in the case, was his Jewish religion. Everyone then gave “other” reasons, none of which comported with one another. Even Gob said that his Jewish religion was a factor, if not THE factor (vide supra). Yet Gob Lofa and now you, have deleted ANY reference in the lede to his religion, which is counterfactual. The lede is supposed to be a summary of the content, and the statement you deleted was well sourced in the body of the text, yet you deleted it.
The most rationale resolution is to replace the statement you deleted, including both the fact he was Jewish and that he had controversial views. If you want an RfC, then call for it. The facts as presented in the 5 references added after Gob started deleting any mention of his being Jewish are more than sufficient, in fact are overwhelming in evidence to support this statement. There are TWO editors who disagree with your unsubstantiated deletions, and I will be putting the well documented text back in. Further, you should stick to the discussion of the content and stop bullying other editors.N0TABENE (talk) 12:53, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
You need a consensus to change text so if you insert contested material per WP:BRD I will revert to the version before your first edits (ignoring my insertion of anti-semitic) as a compromise. The references do not, for the reasons we have both explained, support the idea that he was killed simply because he was Jewish. Your changes were not well documented they were a misinterpretation of sources. The reference to past bad habits was prompted by the threat by WOLAF to insert contested material without agreement. There was a specific promise from the editor that s/he would stop doing that in return for the indefinite block being lifted so it was relevant. I could have just made the link but thought I would be nice .... ----Snowded TALK 12:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
For over 7 months, the lede stated that his religion was a motive for his killing. Gob Lofa removed that statement on Nov. 1, 2015 [1], and I reverted it immediately, thus starting the current discussion. He was BOLD, I REVERTED, then I started the Talk discussion, while Gob merely deleted text with cryptic or no explanation. Therefore, according to your invocation of WP:BRD, the text should be reverted to the point prior to the deletion by Gob Lofa, c.f. [2], including the mention of his religion as a motive for his killing, until the RfC reaches a consensus, which I have done following your suggestion. You are now filibustering and we’ve been through the WP:BRD, so now you’re into Wikipedia:BRD misuse.
Saying that you won’t allow it to be changed because there’s no consensus flies in the face of WP:DRNC. We have offered several options to resolve this and your response is deletion and threaten to revert, your way or the highway. Your and Gob Lofa’s repeated reverts constitute edit warring, and you got involved only after I warned Gob Lofa about his behaviour (yes, I lived in the UK for many years). Your jumping in with your own edits which you refuse to have changed constituted escalation, not attempting to reach a resolution. Be advised:
Warning: engaging in similar behavior by reverting a contribution during an edit war could be seen as disruptive and may garner sanctions. Never continue an edit war as an uninvolved party. A bold change during an edit war should be an adaptive edit to discourage further warring and not to escalate it; it should never be another revert.
Additionally, it was not our changes – the text was added 7 months ago. What was added was FIVE references, all stating that his being Jewish was a motive for his being killed. THREE of them are quoted in the text. The founder of the organization said it, the Federal Prosecutor stated it. But you refute it its inclusion without explication. When Other Legends Are Forgotten even quoted it and you still insist that it is being misinterpreted. Then you say the "sources are not well documented". Excuse me if you don't think that the Denver Post, the Chicago Tribune and the New York Times, do not constitute "well documented sources".
If his Jewish religion was not a factor, even though it was stated by each of the people mentioned in all of the references and in the trial transcript, then please explain why the top two people on The Order’s hit list were a TV sitcom producer WHO WAS JEWISH and a lawyer who SUPPORTED JEWISH CAUSES? But according to you, Berg’s Judaism was just an inconvenient happenstance?
I have opened this up for RfC. Your behavior on the other hand beyond the current issue, including escalating an edit war and threats against an editor for unrelated issues because you disagree with his rationale, is frankly, despicable. You owe When Other Legends Are Forgotten an apology. N0TABENE (talk) 00:41, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
What @N0TABENE: said, +1. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 03:33, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Rubbish. Gob Lofa (talk) 20:12, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Should Berg’s Jewish religion be mentioned in the lede as a motive for his murder?

Latest comment: 8 years ago21 comments9 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is consensus that the lede should mention that religion was a motive for his killing (being Jewish). The majority opinion is that this fact is found in reliable sources. AlbinoFerret 01:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The motives for Berg’s assassination by members of The Order referenced in the body of the article all mention his being Jewish. Should the lede summary also contain the fact his religion was a motive for his killing? N0TABENE (talk) 21:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

The sources clearly state that it was because he used his talk show to "bait" an anti-semitic group. So saying he was killed because he was Jewish is not accurate. The RfC is poorly phrased. The fact that he was Jewish is relevant, but if he hadn't sought (and I admire his courage in doing so) to call out a rather nasty group of fascists, then he would not have been killed. It is a pity the two editors who want to make that a single cause would not put a little energy into finding an alternative wording. ----Snowded TALK 23:17, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Discussion between Snowden and NOTABENE
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The RfC section is not the place to continue your arguments. If you want to change the RfC then limit you brief comments to that. I offered you request the RfC, but you elected to threatened to revert any edit you did not agree with, in violation of WP:DRNC. Since you are one of the involved editors, you should refrain from arguing the RfC.
Furthermore, I offered alternative wordings, and you and Gob Lofa deleted them. So we put the energy in. I am appalled at your intransigence and misrepresentation. Again, please limit your discussion to the section outside the RfC. N0TABENE (talk) 00:48, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
You obviously haven't been involved in many RfCs. I added my view with a brief comment on the poor POV framing of the question which is the way it works. Neither do I see proposals for alternative wording above (I'm the only one who tried). I will add that your aggressive stance is a part of the problem here. My suggestion (per the edit) history is to make it very clear the group were anti-semitic and I am open to other changes but not to an explicit he was killed because he was jewish which is not supported by the references. ----Snowded TALK 05:24, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Except that is not what the text reads since I offered a compromise on 20 December and mentioned repeatedly: who targeted him for being Jewish and for his views. You are clearly misstating the content of the phrase you deleted. Both you and Gob Lofa deleted that phrase in its entirety, omitting any reference to his religion or to his views. Since you don't bother even looking at text before deleting it, here is a list of the compromises I offered to reach a resolution:
  1. "I am amenable to a more inclusive statement," N0TABENE (talk) 20:55, 2 November 2015
  2. "I have added additional verbiage," (targeted for being Jewish and for his views added with 3 references) N0TABENE (talk) 09:04, 20 December 2015
  3. "His Jewish religion, as well as his views (which I added before you deleted it) were mentioned by ALL of the referenced sources" N0TABENE (talk) 18:48, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
  4. "The most rationale resolution is to replace the statement you deleted, including both the fact he was Jewish and that he had controversial views."N0TABENE (talk) 12:53, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Your contribution, removing Berg's religion and adding the Group's anti-semitism, wasn't supported by any reference, so it constituted original research. You seem unwilling and unable to either compromise or to engage in discourse without attacking those who hold contrary views. The RfC was properly framed - you misstated the text you deleted, claiming there was a single cause, to frame the argument in terms more amenable to your position. N0TABENE (talk) 08:08, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
We disagree - I think you are misinterpreting the sources to say more than they are. You called an RfC which I think was poorly phrased, I made a simple response and you then launched an attack. The whole point of an RfC is simple statements then other editors contribute. Lets allow that to happen ----Snowded TALK 09:43, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Of all the reasons for his killing, his Jewishness was the least important to his killers. I don't see any good reason it ought to be included in the lede, never mind given the prominence some want to give it. Gob Lofa (talk) 12:06, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your personal opinion. Now, which of the sources say this? When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 14:55, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
As I read the sources all of them. He choose to try and flush them out by baiting them to expose their anti-semitic nature. He did that successfully and they responded in an appalling way. They did not set out and say lets go a kill him because he is Jewish. ----Snowded TALK 16:45, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
They list his Jewishness among the other two reason you prefer, without indicating one is more important than the other. Your reading of the sources is hardly relevant If you want to exclude one reason and keep the others - you need to find a source that clearly makes this distinction between the given reasons. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 00:44, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Way forward

One of the main protagonists (When Other Legends Are Forgotten) here has being blocked as a sock puppet so his contribution def facto cancelled. User:Not 2 Cereus is an SPA account for this RfA. So let's try and move forward. If we look at the sources given we get the following quotes:

  • Berg, who was Jewish, gained a strong following in the early 1980s through talk radio, where his liberal views mixed with a combative and often-abrasive on-air persona. In the process, he ignited the anger of The Order
  • A few years ago a Denver disc jockey named Alan Berg liked to ``bait,``as he called it, the area`s anti-Semites. A Jew himself, he taunted them, provoking them to call and talk things over. The resulting conversations made his talk show a hit. His purpose, he explained, was to ``smoke out`` the anti-Semitism latent in the area`s conservative population. It became clear he had succeeded too well when, in 1984, he was shot to death in his driveway with a machine gun.
  • Although prosecutors produced no evidence that any of the planned assassinations were attempted, they noted that six members of the inner circle have been charged in the machine-gun killing of Denver radio talk-show host Alan Berg, a Jew who frequently taunted anti-Semites on the air. (NOTE this follows the opening statement "A commando squad of neo-Nazi ``warriors`` had planned to assassinate prominent Jewish figures")

The first two make the point that 'baiting' and 'provocation' were the reasons for the assassination. They say he was Jewish, but they do not say that was the reason. The final one says that there was a plan to kill prominent Jews but does not say that Berg was on the list, it just notes that some of those involved in said plan were part of the Berg killing.

So to say that he was killed because he was Jewish is very clearly not supported by the sources. It is a matter of speculation to ask if he pad not been Jewish and had acted in the same way would he still have been killed? The group concerned (per the sources) thought that Jews were descended from Satan so we can assume (although that is OR but probably permissible) that it was at least a part of the motivation.

Given that I have attempted a compromise edit this morning ----Snowded TALK 06:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

This is an WfC, not an WfA Not 2 Cereus (talk) 16:56, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
A newly created editor who knows the difference on an RfC created by a serial sock puppet, forgive me if a slow march to a conclusion. That aside any editor can try and move the debate on, particularly in a poorly framed RfC which I have done ----Snowded TALK 05:20, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Alan Berg. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 11:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alan Berg. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 05:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Was Alan Berg really Jewish???

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Do you have reliable sources to deem Alan Berg Jewish? Berg said that his father was Jewish, but not his mother. For Jewish orthodoxy, a Jew is basically deemed a Jew because born of a Jewish mother, which Alan Berg was not, according to what Berg said on KOA.

"Now Berg was Jewish in the same sort of way that I was, meaning not at all. We both had Jewish last names and at least one Jewish grandparent." Michael Mark Cohen: The Secret History of America, https://medium.com/the-secret-history-of-america/all-my-terrorists-are-white-92c964f50bf8.

See also NNDB: Jewish Ancestry, a list of non-Jews with Jewish ancestry. http://www.nndb.com/lists/481/000045346/

So the question is, was Berg a proselyte to Judaism or not a Jew at all? Berg did identify with Jewish people, as he presented himself on KOA. (PeacePeace (talk) 21:43, 25 April 2018 (UTC))

Neither NNDB nor Medium are reliable sources per WP:SPS and many discussions at WP:RSN. Opinions about hes Jewishness are irrelevant. Wikipedia only concerns itself with either reliable sources, or with how people identified themselves. Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality may also be helpful in understanding this. WP:EDITORIALIZING language, such as "has been claimed" is unacceptable for multiple reasons. Grayfell (talk) 23:02, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Poor wording - "Radio Career" section

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Current article reads, quote: "The unemployed Berg was courted by both KTOK in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma and Detroit, Michigan."

KTOK is not in Detroit Michigan, nor is it likely the entire city of Detroit was "courting". Either there's a station name missing or there's no point here. Impossible to say which since no reference is given.

Just after that, same section: " "He didn't pick on the poor, the frail, the undefended: He chose Roderick Elliot and Frank "Bud" Farell, who wrote The Death of the White Race and Open Letter to the Gentiles, and other people from the white supremacist groups… the groups who openly espoused hatred of blacks, Jews, leftists, homosexuals, Hispanics, other minorities and religious groups".[1]"

This is a grammatical train wreck apparently copied verbatim from the source with no attempt to rework it into English. Apparently suggesting Alan Berg picked on Roderick Elliot and Frank "Bud" farell [sic] -- lowercase last name -- and then veering off into tangents about what those two had done, followed by an unrelated non sequitur phrase. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.34.131.212 (talk) 18:38, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alan_Berg/Archive_1&oldid=1243822852"