Talk:David Brickner

Avoid Coatrack, yet Keep Content of Information

• I restored content and reworded it so no one can use this article as a coatrack. I referred to Palin only as the “Alaskan governor”, to avoid this article being used as a coatrack for Palin. Please do not reword in a way that will reopen the coatrack possibility. Please do not delete, or more poorly worded versoins of this information, that could be used as a coatrack, will certainly be inserted.
• I listed as the FIRST resource “McCain team: Palin rejects views of church’s Jews for Jesus speaker”, so no one will use this article as a coatrack for Palin. Please do not change the order of the references, as having this title first will ward off Palin detractors, with POV, from using this as a coatrack.

EricDiesel (talk) 16:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

More pre 2008 citations needed

I had heard of David Brickner for his statements years ago, but from reading newspapers, watching cable news shows, or talking to Jewish friends. Does anyone have any of the other remarks generating pre-2008 notability? EricDiesel (talk) 16:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I hear of Brickner years ago, on the cable news, from Jewish friends, and whenever he blames Jews, for failure to convert to Christ, every time there is a widely covered or bizzarely cruel terror attack in Israel. There is lots of stuff on this on the web, but the huge majority of it is on blogs responding to cable news coverage, making it hard to find a source document generating the blogs. The main problem is that most coverage is on broadcast news, since they superimpose Brickner's remarks on gruesome images of the terror attack, for shock value, and there is no transcript online for the broadcast. EricDiesel (talk) 17:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Some one quotes 20,000 Ghits for David Brickner Jew in the AFD discussion. Can some one not find some WP:RS material on the details of his career before 2008? What is in this article is exceedingly brief at present. Sorry I cannot offer to do this myself. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Deleters and User:Edward321, Please Don’t Delete without Detailed Explanation of reasons and put deleted material on article you think this is a coatrack for

Please respond to the edit reasons everyone writes on their edit reasons. Do not ignore discussion page, information on consensus on argument NOT to delete page, AND Discussion Page. Consensus was reached on how to word to avoid coatrack. If you think something is a coatrack for something else, write what it is a coatrack for and why. Don’t push POV with unexplained Deletions. Merely writing “coatrack”, and ignoring the consensus on the arguments for deletion page, and on the discussion page, and on the reasons for edit on History page is rude and an abuse of the coatrack policy. Simply calling something a name is not an argument for that name.

• If something is a coatrack for something else, you must not destroy work, but put it in the other article which you think it is a coatrack for. Do not delete neutral facts about the subject of the article.

EricDiesel (talk) 01:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Eric - the material you want us to put elsewhere for you has been rejected in the article it is about. We have no obligation to help you put garbage into the encyclopedia just because you try to put it someplace where it is both garbage and in the wrong place. Instead, our obligation is to get rid of the trash. This article is about David Brickner. Any content here should be about Brickner. Not about Palin. In fact, there is no reason to mention Palin here. Zero. None. Do not try again to reinsert it.
  • Additionally, most of the sources were either not reliable upon examination (e.g. unedited partial copies of blogs) or had no material that is about Brickner. If you can't recognize a reliable source, you need to ask questions instead of stuffing garbage into the encyclopedia. GRBerry 02:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Bricker as a Messianic Jew

Please do not try and add POV or OR to the lead that says that Brickner is "only" Christian and/or that would not be considered a Jew by such-and-such Jewish law. Jclemens (talk) 21:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

And why not? Jewish law alone determines whether a person is Jewish, and it is certainly relevant that he is not, given that he leads an organization called Jews for Jesus. He does have Jewish relatives, but that does not make him Jewish. Roberterubin (talk)

Is there maybe a better source for this statement that could go in the article? I agree with your removal of it, not because of OR but because the source in question fails WP:RS. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the debates over Messianic Judaism belong in this article at all, since those debates are pretty well covered in that article. Jclemens (talk) 22:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Right, but if someone had made in a reliable source an observation about Brickner's halachic status that would be relevant to this article. (This isn't terribly relevant because I can't find any reliable sources discussing the matter). JoshuaZ (talk) 23:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I have added a reference in Salon to the fact the Brickner's mother was not Jewish. Under Jewish law, that makes him not Jewish, unless he goes through a conversion to Judaism, which he has not done. Roberterubin (talk)

You added a reference to Geocities earlier, which is not a sufficiently reliable source for a biography of a living person. Regardless, unless the Salon reference actually says that Brickner is not Jewish according to Jewish Law, any such assertion would be synthesis. Jclemens (talk) 02:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Then you can look at the latest citation. David Klinghoffer is a Jewish scholar. Brickner does not dispute that he is not Jewish under Halakha. This is not a controversial or unsupported fact. Nor is it disputed that he is a Baptist minister. That appears in his biography. Also, please cite any authoritative source defining what a Messianic Jew is.Roberterubin (talk)

Ok, I've cleaned up the section on his halachic status. I'm not sure this sentence makes sense in the lead. It might make more sense as part of a separate section on his family background (using possibly the Klinghoffer source and the essay referred to by Klinghoffer if we can track it down). JoshuaZ (talk) 02:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Joshua. Your version is an improvement. I would vote for keeping it in the lead, since Brickner is after all heading up an organization called Jews for Jesus. But I don't feel strongly about that; I just think it is an important fact that deserves mention. Roberterubin (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC).

The problem with that is you need to prove a negative: in order to say "Bricker is not a Jew" you need a source that says that. Klinghoffer doesn't say that. In fact, he quotes Brickner as saying "My parents made aliyah many years ago, and my mother was accepted as a Jew under the Law of Return", So you're left with one interpretation from one source, which admits that it differs with the subject of the biography. Frankly, attempting to use one source to impeach Brickner's Jewishness in the lead is WP:UNDUE, and is going to be reverted again as a BLP violation. Jclemens (talk) 03:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

That's more or less why I tried to use the Klinghoffer source for the very narrow claim that Brickner is not Jewish under halachah, rather than any overarching claim that he's Jewish or not. The sourcing seems sufficient for that claim. I do agree that moving it out of the lead would probably be a good idea. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

So, I moved it out of the lead and made it more explicit. Feel free to tweak the wording there, but since it's clear from the citation that Brickner identifies as ethnically Jewish, his status as a Messianic Jew is really not sufficiently challenged by the Klinghoffer piece. It's absolutely OK to cite someone as disagreeing with Brickner, but the subject's self-identification gets top billing, as it were, in a BLP. Jclemens (talk) 03:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I've tweaked what you wrote. We need to be careful here. Acceptance under the Law of Return is not at all the same as conversion. We also need to be clear that Klinghoffer's opinion is following that of halachah. This isn't something that DK made up on is own. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough on his mother, but unless Klinghoffer speaks for some organized body that's rendered a specific decision in Brickner's case, what we have is his assertion, and should present it as that, not as a straight-up fact, even if that is the logical conclusion.

We have Brickner's assertion as well, quoted by Klinghoffer, that his mother is not Jewish under Halakha, which means he is not Jewish under Halakha. That is a fact. It is not necessary for some organized body to make a ruling (there is no such body). Joshua's original phrasing should be restored, and it's fine to add that Brickner still considers himself a Jew. But his not being one according to Jewish law is not just a pronouncement by one person, and should not be characterized as such. Brickner admits it himself. It is also very relevant to Brickner's position to know that under Jewish law, he is not Jewish. It is a fact about him, not just someone's opinion.Roberterubin (talk) 04:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

That may well be, but I don't see a way to get there from what Klinghoffer says without synthesis. Matters of religious interpretation are particularly difficult for Wikipedia to state authoritatively. Jclemens (talk) 05:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Both Klinghoffer and Brickner cite Halakha, Jewish religious law. And that is the source for the point about Brickner, not the fact the Klinghoffer states it. It has nothing to do with combining different sources to get to a point not explicitly stated in one of them (which is what you mean by synthesis, I guess). You can find the same point about Halakha and the matrilineal basis for Jewish identity among non-converts by looking at the "Who is a Jew" article right here on Wikipedia, as well as here: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/whojew1.html, and dozens of other places. Halakha is clear and unambiguous on this issue. Klinghoffer is citing established Jewish law, he is not offering the view of one person (himself). We know Catholicism teaches the truth of the trinity, right?. That is part of the Catechism, so we can refer to it that way. We don't have to say that, in the opinion of Bishop Sheen, a Catholic clergyman, there is a belief within Catholicism of a triune God. We can directly cite the Catechism. Same point here. Roberterubin (talk) 09:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Robert, Jclemens and Joshua are right here. We as an editing community have firmly agreed that editors must avoid drawing our own conclusions, and only cite conclusions that are in sources (see WP:SYN). There is a narrow caveat to the rule, but it applies only to things that people lacking specialized knowledge would see as obvious. I think most of the editors here have the specialized knowledge to draw the conclusion that you draw - however knowing the Halakhic definition of what it takes to be born a Jew is specialized knowledge. So we can't rely on that knowledge to write the article with the conclusion drawn that way. Further, there are other definitions of Jew than the Halakhic. Thus we have a very long article Who is a Jew? It might be possible to reference that article here, but we may not write the article to present any conclusion as the truth on this disputed matter. (On a side note, the article on David Klinghoffer looks like it was produced by partisan editing in one of this communities long standing disputes and could use someone coming from an orthongonal viewpoint to go try to research and write a new NPOV article.) GRBerry 14:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

GRBerry, thank you for your insights, but now that I have read through much of the Wikipedia guidelines on BLP articles, I think your interpretation of the application of "specialized knowledge" here is wrong. Also, you provided an edit based on Brickner's quote in Klinghoffer's article that is false -- namely, that the Law of Return can determine if one is Jewish. The Law of Return provides Israeli citizenship to Jews and to non-Jews with immediate Jewish ancestry. So if a source contains a false statement, that statement can be included in a BLP article as true? Besides, just as in the case of Klinghoffer, you would have to characterize this as something Brickner said, or else the same argument you directed at me applies to your edit as well Roberterubin (talk) 07:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's any OR element in stating explicitly in that section that Klinghoffer is relying on halacha since DK uses that term explicitly. The current wording is "While Brickner's father was Jewish, his mother was not born Jewish. Orthodox Jew David Klinghoffer has asserted that this renders Brickner non-Jewish, a claim that Brickner disputes." Perhaps we should tweak that to ""While Brickner's father was Jewish, his mother was not born Jewish. Orthodox Jew David Klinghoffer has asserted that this renders Brickner not Jewish under halacha. Brickner maintains that he is Jewish." or something like that. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I think that's fine, I'll make that change if it hasn't already been done. Jclemens (talk) 16:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• Note: Based on Google News, and his own book it's very clear that Brickner calls himself a Messianic Jew. Attempts to change this will be reverted as BLP violations--i.e., not subject to 3RR. The debate on whether Messianic Jews are Jews can continute ad nauseum on that talk page, but this is not the place to bring that debate. Jclemens (talk) 18:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Um, I'm confused. The edit you reverted was a new editor calling him an MJ. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I think you misread this edit, which is perfectly understandable, as the diffs presentation has always forced me to look twice at things to see who was doing what. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 01:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Yep, I misread that. Sorry about that. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• The current reference to Brickner's mother being Jewish according to the Law of Return is not correct. The Law of Return allows people with Jewish ancestry to become Israeli citizens, and it is not disputed that Brickner's mother, like Brickner, has Jewish ancestors. See the Wikipedia article on Law of Return. Joshua's previous phrasing should be restored. Roberterubin (talk) 06:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

An edit of mine saying that Messianic Judaism is "considered by most Christians and Jews to be a form of Christianity" was reverted twice as WP:Coatrack. This was in response to a simple 12-word factual statement. Somebody seems to be rabidly anxious to support Brickner's contentious claim to be Jewish. I'm not an expert, and fell into this subject by chance, but the article on Messianic Judaism (MJ) seems to show with lots of references that it's not considered Judaism. A naive reader (such as myself until a few days ago) would conclude from the introduction that Brickner is recognised as a Jew; and from the body that his descent, only, puts this in question. In fact, from what I've recently seen, most authorities say that "a follower of MJ is a Christian", rather than that "Orthodox Jewish author David Klinghoffer has asserted that this renders Brickner non-Jewish under halacha". This is not a matter of using the article on Brickner as a coat-rack on which to hang MJ, but, as the article reports Brickner's considering himself Jewish, to clarify to the non-expert reader that he would not generally be considered a Jew by most authorities. The MJ article says, with reference, "The Supreme Court of Israel has ruled that the Law of Return should treat Jews who convert to Messianic Judaism the same way it treats Jews who convert to Christianity"; this is more relevant than any argument based on halacha status or otherwise. The coat-rack argument has no merit. If there should be no mention that MJ's are considered Christians, then we need to delete Brickner's considering himself Jewish as misleading and one-sided. I'll wait and see what others say. Pol098 (talk) 15:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Fir a person whose occupation is religion, what religion he is a member of is 100% relevant, and its omission a grave lack. Pol098 (talk) 20:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, he's a Messianic Jew, full stop. Any comments about what Messianic Judaism is or is not belong in that article, which is wikilinked, not in the lead of Brickner's article, hence "Coatrack". Jclemens (talk) 21:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Minor naming issue

While expanding the family section I noticed what is an apparent discrepancy. [1] lists Brickner's mother's name as "Lois Esther Brickner" while [2] lists her name as "Leah Kendal Brickner." Kendal is her maiden name and Leah looks like a Hebraization of Lois. I'm not sure which name we should list. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The Klinghoffer source skips giving her any name, just gives her mother's name (Ruth) and says "Ruth's daughter was David Brickner's mother." I'd go with the Leah form, given that for this 1982 publication that was how she chose to be attributed as an author. As to Esther/Kendal, the original surname is useful information, so let's use it. GRBerry 17:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I concur with GRBerry. (can't help thinking about Catch Me If You Can every time I type that....) Jclemens (talk) 17:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOR issue

User:DeknMike has inserted this sentence into the article:

although other branches of Judaism accept status for patrilinial descent<ref>Who Is a Jew?[http://judaism.about.com/od/whoisajew/a/whoisjewdescent.htm]</ref>

Ignoring the reliability of the source, it doesn't mention Brickner, so its use here is obvious OR. DeknMike is attempting to defend Brickner's claim to being Jewish on the grounds that, for example, the Reform movement accepts patrilineal descent. However, Reform's acceptance of patrilineal descent post-dates Brickner's birth, and all the moreso his mother's. In addition, Reform insists that patrilineal descent must be accompanied by public identification with Judaism, and specifically states that those who consider Jesus the messiah are no longer Jews. Thus, it's rather classic OR, because the situation is much more complex than the insertion indicates. In any event, we need sources that refer directly to Brickner, Wikipedia editors can't create their own arguments using any source they like. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree that would be a WP:COATRACK in this article. Brickner claims he's Jewish enough, others dispute that claim specifically naming him. That's balanced and NPOV. Jclemens (talk) 03:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for putting words in my mouth. Klinghoffer made an assertion that Brickner misrepresented himself as Jewish, using a clarification Brickner had made for that minority of Jewish heritage persons who disputed his self-identification. I noted other opinions on the subject of descent, which covers all people in similar situations (it didn't list their names either). However, it's now a non issue, in that the opinion statement has been removed from that section.--DeknMike (talk) 03:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Off-topic material about Klinghoffer should stay out of the article

Messianicmatt, two times you added the following to the article:

But in that same article, Klinghoffer wrote: "Brickner replied: 'I think it a bit ironic that the insult comes from you in light of your own yichus [ancestry]. Maybe there is some pathology behind your rigid declaration.' He was referring to the fact that my own birth parents are non-Jews, as I wrote in my 1998 memoir about adoption and conversion. . ."

and it was reverted by both myself and Jajg for the same reason: it is off-topic in this biography about David Brickner. It seems clear that information about Klinghoffer's family background is irrelevant here. You have now re-added this same text for the third time. Can you please explain why it is relevant to this article? Thanks. Zad68 (talk) 16:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

To Zad68: I did not see your comment until today, or I would not have reposted it. I understand your point that it is not relevant to the article and have deleted it.Messianicmatt (talk) 21:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Olive Dean Finestone book is not sufficient sourcing for Wikipedia to say "David Brickner is a fifth-generation Jewish believer in Jesus."

Messianicmatt, two times you added the following source to the article:

Olive Dean Finestone, The Romantic Career of a Twice Born Jewess [2] See next to last paragraph of the book, which states "A granddaughter [of Esther Kendall, the subject of the book] is married to Rev. Albert Brickner." Albert Brickner is David Brickner's father. Esther Kendall, as well as her mother, Pearl, were Jewish believers in Jesus, thus making five generations of Jewish believers in Jesus.

and it was reverted by me twice for the same reason--the book is not a sufficiently strong biography to support an assertion in Wikipedia's voice "David Brickner is a fifth-generation Jewish believer in Jesus" instead of as attributed to Brickner: "Brickner describes himself as a 'fifth-generation believer in Jesus.'" You have now added it back for a third time, so let's discuss this. Here are the reasons why your edit is not in accordance with Wikipedia policy:

1. The book itself is not reliable. The Wikipedia policy is "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or which lack meaningful editorial oversight, or those with an apparent conflict of interest." The book was not written by a professional, academic, independent author, and there is no evidence that it was done with meaningful editorial oversight. Also, clearly Brickner has a conflict of interest.
2. It is original research to take what the book says about the history of Albert Brickner and apply it to David Brickner.
3. If we can find another source that describes the relationship between Albert Brickner and David Brickner, it is synthesis to take these two sources to draw a conclusion ("David Brickner is a fifth-generation Jewish believer in Jesus.") in Wikipedia's voice if neither source says it.

These are all fundamental Wikipedia policies that all articles must adhere to. I encourage you to click on the links here and read the Wikipedia policy pages for yourself. Please understand me clearly: I am not saying Brickner's claim can't be stated in the article. What I am saying is that the claim cannot be made in Wikipedia's unqualified voice. Specifically, we need to change:

"David Brickner is a fifth-generation Jewish believer in Jesus."

to:

"Brickner describes himself as a 'fifth-generation believer in Jesus.'" (if we can indeed find such an exact quote from him)

Is that clear? Thanks. Zad68 (talk) 16:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC) To Zad68: Yes, that's very clear. Thank you. I have found a direct quote from Brickner with a reliable source and have posted it in the article.Messianicmatt (talk) 21:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Why do we need a direct quote? The Jews for Jesus SPS discussing his appointment as Executive Director notes this. That does not strike me as an improper use of an SPS, since Brickner has editorial control over the JfJ website as its executive director--he's certainly not a third party in any normal use of the term. Jclemens (talk) 16:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Jclemens, I somewhat agree that the JFJ website can be looked at as a self-published source for Brickner. However there's a lot of stuff there that pre-dates Brickner, or is directly attribute to someone else (e.g. Rosen). The best source for the claim that is trying to be made here would be a direct quote from Brickner, and JFJ's own site would be a good place to find it. What I'm discussing is what voice the claim is being made in. It needs to be "Brickner says ..." and not in Wikipedia's voice. Wouldn't you agree? Zad68 (talk) 17:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

added: Jclemens, please see WP:BLP, this sentence: "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation." I am trying to make sure this article complies with this Wikipedia policy. Brickner's background, as it relates to Judaism, is indeed "material challenged or likely to be challenged" and the citation style I'm suggesting should be used here is direct quote attribution. Does that make sense? Zad68 (talk) 17:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Is anyone challenging the fact that Brickner has claimed to be a fifth generation Jewish believer in Jesus (or however it's exactly worded)? What's been challenged is whether or not he actually is Jewish, and by what yardstick that should be judged, as I see it. Jclemens (talk) 19:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The claim fails WP:SELFPUB #1 - it is "unduly self-serving". Jayjg ^(talk) 23:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Wait, what? HOW, precisely, is that unduly self-serving? He claims a particular religion and ethnicity. Is every other SPS that discusses religion unduly self-serving? I think not. Jclemens (talk) 06:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you are saying you are unaware of exactly what the conflict is between Jewish groups and Brickner's? That Jewish group insist that Brickner's group is not Jewish? Is it actually hard to understand, then, why a claim of being "a fifth-generation Jewish believer in Jesus" would be, in fact, self-serving - especially in light of his other statements on the topic? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that saying that isn't unduly self-serving, because it's not uncommon at all. Ethnic Jews have converted to Christianity at a small but measurable rate throughout the past couple of thousand years, so saying that someone, five generations back on his mother's side, converted to Christianity is no big deal, even if he's employed in a messianic context. Claiming something about one's ancestors is not something that ever rises to the level of "unduly self serving", until you get to something like Stephanie Romanov having allegedly claimed to have been related to the late Tsars of the same name. Sure, we don't put it in Wikipedia's voice, but to exclude the claim because it might be "unduly self serving" is stretching the interpretation of that policy beyond what I consider reasonable. Jclemens (talk) 23:21, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not uncommon for ethnic Jews to convert to Christianity, but its extremely uncommon for them to remain ethnic Jews after five generations - in fact, it's highly implausible that that has happened, which is why it's "unduly self serving". That's why, in fact, it hasn't happened in this case either, as Brickner himself admits. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

To Zad68: Why did you remove my new post with a direct quote from Brickner about his being a fifth-generation Jewish believer in Jesus? Did you see my talk post to you yesterday, which state, "Yes, that's very clear. Thank you. I have found a direct quote from Brickner with a reliable source and have posted it in the article."Messianicmatt (talk) 21:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Messianicmatt (talk • contribs) To Zad68: I am going to reinsert my direct quote from Brickner that he is a fifth-generation of Jewish believer in Jesus, as it is from a well-known reliable source, Christianity Today magazine. Please explain to me why you deleted it the first time.Messianicmatt (talk) 16:26, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Messianicmatt, check the edit history of the article. Actually, I did not delete it. I think that section of the article is fine as it stands now. Cheers... Zad68 (talk) 19:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Controversial statements

Messianicmatt, "Controversial statements" can only be included in this article if they are indeed described in independent, reliable secondary sources as controversial. You (or any editor) cannot look at a statement made by someone and decide that it is controversial. An independent reliable secondary source, like a newspaper, has to have reported it as such. Zad68 (talk) 16:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for this clarification. I have now added a different paragraph to the controversial statement section regarding David Brickner's comments on Larry King Live. The entire topic and the fact that King invited two rabbis, a pastor, and the leader of Jews for Jesus made the topic controversial. I don't have an independent article stating that David's comments were controversial, but within the context of the topic of the show, I think it is self-evident. Does this meet your criteria?Messianicmatt (talk) 21:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

You must find reliable secondary sources that discuss this. An interview is a primary source, not a secondary one - we do indeed need "an independent article stating that David's comments were controversial". Jayjg ^(talk) 23:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)