Talk:Glenn Beck

Bio by Alexander Zaitchik out

Common Nonsense: Glenn Beck and the Triumph of Ignorance. See (excerpted) piece. --71.187.173.34 (talk) 23:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

David Weigel of The Washington Post interviews Alexander Zaitchik here.--71.187.173.34 (talk) 18:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC) [I wish to post this at the bottom of the talkpage.]--71.187.173.34 (talk) 20:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that was just about the most hateful, sincerely evil description of another person I have ever heard, and completely speculative. Ink Falls 19:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Accusing Glenn Beck of "incendiary rhetoric" (in the opening section) is itself incendiary rhetoric.

It should be in quotation marks at least. That is, even if it should be there at all. GeorgeSorrows (talk) 12:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I also don't care for the matter of fact tone, which doesn't portray it as an opinion. I don't like that we're using media matters to support something in the lead like this. The lead is intended to summarize the entire article with the most important points and should be quality secondary sourced, not some political organization who's mission it is to trash conservative media. Morphh ^(talk) 15:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

He uses rhetoric, and in a very incendiary manner, particularly in one famous skit where he acted out the pouring of kerosine over a man (the can contained water) and lighting a match. There actions were supposed to represent some action of federal government. This was rhetoric and it was incendiary in every meaning except the one which would have involved bold blooded murder. So where's the beef? Tasty monster (=TS ) 16:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

You didn't address either concern. Bad sourcing and opinion presented as fact. He didn't commit arson, so that form of definition is not what is intended. As for the other definition, a person who excites factions, quarrels, or sedition. That is a matter of opinion, one which could be applied to many commentators, comics, and politicians if loosely defined. What one considers incendiary, others may consider political entertainment. We do not represent opinion as fact, we attribute the opinion and do so in line with the policies of blp, weight, and verifiability. So there is the beef. Morphh ^(talk) 18:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The kerosene skit was intended to be humorous, only far left zealots consider it to actually be suggesting violence(which of course it isn't). Also, I don't think Media Matter can be used to express the typical kind of dissent Beck faces(unless your discussing the dissent of the blogosphere). Most people who disagree with others don't label them things like "fear monger in chief" or even have such categories to label their opponents. Media Matters disagreeing with their opponents is always incendiary, always becomes personal and nasty, and their opinion isn't even mentioned in other articles on their opponents (like Bill Oreilly) for just that reason. Let's just leave the hate mongering blogosphere out of Wikipedia. Also, the way it is presented does make it appear to be a fact(which is not later proved in the article). Ink Falls 19:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The "humor" card is a convenient out for Beck. "Oh, he was only joking when he said X was a Nazi, Maoist, Stalinist, etc." Sorry. Doesn't wash. In addition, it ignores the obvious fact that humor can be as incendiary as straight commentary. As for sourcing, there are plenty of other sources which describe his rhetoric as (take your pick) incendiary, irresponsible, inflammatory, hateful, on and onJimintheatl (talk) 12:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

An out for him? First off if you ever actually watched the show you would know he has never said anybody was a Nazi, Maoist, of Stalinist, but go ahead and keep making stuff up to support your argument. If there are so many other sources, then list them, although most are liberal blogs and well the Huffington post possibly. The types of attacks leveled on Beck are leveled on all conservative (and other nonliberal) commentators, but aern't mentioned at all in their leads(check Bill Oreilly and Rush Limbaugh), I'm changing Beck's controversy to something more like Rush's, and leaving the illegitimate far-left criticism out of the lead.

Limbaugh is a controversial figure in American politics and media. He frequently accuses the American mainstream media of having a strong liberal bias, criticizes liberal policies and politicians, and promotes conservative positions. (this is more like how Beck's should be written)
The only one using incendiary rhetoric and making things up is you, accusing Beck of labeling people Nazis, Maoists, and Stalinist, and as typical with no evidence to back it up. Ink Falls 16:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you listen very closely, or you only hear what you want to hear This was just yesterday. http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201005170011 Jimintheatl (talk) 17:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

First off, I don't listen to radio Beck, so there's no way I could've heard that, [offensive comment removed] Secondly Glenn Beck was just making a reference to Anita Dunn who called Mao one of her "favorite political philosophers" and then certainly sounds like she worships him as her eyes light up when discussing how he went his own way, took his own path, and never minds the left that his "own path" included ignoring the advice of his own advisers who told him for 5 years of all the millions dieing and starving to death under his policies, he just kept going straight forward, and that is what Anita Dunn says she admires, that he just kept going on his path, never mind that his path resulted in the most deaths in human history. He still though did not seriously call anyone there a Maoist or a Stalinsist or a Nazi, so I stand by my original assertion, you may believe that saying someone "worships Mao" and that that is the same as calling them a Maoist, but you can't deny that you just made up completely that he calls people Stalinist or Nazis and that you just said that to be inflammatory. Ink Falls 19:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

You accuse me of ad hominem attacks and call me an asshole in the same sentence? Your Beck bona fides are intact (it's one word, by the way). And that was just one clip. It's easy to find more, but I'm not sure you'd accept them either. In any case, you don't have anything like consensus to water down the existing article.Jimintheatl (talk) 19:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, what the hell. Here's one from your favorite TV show, Sparky. It's so FUNNY when he compares Obama to Hitler...It's a joke, right? http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200908270036 Jimintheatl (talk) 19:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't call you an asshole, I said your comments make you look like one, but if details don't matter to you then whatever. "It's easy to find more, but I'm sure Beck fansc couldn't accept them", that's just what you tell yourself when you don't have any evidence to back yourself up. If it were actually easy you would just bring it up when in reality to find something to back up your claim that he calls people Nazis and Stalinist would require you to dig through tons of smeary articles on Media Matters and even then you'de have to stretch one of them to sound like it's backing your claim, anyways if you aern't going to back up what you post then don't bother posting it like a fact because people here actually care about proof. Ink Falls 20:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

As for your more recent comment, Beck isn't comparing Obama to Hitler, so I that post of your doesn't mean anything. That post of yours was a joke right? Ink Falls 20:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

So when Beck says "this [Obama's supposed civilian national security force] is what Hitler did with the SS" he's not comparing Obama to Hitler? How's that workin for ya? And if you watch his TV show, maybe you've seen him talk about Obama's administration while playing with swaztikas and photos of Stalin and make "connections" that nobody wants to talk about. See, in the reality-based community, that's called drawing comparisons. He doesn't have to literally say "Obama is Hitler" to make the comparison.Jimintheatl (talk) 20:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

So when Beck says "this [Obama's supposed civilian national security force] is what Hitler did with the SS" he's not comparing Obama to Hitler?" No, the closest that comes to is comparing their polices, in which it is an accurate assessment, one which the fellow person on his show first made the connection to. You don't seem to understand, when Glenn Beck says something like "People in this administration are sympathetic to the failed communist regimes, seeing this as some sort of failed experiment but with good means" he is not comparing them to those people. A comparison is more like when one blogger took the words of Beck's book and of Mein Kampf and using it to argue they have similar personalities and rhetoric. Of course you would not be against that because it's against Glenn Beck, nor were you ever aginst the comparisons of Bush to Hitler, you are completely hypocritical and that is fine with you. Ink Falls 21:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Amazing. First you see Anita Dunn's Mao-worship in her eyes "lighting up." Then you claim to care about "proof." The proof in Dunn's twinkling eyes? Then, without a shred of evidence claim I never objected to Bush/Hitler comparisons. Your, ahem, proof? On the larger point of comparisons, I'm glad, I think, that you realize that Beck is comparing Obama's policies to Hitler's. That's the point, isn't it? What did you think I thought he was comparing: personal appearance? Sexual orientation? Age? It's the political/policy comparison that matters and is at issue.Jimintheatl (talk) 00:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

You both are way off topic. Editors at the top of this section dispute "incendiary rhetoric" as it is in the lead. Is it being adjusted or not? And Jim, if you do hit submit on that edit warring report you will more than likely be blocked also.Cptnono (talk) 00:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Capt. Finger-Wag. I'm just trying to stress to the Beck fans that the very things they admire him for: his willingness to challenge history, to see things /connections that no one else is willing to articulate, to confront accepted wisdom, to suggest that he might be deep-sixed for speaking these unspeakable truths, to rail against, well, take your pick, make him a slightly more controversial figure than someone who claims the media might have a liberal bias, esp. when none of the critics cited mention that issue. But cooler heads seem to be intervening, so I'll hold my tongue for a bit. Jimintheatl (talk) 00:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I'll apologize for being so argumentative(without backing down from anything I've said), anyways, I like my version because it gives a much less incendiary outlook. Ink Falls 01:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's avoid anything that remotely resembles an insult, please. Don't call people names directly or indirectly. "You look/act/appear like" insult x is the equivalent of insult x and will be treated as such. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 19:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

In regards to the article content, I think much of the above discussion is besides the point. I think both versions of the contested content are flawed, but I think Ink Falls' version is inappropriate because it inaccurately portrays the substance of the objections to Beck. The objections listed are so generic they could apply to any conservative. Gamaliel (talk) 19:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Most partisan sites toss around ignorant generalizations pretty freely. Maybe we could find better sources for this than that? --Tom (talk) 19:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Media Matters is clearly inappropriate for the lead, lest we start using other partisan websites for loaded statements for liberal talkers like KO. I don't think that is a battle that WP should be playing. Arzel (talk) 20:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Obviously we are required to document the range of opinions regarding Beck, but I do share your reservations to an extent regarding how we do so. I see Jimintheatl's latest edit as a step in the right direction; restoring the unsourced generic language would be a step backwards. Gamaliel (talk) 23:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It's unsourced because you typically don't add references in the opening. Ink Falls 23:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

You are absolutely right, though on controversial articles like this one the intros are often sourced out of necessity because the most basic of facts are hotly disputed. Perhaps we can reach the point on this article when we can all come to an agreement and we can dispense with the footnotes. Gamaliel (talk) 23:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

So Matt Osborne a hyper-partisan blogger is acceptable for the lead? I thought blogs were not acceptable as sources within BLPs. Arzel (talk) 01:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

"Incendiary" is too soft a word for a man that called the wife of a rival talk show host on air and mocked her for having a miscarriage.Osiriscorleone (talk) 19:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm actually surprised this is being debated. What else can you label his obvious demagoguery in a relatively unbiased manner? Hell, it's what he's known for. 98.168.192.162 (talk) 16:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it's hilarious that this article supports the assertion, "his detractors say he promotes conspiracy theories and uses incendiary rhetoric" by citing a supporting Huffington Post article titled, "Glenn Beck, Cult Leader". Compare with the assertion "To his supporters, he is a champion in defense of traditional American values from secular progressivism" by citing a St. Petersburg Times article titled, "Glenn Beck fans say he represents their American values". Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Should be removed

"It has been speculated that Beck's criticisms may have been motivated in part by Jones' prior involvement in Color of Change, the organization that had previously convinced advertisers to pull their support from Beck's TV show"

Considering that Glenn Began his attack on Van Jones before the boycott this is as likely as the bombing of Hiroshima causing Pearl Harbor.

It should be removed for being superfluous and leading to obviously false conclusions to readers without the prior information to see the mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.9.147 (talk) 21:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

True - in fact the first source states "Mr. Balfe emphasized that Mr. Beck had spoken about Mr. Jones’s background before Color of Change “began targeting Glenn.” Then goes on to say "As the advertiser campaign heightened, Mr. Beck devoted more time to Mr. Jones’s past remarks." The second source states that Beck "Fox News Channel host Glenn Beck launched the drive against Jones and all but declared war on him after a group Jones founded in 2005, ColorofChange.org, led an advertising boycott against Beck's show to protest his claim that Obama is a racist." This also states that Beck's criticisms were prior to the boycott, and states that they were stepped up after the boycott. Both imply a relationship; however, I don't see that either supports the statement in our article. The statement also does not attribute the opinion - who speculated? It would also seem an opinion of tiny minority (undue weight). So, I agree, it should be removed. 198.4.104.128 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC).

That last edit was me.. stupid thing logged me out. Morphh ^(talk) 16:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

False balance

In the introduction, equal treatment is given to the views of Beck's supporters and his detractors. This is out of keeping with the neutral point of view. Many reputable advertisers have removed their custom because of his manner of expression. He is well outside the mainstream precisely because of his manner of expressing his views. To place the criticism which has placed him in that position alongside the views of his dedicated supporters, and on equal footing, is misleading.

The biography of a fringe figure should describe his views and his reputation, certainly, but it should not by placing the views of fans alongside the views of non-fans create a false equation which has the effect of promoting the minority view. That's why we call it neutral: it seeks to discover and reflect the balance of views, not to affect that balance. Tasty monster (=TS ) 14:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

So, if I understand you correctly, the lead is not negative enough? There should be more of an emphasis on his detractors? We should use WP, in essense, to malign people that we don't like...or at least we think many other people don't like as well...Hmmm...interesting concept to say the least. I suppose we could also add that he likes to eat babies, I know I have seen Beck haters make that comment. Arzel (talk) 15:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Fringe? He's NYT bestselling author, has a large national radio show, and one of the top tv shows on news. He gave the keynote at CPAC... He's not fringe. He's one of the leaders of conservative politics. We're already giving undue weight to certain criticism in the article. Morphh ^(talk) 16:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

You are completely wrong. Beck haters are in the minority, not the other way around. Ink Falls 16:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

No, you completely misunderstand me. We must not malign the subject of any Wikipedia article. You correctly state my opinion on the inappropriate weight given to Glenn Beck's fans, however. Our introduction certainly makes a false equation between Beck's fans and his detractors. That is the problem which we must remedy, and most probably the outcome of removing the inappropriate advocacy will be to present a picture of Beck that fans will like even less than they like the current introduction. Tasty monster (=TS ) 16:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that the introduction makes a false equation between Beck's fans and his detractors based on reliable sources? Morphh ^(talk) 16:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Good question. Look at the introduction and you will see a statement of the form "on one hand his supporters say...and on the other hand his detractors say..." This makes a false dichotomy that equates the views of the fans (a limited number) with the standards of the communities that have led to a number of advertising boycotts by reputable businesses. We should certainly report that (for instance) Glenn Beck has some weight in his constituency. That does not mean that we should promote him, or his constituency, to equality with the mainstream that comprehensively rejects him because of his behavior. Tasty monster (=TS ) 16:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It's an interesting concept – weighting the presentation of plaudits and criticism in a person's biography based on how editors perceive their popularity. Of course, a Gallup/USA Today or similar poll to make the determination would be wonderful. Absent that, maybe we should use published ratings in the case of media personalities. We can establish a cutoff point (and maybe a "lag margin") by consensus, then evaluate the ratings of O'Reilly, Beck, Olbermann, Matthews... anyone else who wants to play. If their ratings lag substantially below others, or are below the established cutoff, we'll describe them as fringe figures and downplay anything their supporters say. That work for ya? Fat&Happy (talk) 16:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't follow the conclusion of a false dichotomy or that fans are a limited number. I also don't follow that moving advertisements (based on an opponent campaign to do so) from a controversial public figure equates to lack of fans or an overly negative public perception. A business staying out of the political mix is usually good business even with less controversial figures. The assumption sounds like original research. On the other end, he was selected as one of the "Top 10 Most Fascinating People" of 2009 by Barbra Walters, and was one of Time's 2010 Most Influential People. I wouldn't think you would get those honors by having a limited number of fans. Morphh ^(talk) 17:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

He also ranked #4 as the most admired person in the world by Americans, right in between Nelson Mandela and the Pope, that isn't a fringe figure. You are correct in that we shouldn't be equating Beck's fans to his detractors, but what we should do is downplay the detractors who make up a serious fringe minority. Ink Falls 19:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

New Book

This upcoming book is covered in secondary sources Huffington Post and the Colbert Report in addition to Beck's own website. That makes it notable and not self promotion.

August 28th 2010, on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, he is to unveil his upcoming book The Plan. This day and place happens to be the same as the I Have a Dream speech. Alatari (talk) 09:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Beck publishing a new novel is notable for his biography and having been sourced from elsewhere than his blog you'll need to come up with a serious Wikipedia guideline reason why we should not list his next book and the controversial way he plans on releasing it. Alatari (talk) 09:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball. Manufactured criticism months before something is to occur from partisan websites is not notable enough for a future event. There is no evidence that this event, should it happen, would be much of a story. Arzel (talk) 15:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

We're not stating when the book will be released, just that it is currently planned to be released. The current plans to release it are in the present, not the future. Ink Falls 18:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but, a notable person, like Beck, releasing a book would be a notable event. Almost regardless of the sales numbers. The statement in question isn't "he may release a book". That would be speculation on future events. The statement is "It's been reported that he plans to release a book", the reporting of it is in the past. It can be verified that Huffington Post has reported that Beck will release a book. That statement should stand. Padillah (talk) 18:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement that he is releasing a book is fine. Statement that the release will be controversial because he might do something in the future is a future event. Huffington is nothing more than a partisan attack on Beck on a possible future act. Arzel (talk) 19:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

What part of the above has any of the HP criticism in it? I didn't see any criticism, I saw notation on a date and time that may not be notable, but the statement didn't criticize him for it. Padillah (talk) 21:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The location and anniversary of the I Have A Dream speech is a bit notable. Alatari (talk) 21:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

If Beck were pointedly drawing a parallel then yeah, it would be notable. But the simple chance occurrence of something on some date in some place is not notable. Are we going to tag everything that happens that day with a note saying it happened on the same day as the I Have A Dream speech? If Beck draws a parallel then that deserves to be pointed out (and any criticism of that parallel needs to be included as well) but simply having it on that day in that place doesn't mean anything.Padillah (talk) 01:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

He is unveiling the book at the actual feet of the Lincoln Memorial and a secondary reliable source MADE the connection. Secondary sources are what Wikipedia is primarily based upon. Use of primary sources is harder and you are right, Beck doesn't make the connection in his source. A secondary source exists (Huffington Post) making the connection. Alatari (talk) 15:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I would argue that a secondary source may have a right to criticize but not to create criticism out of thin air. You can't make an observation and then criticize someone for it. Having the book release in that place and time does not mean Beck is trying to draw a parallel between him and Dr. King. Huffington is drawing an inappropriate parallel and then criticizing Beck for it. If we present it then we should present it that way - not as a parallel Beck was trying to draw but as criticism created out of whole cloth by others. Padillah (talk) 16:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, sorry I was misunderstood. I never meant to record in the article that Beck made the connection. Colbert's persona (or writers or person) made the connection. Huffington Post may present it as a criticism but I'm thinking there are sizable numbers of people who would believe it's a great idea to unveil his book there and then. If you read my original entry to the article it was worded neutrally that the time and place coincides with the time and place of the speech. Leftist, liberal, progressive, whatever you call Huffington Post they accurately male the connection. If you want to add a section under controversy over the release date you could but I don't believe there is a major controversy yet. Alatari (talk) 18:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I searched again for Beck + MLK and found the leftist Media Matters making a strong criticism of Glenn Beck adapting MLK to his on-air persona. So maybe there is a section for the controversy section? It wasn't my plan to go this far. Alatari (talk) 18:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Uh-oh, we may have created a monster. I think we need more about the sources in the prose, like so:

It is reported on Becks official website that he is to unveil his upcoming book, The Plan, on August 28th 2010 on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. Beck has been criticized for using the release to draw parallels between himself and Martin Luther King Jr. with the anniversary and place of the famous I Have a Dream speech.

...but with better phrasing and prose. Padillah (talk) 18:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict!)This isn't the first time the connection was made. A local paper, the Saint Louis Examiner, made the connection in Nov. 09. Here is a successful Google search on the topic which turned up several sources. I think there maybe 1 or 2 more reliable sources which make the connection between the time/place of the two speeches. I think politifi.com or the Philidelphia news source philly.com are probably reliable enough. It seems a hot topic on the left and it would be nice to find a right leaning RS. Alatari (talk) 18:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd be ok with the original wording though I don't see that it's that important to Beck's biography. If you attempt to write it as criticism, then we're entering a different discussion for BLP and NPOV criteria. I don't believe we have the weight or relevance to notability to make this anything worth including as directed criticism on Beck. If it's just a statement of fact regarding the time and location, that's different - your providing details in relation to the event. Morphh ^(talk) 18:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

IF he is being criticized then we are simply reporting the fact that he is being criticized. We are merely presenting the sources as they pertain to the subject. From the list of criticisms Alatari is finding we may have reason to bring more light to Beck's comparisons of himself to King. It looks like something he has done on several occasions and has been called out on it. We are obligated to provide proportional coverage to a subject. Padillah (talk) 19:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not that simple. Beck is criticized every day from numerous sources. You have to look at criticism over Beck's life and include the significant points that are part of his notability. This criticism is part of a tiny minority when compared to the main criticisms against Beck, and therefore should not be included on those grounds or in that context. We're not news - it's speculation on their part and WP:RECENTISM on ours. We can not synthesize a pov based on random comparisons to King. Proportional coverage in this case, with regard to Beck's life and criticism, is no coverage as it's insignificant at this time. Morphh ^(talk) 19:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that sounds like a rephrase of what I said - we would need to find more to make it significant. I'm not sure I agree that we need to measure the each criticism over the course of Beck's life, that's a little steep. If he has been criticized then we should report it but not make it more important than other criticisms he has received. I don't think many other criticisms in his life will measure up to the "Obama hates white people" but we can't just not report the various criticisms because that one had more coverage. There's also a question of whether the criticism is harsh or the coverage of the criticism is extensive. Which one of those make a criticism more or less important? It's a question of balance - will one note mentioning the comparison be out of balance with the rest of the article? Right now, yes. If we were to find many more outlets taking up this same criticism, depends on the outlet and the novelty of the criticism (rehashing old criticism isn't worthy of noting here, new criticism is). Padillah (talk) 20:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

As the release date draws nigh and if he stays his course I think we'll have plenty of new material down the line. I agree with the WP:RECENTISM suggestion and just state the fact of date and place and plan to unveil. Alatari (talk) 09:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Nowhere in my sentence did I say anything about controversy. I stated where he planned on releasing it and when. Colbert is a satirist and not affiliated with any political party so I'm not sure where you get partisan attack and Colbert's statement that the release date coincides with the MLK's speech is also a past statement. How is using Colbert's statements a violation of WP:BLP when it allows for criticism? Maybe Colbert's statements should be moved down to the criticism section. Alatari (talk) 19:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

To say Colbert is not affiliated with any political party is a complete fallacy. He has spent the last 5+ years lampooning the Republican party 4 days a week. Besides, the "partisan attack" comment was about Huffington Post, not Colbert. I don't know what they said but it wouldn't surprise me if it was indeed a partisan attack at Becks overblown self-importance. Padillah (talk) 01:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

He lampoons the Democrats too and he has Republican and conservative guests on his show regularly. From a Washington Post interview Colbert, whose office is adorned with a 1972 Richard Nixon campaign poster, admits to being a Democrat. But, he says, "I'm not someone with a particular political ax to grind. I'm a comedian. I love hypocrisy." So like I said before he wants to be a satirist attacking hypocrisy wherever he can find it. Besides attacking Beck, who is such a high rated personality, gets Colbert a Beck ratings bump. Alatari (talk) 15:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

'Cause Colbert needs the help, right. Beck's almost universally incoherent and bumbling rants aren't reason enough to lampoon him, it has to be for the ratings. Anyway, that is not what you put forward earlier. You said he was "not affiliated with any political party". By his own admission he's a Democrat. That affiliates him with a political party. You may want to check out the difference between Stephen Colbert and Stephen Colbert. The part he plays on the show is a farce. He has Republican and conservative guests on his show to attack and embarrass them. None of which makes the "attack" referred to above come from Colbert. Padillah (talk) 16:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm differentiating between a card-carrying donating member of the Democratic Party, an employee of the party or a voter that votes Democratic. I agree he embarrasses them some of the time but they keep showing up. Your distinction on character vs. person is noted but I haven't seen another article differentiating between a critic and a critic's persona. I'll be interested in how you would handle that. Alatari (talk) 18:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

That's because, to your original point, most critics are not entertainers too. He's been pretty clear about the distinction between his person and the character on his show. I would leave any reference as "The Colbert Report said..." and leave it at that. This way we don't have to worry about attributing the wrong outlook. Padillah (talk) 18:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

new content

Should this be included? [1], [2], [3] -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 22:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Not yet, the CBS source does not mention Beck, only the child's comment. If multiple reliable sources report on it, then maybe we could consider it as notable controversy. Aside from Media Matters, it's a synthesis of sources. Morphh ^(talk) 23:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

"Hmm, I'll give it a day or two. -Stephen Colbert" - ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 00:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I seriously doubt this story is going to get picked up. Besides, it wasn't just Beck who made fun of Obama's story, Laura Ingram also did. Besides, this isn't really a "controversy". Ink Falls 01:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

CNN, Gawker, Huffington Post, Mediaite, National Leder, News Oxy, NY Times. Actually, there's about 60 sources for this story. I'm not going to link them all. Akerans (talk) 23:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah but I think that's more a matter of Recentism and because of Beck's status than actually being particularly notable. Let's see if this lasts more than a week. Ink Falls 04:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The story clearly has already been "picked up." Define "lasts more than a week." In the 24/7 news cycle, esp. Jimintheatl (talk) 14:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

We need to stop this cycle of debate fighting about if it's been "picked up" sufficiently or not. Let's think about this as a whole. Not saying it should stay or go, but there is a limit to the amount of criticism we should place in the BLP per Wikipedia policies. At a glance, looks like we're reaching about 30% of the article. Praise - not sure about what % we're at there, but suffice to say, comparatively it's pretty low. The rest of the article is more descriptive about his life, profession, etc. Beck's biography should not be a list of criticism, even if each new story has sufficient coverage from reliable sources for inclusion. We need to pick his major controversies, and then summarize the rest into a paragraph or two. We should not be adding a new paragraph every month based on the recent news. It's the same debate over and over again here with the latest thing - we have to stop this cycle of recentism. The article should reflect a historical perspective over the life of Glenn Beck. Now, this may be one of those controversies.. fine, but we need to adjust the article to roll-off or summarize something else. We need to maintain some balance to the article. Let's pick the major stuff, come to consensus, then any new "controversy" is weighed against replacing an existing controversy, otherwise it goes into the summary paragraphs. The summary paragraphs should be very limited in detail, so that we don't run into npov issues that add length - something generic and balanced where the latest sources can be applied. This may be worth including based on coverage, but that doesn't mean it justifies an entire paragraph. For example, that paragraph could be summarized and included in an existing sentence. Glenn Beck has been criticized for A,(source)(source) B,(source)(source) C,(source)(source) and mocking Obama's daughter Malia.(source)(source) Done, it's included, it's succinct, it doesn't give it undue weight over the other major controversies of Glenn Beck's life. Morphh ^(talk) 15:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Well said Morphh. Totally agree.Boromir123 (talk) 16:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, not sure at what point this was agreed too, as we had past consensus on this point, but the article structure violates WP:STRUCTURE with all these sub-headings. Again, a sign that we've gone off the rails, where we have to start creating sub structures for the criticism. Morphh ^(talk) 16:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

No Stephen Colbert comment. Fuck. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 21:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Summarizing the content is an excellent idea. I think the section should be moved into reception as well. Technically, it is how the public is receiving him and "reception" doesn't have negative connotations. Akerans (talk) 02:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It raised an eyebrow when those subheadings were included ([4]) This is an example of why it is bad. The daughter thing does not pass any sort of 10-year test (I ignore that typically) let alone a 10-day test. It borders on scandal mongering. However, it is interesting. If there was not a giant subheading for it there would be reduced prominence and it wouldn't be so bad.Cptnono (talk) 23:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

When I condensed the section to two sentence, I had considered moving it to the Obama section. Better that way? Akerans (talk) 00:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

That might work better. Go for it.Cptnono (talk) 00:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Support. Ink Falls 00:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The "Descriptive Quote Box"

When not to use quotations

Try to avoid quotations in the following circumstances: Where the same quotation has been used elsewhere in the article, avoid duplicating it, which is regarded as in poor style. Where a quotation presents rhetorical language in place of more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias, it can be a backdoor method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia's narrative on the subject, and should be avoided. Nuff said.Jimintheatl (talk) 01:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

"...to spend your way out of debt defies common sense." I interpret the quote as financial, not political. Removed per WP:PRIMARY. Needs a secondary source to interpret it's meaning. Akerans (talk) 02:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The primary focus of conservatives is financial. It doesn't get much more political than government finance (taxing and spending). Morphh ^(talk) 13:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Ahh. I thought the quote was about parenting. Teaching youth financial responsibility. But, isn't that the point of not using primary sources? So, people don't misinterpret quotes? There's actually quite a few primary sources in that section, and not a lot of secondary sources to put them in the right context. Akerans (talk) 14:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Conservatives have been running their entire campaign against big spending and trying to spend your way out of debt. If a reader doesn't get that then they probably aren't living in the Western world and probably aren't interested in Glenn Beck anyways. This is the most clearly political statement I could find that he has made, he wrote it basically to sum up his political views in a single statement. You're assertion that you thought it was about parenting only makes me question whether or not you are qualified to be assessing things on this article. You should try familiarizing yourself with U.S. politics before trying to edit political pages. If you find a better, more descriptive quote then by all means present it, but until then this is the best I could find. Ink Falls 19:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

"neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias" are you seriously asking me to find a quote by Beck asserting his political views in a neutral, dispassionate tone? He is prized by the right for the passion with which he holds his beliefs, not by how encyclopedic he sounds. Anyways it's all moot as that is not for quotes by the subject about the subjects views, but rather for secondary sources describing the subject. Ink Falls 19:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Point being, asserting your interpretation of the quote constitues WP:OR. More specificially, it violates WP:PRIMARY. If you want to insert the quote, then I ask you provide a secondary source to interpret its meaning; insteading of the editors of Wikipedia interpreting its meaning. Otherwise, it, along with all the other primary sourced quotes, should not be included. Akerans (talk) 19:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

According to your view, nothing in this article should be allowed because it's all original research. The Forbes quote reading "Glenn Beck has managed to monetize virtually everything that comes out of his mouth.", let's remove that from the Media career and income section since it's clearly our interpretation that it has to do with his Media career and Income. Let's remove everything in fact from the Media career and income section that doesn't have a secondary source backing it up saying that it pertains to to his Media career and income. Then let's blank the all the sections for that same reasoning. Sheer ridiculousness. Ink Falls 20:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I just realized(and this should end all further discussion), the title of the section is "Viewpoints" not "Political Viewpoints", therefore this quote doesn't need to be political to be included. Thus, it's inclusion. Ink Falls 20:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't get the WP:PRIMARY argument, but this is still a "back-door method" in violation of WP:QUOTE.Jimintheatl (talk) 21:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Jim, you can't exclude the opinions of the subject because the subject isn't neutral towards what he is talking about. See WP:COMMONSENSE. IOW while it may be inappropiate to insert this quote into the article about the stimulus bill because it isn't neutral, it's definitely appropriate to insert it into an article of Glenn Beck's views. Ink Falls 23:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

"According to your view, nothing in this article should be allowed because it's all original research." No, sorry, you have it wrong. I'm asking that you, "Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source." A book from Beck is a primary source, and you're claiming that a section of the book asserts a viewpoint. If, on the other hand, Forbes Magazine said, "Beck holds the following viewpoint, "You cannot take away freedom to..."", then it could be included since a secondary source (Forbes) made that claim. Does Forbes say that? No, you're the one saying it. And, doesn't really matter what the section is called, an editor is making a claim based on a primary source. Ergo, it's wp:primary. Furthermore, it wasn't added to describe anything already in the article. It was placed in a box by itself. That said. The entire article is not based on primary sources, so I'm not sure what makes you think I'm suggesting the article be blanked? Anything using primary sources should be removed. There's enough secondary sources out there on Beck that this article shouldn't be using any primary sources, with editors deciding for themselves what that information means. Its disappointing the article has degraded to this point, and editors wish to degrade it further. It has to stop. We need to make the article better, not worse. (Jimintheatl, I hope that better illustrates to what I'm referring.) Akerans (talk) 00:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The whole argument that you can't use a source's own words to describe their own viewpoint is absurd. Even if your interpretation of that rule was correct, that is not clearly not what the policy was intended to do making this an excellent case of WP:IGNORE. If you could explain to the rest of us how using Beck's own words to express his views is degrading the article then please feel free to explain. Ink Falls 00:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Because, editors can misuse primary sources. Thought Wikipedia was clear on that. For example. "Conservatives have been running their entire campaign against big spending and trying to spend your way out of debt." That's not exactly what the quote says, but the reason you added it. If the point of an article is to educate people about Glenn Beck, how does that quote lead people to that conclusion? Akerans (talk) 01:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The point of the quote it to say that Beck believes "You cannot take away freedom to protect it, you cannot destroy the free market to save it, and you cannot uphold freedom of speech by silencing those with whom you disagree. To take rights away to defend them or to spend your way out of debt defies common sense." If you actually did infer that I am placing this to say "Conservatives have been running their entire campaign against big spending and trying to spend your way out of debt." then that's idiotic, if you are just pretending to be stupid to annoy me then piss off. Ink Falls 02:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Another example of misuse. An editor was advancing a certain position of global warming, while a secondary source was providing another position. In response to your last reply, I'm inferring that you're providing vague and/or meaningless quotes that serve no purpose, based on original research. Akerans (talk) 02:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Vague and meaningless quote? It's a rant against the Obama administrations practices, it doesn't get much more specific. As for original research, we have already established that this is not original research, the quote is from his book. Ink Falls 02:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

A rant against the Obama administrations practices? That's not in the quote. How do you expect readers to know that? Regarding original research, its not a question of whether or not its from his book. Rather, its a question of you analyzing the material yourself and determining its meaning. WP:PRIMARY says that's original research: "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." I'm sure you have good intentions, but Wikipedia editors are not secondary sources. Akerans (talk) 04:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the quote being put forward in the article that would make this an issue for primary or original research. I do think that quote covers several areas: freedom, free market, debt, and the bill of rights, which seems to make it a better quote than others to "sum up" some of Beck's core beliefs. I think what Akerans seems to be hitting on though is more about undue weight - what makes this quote more important than another quote, and does adding a quote improve the article. Is it right that we just pick a quote for the viewpoints section, instead of relying on a secondary sources to provide us with a quote they say sums up some of Beck's beliefs (if there is such a source). I think that's a fair concern. Perhaps as a compromise - we could consider the quote for the Author & Publication section for his book Common Sense. That would be a much narrower scope that is more descriptive to the content in that publication. Thoughts Morphh ^(talk) 16:39, 01 June 2010 (UTC)

I would accept that, that seems reasonable. Ink Falls 17:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claim about the quote is that it is a viewpoint. That claim is made by a Wikipedia editor. If, however, the New York Post called it a viewpoint, then there would be a secondary source making that claim; that would not be considered original research. My concern is not undue weight, or where exactly the quote should be placed. My concern is primary versus secondary sourcing. In this case, there is no secondary source. Already, 70% of viewpoint section is composed of primary sources (one of the secondary sources doesn't support a primary source, I haven't removed it yet). So, the quote should not be added. In addition, the primary sources should be removed or the article tagged {{primary sources|section called "Viewpoints"}} so people can help replace the primary sources with secondary/tertiary sources. Akerans (talk) 18:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the Authorship and publishing section, I don't see how adding the quote there would improve the section. There's already an illustration of book there, wouldn't further additions clutter the section? Otherwise, if done neatly, I'm sure it could go there. Akerans (talk) 18:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I've tried to include it without cluttering the section. We have quite a few different quotes throughout the article, not sure how any of them really improve the section, but I find them nice... sort of like a picture I guess. Morphh ^(talk) 19:23, 01 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it looks quite nice.(I agree that they're like pictures, which is why I've been trying to add them to articles) Good job placing it Morph. Ink Falls 19:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no consensus for including the quote box at this time.Jimintheatl (talk) 00:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It'd be a lot more helpful if you included a reason you don't consent rather then just stating you disagree. Ink Falls 01:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I generally enjoy relevant quotes and think that they add to the overall quality and aesthetics of an article. As for this quote, I think it encapsulates the sort of statements that Beck is known for making - however if others fervently object, maybe it could be added to an article on the book in question (i.e. Common Sense)? I see that Arguing with Idiots has its own article but Beck's Common Sense (which is notable enough to warrant it) does not.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 02:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Just pointing out, Jimintheatl already cited WP:QUOTE as a reason not to include it (see point 2). Akerans (talk) 15:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah but everyone's just ignoring that because it doesn't make any sense. You can't exclude Beck's opinions on Beck's page because they aren't neutral and encyclopedic. Ink Falls 21:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

No one is saying to exclude Beck's opinions. Rather, we're saying to exclude Beck's quotes (because quotes can be misinterpreted and send the wrong message). Beck's opinions can be added via secondary/tertiary sources. Akerans (talk) 22:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no "we" between you and Jim. Jim is arguing that this is a backdoor way to introduce controversial material, but it isn't, it's just what Beck thinks. You think this can be misinterpreted, but I and most others do not see how this quote can be misinterpreted. It's perfectly straight forward, and really express the tone and themes for Beck's Common Sense. Ink Falls 04:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

@Akerans - I don't think you are reading WP:QUOTE from the proper point of view. It says "Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source."... we are not. Beck is. Assume we take your outlook and wait for a secondary source to declare what his POV is. Well, there are several secondary sources that feel his POV is to get as much money as he possibly can with little or no care for whom he has to step on to do it. Is that neutral? It came from a secondary source, like you want. How about Jon Stewert as a secondary source, he thinks the man is Mad as a Hatter. Can we use that to declare Becks opinions? Using secondary sources to establish POV is dangerous and leads, inevitably, to NPOV situations and arguments about WP:WEIGHT. If Beck has said "I like chocolate" we are pretty safe adding that as a point of view of the subject. We are not doing analysis, interpretation, or evaluation to determine this POV, we are being told outright. Now the quote in question is brief for the sake of brevity, not to mislead. We could include the larger quote Ink Falls provided above (and, IMHO, we should) but to place the quote in complete context we would have to quote large portions of the book it came from and that's just unwieldy. Padillah (talk) 13:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Did Beck say, "This is my view. You cannot take away..."? No, he did not. Rather, an editor made that interpretation. The statement sounds more like a lecture, or an order, than a declaration of views. Do lectures or orders constitute views? No. Again, editors are making that interpretation. Just because Beck says something, that doesn't mean that's his viewpoint. Otherwise, everything he says will start appearing on this page as his viewpoint. Beck has made some pretty choice comments in his books, radio and talk show. Do we really want to open the door for them? That's how I'm reading WP:PRIMARY; to prevent editors from using the subjects own words and making claims about them as they see fit. Again, do you really want to open that door? Plenty of secondary sources state Beck's viewpoints and can be added without NPOV or WEIGHT. John Stewart, "Beck is a right-wing, gun control supporting nut job!" Wikipedia entry, "Beck is a conservative supporter of gun control." Neutral entry and zero weight. Akerans (talk) 16:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I must admit to not having read the book in question but, what makes you think the book was not written in that context? Who in their right mind would write a book promoting beliefs they don't agree with? I have no problem opening the door that allows public figures to speak for themselves. I see no reason why we can't add mention of Beck's belief that Obama hates white people. That I have heard and he most assuredly says "I feel Obama hates white people...". So according to some of your logic this would be OK to add because he comes right out and states this as a belief of his. On the other hand I get confused when you change the argument (almost mid-sentence) to one of mis-using quotes out of context and OR. Then go on to present a blatant example of cherry-picking. A quote is a quote. It needs to remain in tact to be called a quote. There is no replacement for first-hand knowledge (which is why WP:BLP and the appeal system are there). You cannot use second hand sources to define a persons feelings. There is no way for me to know how another person feels other than to hear them say it. We can turn to secondary sources to report factual information - how many guns Beck owns - but not for his feelings on guns. That should come directly from him as much as possible. We don't want a gossip article and that's what we'd get using secondary sources for viewpoints. Padillah (talk) 18:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

[W]hat makes you think the book was not written in that context? Because, there's no secondary source to say the book was written in that context. Sorry, the source making the claim is a Wikipedia editor. If an editor makes the claim, is that not original research?

Who in their right mind would write a book promoting beliefs they don't agree with? People do all sorts of things for money these days. That aside, who said it was a book about beliefs? Some people say the book is Beck's look at Thomas Paine's Common Sense (pamphlet). I'm not sure how examining the work of somebody else constitute personal views? Unless you want to say the views presented are of someone else's work, which would be a more accurate assessment. So, is the quote Beck's views or Paine's views? Is Beck using Paine's views on the Obama administration?

Not sure what sentence you were having an issue with, but misusing quotes out of context and original research are not mutually exclusive. An editor can use a quote of Beck to make a claim not stated elsewhere. Meaning, I can quote Beck as saying, "The sky is green." The sky is not green. But, Beck said it, and it's true Beck said it. Based on the logic presented to me, I can add this quote to the viewpoint section as it is something Beck said; and since the quote is by Beck from Beck it can not be disputed. It's an original concept, and placing the quote in a viewpoint section means it is something Beck believes. Even though he may not truly believe "The sky is green" he said it and it belongs there, right? A quote is just a quote?

And, no one is saying to exclude Beck's feelings. There are plenty of secondary sources that demonstrate quite clearly how Beck feels about certain subjects. That is, aren't Beck's views on Obama already in the article? How many different ways do you want to say the same thing?

Also, do we want an encyclopedic article about Beck, or should we just delete everything and use Beck quotes to tell his story? That seems to be the consensus everyone is pushing for.Akerans (talk) 22:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Have you read the book in question? What does Beck say the context of the book is? If it is a teaching aid and he is reviewing other's work than fine, drop it. If it is a polemic then we have every right to quote the book to establish context, in this article, about what the book says. Yes, you can quote Beck as saying "The sky is green". Hopefully you would do it with proper attribution and in context "Beck stated that right before there is a tornado 'the sky is green'". That's a properly used quote. Attributed and placed in context. Yes, we can misuse quotes... so don't. Make sure any quote we are using is properly attributed and placed in context. Very few statements can stand on their own as quotes, but there are some that can. So if your argument is that we have too many quotes and we don't need this one which is not pertinent - say that. Present that argument and we will address that argument. But, if your argument is that the quote might be misused - don't misuse it. Ask that the user adding the quote place it in the proper context and attribute it correctly. In other words WP:MOSQUOTE. Padillah (talk) 12:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

My argument has been that (A) we're using too many primary sources and (B) the quote is being misused. Different editors have cited different policies regarding how the quote is being misused, but we all agree its being misused. So, put it in the proper context or leave it out. Fair enough? Akerans (talk) 14:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fair enough. If it's being misused then by all means get it out of there. Padillah (talk) 20:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't seem misused to me. I don't see where it is in improper context. While differnt editors have cited different policies, that doesn't make their interpretation of that policy correct as others have debated otherwise. That's the point of the discussion. Morphh ^(talk) 22:12, 04 June 2010 (UTC)

Not one editor other than Jim and Akerans have argued the quote is being misused. They have stated, however, things like "I think it[the quote] encapsulates the sort of statements that Beck is known for making".

Just because Beck says something, that doesn't mean that's his viewpoint.

You're arguing we can't trust Beck's own words because he might be lying? Why can we trust other's words about him then? Or, under your view, do we need sources saying "Source X is telling the truth when it says "Y"", before we can include source X's opinion on Y.

Even if Beck was just lying it is definitely his purported opinion thus should b treated as such.

Lastly, your missing the obvious point of the quote(as it currently stands). It stands to represent the major themes and ideas of Beck's work Common Sense, so it doesn't even matter if it is representing Beck's viewpoint(which it clearly is). Ink Falls 23:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

You're arguing we can't trust Beck's own words because he might be lying? No. I'm arguing against Wikipedia editors interpreting the meaning of his quotes. Granted, you did not literally write, "these are Beck's views" and reference the quote, rather you did so indirectly by inserting the quote into the viewpoint section. Call it original research, misuse, backdoor, quoting out of context, or whatever. Either way, it's a cheap tactic to assert your position regarding Beck. A quote is just a quote, and there's no context to say otherwise. The quote is self-serving and should be removed. Akerans (talk) 02:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

First off, you suggested that Beck was only saying these things for money, implying that you thought he is lying(which there is no evidence of). Secondly this quote accurately reflects the tone and content of the book Common Sense, it is no longer in the viewpoints section, so people can read this quote and decide for themselves whether or not they believe such things like Beck is only saying this to make money. There's nothing backdoor about this, this is a clear, transparent, front door effort to describe the content of the book with a quote from the book. Ink Falls 04:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The answer was to a question about why someone would write a book, not about whether they were lying or not. I did imply anything, you interpreted incorrectly. This is why I question your interpretation of his quotes. Akerans (talk) 16:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

You said he may be saying something which he doesn't believe because he wants to make money, that is called lying, but it's unimportant. If you cannot come up with a reasonable or compelling reason as to why this quote does not accurately portray the tone and content of the book Common Sense then we have nothing more to discuss. Don't reply unless you are going to address how this quote misportrays the book Common Sense. Ink Falls 20:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not called lying, it's call entrepreneurship. Beck writes (and says) stuff he may not believe for money, because Beck is an entrepreneur. Beck knows what sells. Thought that was obvious enough it didn't explaining. Sorry if that wasn't transparent enough for you. If you want a better portrayal of the book, then a review or synopsis would do a much better job than a quote from the book. I believe the summary from the publishing house would suffice. Akerans (talk) 22:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Saying things you don't believe in to make money is lying, and your conception of entrepreneurship seems immoral to me(although I believe Beck believes what he is talking about so I am coming from a different angle then you). As for your suggestion, I think a generic review might not do as well of a job demonstrating all the views expressed by the book as encapsulated by this quote. If you think otherwise, please place an example of a review for comparison. Ink Falls 23:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The following is Simon & Schuster's description of the book, which more accurately describes what the book is about. The description is rather long, but I believe the last sentence sums up the book.

In any era, great Americans inspire us to reach our full potential. They know with conviction what they believe within themselves. They understand that all actions have consequences. And they find commonsense solutions to the nation's problems. One such American, Thomas Paine, was an ordinary man who changed the course of history by penning Common Sense, the concise 1776 masterpiece in which, through extraordinarily straightforward and indisputable arguments, he encouraged his fellow citizens to take control of America's future -- and, ultimately, her freedom. Nearly two and a half centuries later, those very freedoms once again hang in the balance. And now, Glenn Beck revisits Paine's powerful treatise with one purpose: to galvanize Americans to see past government's easy solutions, two-part monopoly, and illogical methods and take back our great country.

Akerans (talk) 04:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty boring, no? I doesn't quite reflect the impassioned nature of Becks views(like the other quote does), and which I would argue is a generally acknowledged trademark of his. In short I don't think it adds as much as the current quote. A general rule of writing is to show rather than to tell. With the current quote we are showing the reader what the book is like. With your quote we are telling them. In the case with the current quote, we are showing the reader and letting them decide for themselves what to think of it, something the latter quote doesn't quite give the reader a chance to do. Ink Falls 04:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

An encyclopedia is suppose to boring. But, informative. Illustrations are nice, and we can still accomplish that with a more informative quote. On another note, the book credits two authors: Glenn Beck and Joe Kerry. Attributing the quote to Glenn Beck alone is inaccurate. Akerans (talk) 20:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

External links

The sites in the "multimedia" list can be used as inline citations so not needed as external links. None are needed per WP:ELYES and I would go as far as to say that the Salon site is not neutral.Cptnono (talk) 02:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• Katie Couric Interview of Glenn Beck - video by CBS News
• A Day in the Life of Glenn Beck - photo slideshow by Time magazine
• "Brand it like Beck" - video interview by Forbes magazine
• Glenn Beck, Professional Time-Waster - a critical slideshow by Salon magazine
• John Stossel: "Glenn Beck, Conservative Narcissist?" - video by ABC News

Cptnono, if you believe the Slate piece violates WP:NPOV then I would just remove that one, however I believe the other video links add to the overall article and constitute the kind of thing that someone interested in Beck would be curious to view. Moreover, their value as an EL (for a novice reader to easily find) I believe outweighs their value as an inline citation. Thoughts?   Redthoreau -- (talk) 02:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I am big on reducing external link sections. It is backed the guideline and I tend to focus on it. I totally understand what you are saying with the new reader thing. If others agree then I'll be happy to go along with it. And if you revert now I'm not going to make a stink. The Salon one is not good enough, though.Cptnono (talk) 02:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm one for a clean EL as well, and would remove them all personally. IMO, they're better suited as references, but if they are included, I'd suggest placing them in a "Further reading" section, rather than EL (see WP:GTL). Morphh ^(talk) 2:36, 02 June 2010 (UTC)

They fall into the section of rich media EL to be considered. They could be included in the Reception section under Interviews with major media or Major Media Coverage. How about: Katie Couric did an in length interview with Mr. Beck and covered several points...? Alatari (talk) 02:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

While I know this is done once in a while, I don't care for including external links in the body of an article. Use it as a reference for the statement, not embedded into the text. If included, I think a Further reading section is the best place for it. Morphh ^(talk) 2:43, 02 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 71.251.199.163, 2 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} please change word 'legit' to 'legitimate' in this context: "... a legit case that global warming..." 71.251.199.163 (talk) 11:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Thank you very much for pointing this out. NW (Talk) 12:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the sentence is a cut/paste from the USA article. I had quotations marks around the sentence, but looks as though someone removed them. Was concerned about WP:COPVIO. Don't know if that really matters which word is used, but since it was a direct quote figured I'd point that out. Akerans (talk) 15:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Mormonism

Of possible relevance w/regard the article's "Influences" and "Public reception" sections?: I note that commentator David Weigel predicts that the material in the unauthorized biography of Beck by Alexander Zaitchik about Beck's religion will spark some controversy.[5]. My own take, from excerpt[6] published on-line, is that Zaitchik is maybe a bit hamfisted in his tone here and there and could have erred more on the side of delicacy when making generalizations about his subject's faith...but, that said, Z. nonetheless appears to have done quite a bit of research about Beck's background and philosophical underpinnings and does make some interesting--if, indeed, overtly polemical--observations.--71.187.173.34 (talk) 20:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Beck-v-WaPo w/regard Overton Window

[Note: I've crossposting the following here, from The Overton Window's talkpage.]

As opposed to Time's backhanded compliments wrt the novel ("For Beck's millions of acolytes, however, the one-dimensional characters and half-baked plot will be less important than his message, which will channel their anxieties about perceived assaults on our freedom.")--the WaPo reviewer's allegation/observation that the book may encourage domestic terror has resulted in some back and forth between Beck and the reviewer, with the usual sources have chimed in, as well (Media Matters, the NatReviewOnline, Newsbusters).

Yet in our article on the book at the moment, this contention of the WaPo's remains unrebutted and Media Matters' review is posted in external links. I might not the best person to address this because I'm a Democrat but, IMO, if somebody could, I think it would bring in a little more balance to the article.--75.45.143.44 (talk) 20:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)