Jump to content

Talk:Glenn Beck

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by E tac (talk | contribs) at 12:35, 25 March 2009 (→News with tears). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Nazi Party

How is it controversial to call the German Nazi party socialist? Weren't they nationalistic socialists?71.175.155.223 (talk) 14:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to agree that this is a pretty un-controversial statement. Chippy87 (talk) 20:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because they were a fascist party advocating third way economics, which is not a socialist principle. A quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany

"Hitler's views on economics, beyond his early belief that the economy was of secondary importance, are a matter of debate. On the one hand, he proclaimed in one of his speeches that "we are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system",[14] but he was clear to point out that his interpretation of socialism "has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism," saying that "Marxism is anti-property; true Socialism is not."[15] At a later time, Hitler said: "Socialism! That is an unfortunate word altogether... What does socialism really mean? If people have something to eat and their pleasures, then they have their socialism."[16] In private, Hitler also said that "I absolutely insist on protecting private property... we must encourage private initiative".[17] On yet another occasion he qualified that statement by saying that the government should have the power to regulate the use of private property for the good of the nation.[18] Hitler clearly believed that the lack of a precise economic programme was one of the Nazi Party's strengths, saying: "The basic feature of our economic theory is that we have no theory at all."[19] While not espousing a specific economic philosophy, Hitler employed anti-semitic themes to attack economic systems in other countries, associating ethnic Jews with both communism ("Jewish Bolsheviks") and capitalism, both of which he opposed.[20][21]"

By definition he isn't really a socialist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.126.119 (talk) 21:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From Nazi_Germany#State_ideology the first two words are: "National socialism." 71.175.155.223 (talk) 23:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From the official name of North Korea, the first thre words are "People's Democratic Republic". 166.217.68.238 (talk) 16:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The criticism should more be to the point that Beck was trying to allign communist ideology with Nazi ideology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newsreel2009 (talk • contribs) 09:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And by extension, aligning Soviet Communism to Democratic socialism, to Social Democrats, to Labour, to labor unions, to the moderate centrist liberal US Democrats, or in short: NAZIS=COMMIES=DEMOCRATS. Beck could have just as easily had said DEATH=DISEASE=HANG-NAIL, and it would have made about as much sense. Shanoman (talk) 03:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My problem is that even if Nazi Germany wasn't socialist there was no controversy surrounding it; I don't remember hearing about it anywhere. Besides I think enough people think that hey were socialist that it's not a great fact that he's one of them. It seems to have disappeared so this point is now moot. 76.116.227.205 (talk) 13:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Entrepreneur?

That term is subjective. I removed it because I don't think it belongs in an Encyclopedia article about Glenn Beck. 76.92.206.166 (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please read the wikipedia entry for entrepreneur. I would argue that Beck, who has started his own businesses and ventures (books, stage shows) and routinely puts his own capital at risk, qualifies as an entrepreneur. I suppose that it is subjective, but so it the statement that he's conservative. E2a2j (talk) 15:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Religion? Really?

Is there a reason that Glenn Beck is a part of the religion project? Is there some cult that worships him by sacrificing bloggers? Can we get photos of this? Soxwon (talk) 20:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's a strong Mormon; we should probably remove the Catholicism. In fact, I'll do it. Upbringing is irrelevant if a person has converted and does not deal regularly with an issue. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hitting on Guests

Does anyone else here think that it should be mentioned how he often hits on female (attractive) guests that he has on? It is often inappropriate, especially considering that he is married. I've watched his show quite often and every time he has an attractive female guest on he will hit on her almost every time. For instance he has hit on Sarah Palin, Obama Girl, and I've seen several other YouTube clips on the internet of him flirting (in an appropriate manner, naturally) with female co-hosts.

Does anyone else think we should at least mention this in this article? I think it's noteworthy and perhaps could be mentioned in the area that talks about his show being a "cross" between educational and entertainment. Fatrb38 (talk) 22:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's a difference between acting in a flirtatious matter and hitting on someone. Beck sometimes does the former. Perhaps you need to learn the difference.Kornbelt888 (talk) 21:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it is flirting or hitting on someone, we need reliable sources to include such controversial material. you and me watching some talk show and concluding that the host is either flirting or hitting on someone and deciding to write that in wikipedia is original research. sorry, a big no no. --Docku: What's up? 21:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cut a troll edit...

I cut this, as it is the work of a troll: "On February 21, 2009 what he put together at 9 P. M. is not for Americans at this difficult time. He should have a patience to wait at least a year before forecasting what the present government is capable of doing. The government is trying to workout the horrible mess created by the previous government. Such programs should be be discouraged at all time. Who is responsible for this? The foxnews or the Mr. Beck?"

Just a sidebar, I imagine what the writer means by "previous government" is the Bush administration, which is partially true. But note that President Clinton signed into law the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 which opened the door to the deregulation of all the insanely leveraged derivatives based on CDSs, CDOs, etc. There's plenty of blame to go around it seems. Kornbelt888 (talk) 21:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's keep this page clean.

what is clean with Mr. Glenn??

Localsales (talk) 20:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he was once an alcoholic, so I guess he's clean. You seem to hate Beck. Well, I own all three of his books.PokeHomsar (talk) 21:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you are Mr. Beck. Are you? I don't spam anyone; I respect every human. What I did not like is his program that was aired yesterday. I thought it is immature on his part (may be I'm wrong). That's it (you have already deleted my voice from there - That's okay with me - At least someone has read it). It is Mr. Beck who occasionally spams the environment. Thank you sir. You said he was an alchoholic - I donot care about what you wrote. That is not my point. My heart goes to those who are having bad time in the US. I learnt a lesson here - stop watching his program!

When you delete someone's editing from the page (May be a troll for you), write there the reason rather than writing the reasons on the discussion page or talk page. This will help others to comment.

Localsales (talk) 22:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'm not Glenn Beck. You really think he'd have a screen name named after a Homestar Runner character mixed with Pokemon? Seriously? I'm like 19, but I love Glenn Beck's program. And if you thought it was so awful, just post it on the talk page.PokeHomsar (talk) 00:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The language sounded similar to Mr. Beck's. Thanks. Localsales (talk) 00:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC) Localsales (talk) 00:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Education

"Glenn Beck considers himself a "self-educated" man, and he did not attend college."

I thought he has mentioned a few times that he attended college briefly? (i.e. for at least a few days)--70.128.121.235 (talk) 11:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reworded. Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bias

I just have to point this out, but why does Beck have a controversial statements section while liberal pundits like Keith Olberman have none? It comes off as Bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.61.226.88 (talk) 02:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is clearly bias, but "protectors" of Olberman's page (like Obama's and other liberals) will not allow critical comments, no matter how factual or encyclopedic, to be added. Such is Wikipedia...E2a2j (talk) 15:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So enforce the same policy on this page. You have the power! ;) --70.142.48.213 (talk) 18:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no interest in any kind of edit war. Life's too short! E2a2j (talk) 19:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Left handedness

This is obviously true, but isn't that reference an example of OR? --70.142.48.213 (talk) 18:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy section

A couple of editors have deleted the "controversy" section wholesale and I have now twice reinstated it. I think we should try to avoid edit warring over this. Glenn Beck is an abnormally controversial figure, and it is simply not acceptable to purge this article of any controversy/criticism.

Our guidelines about criticism sections are a bit hazy, but in general these sections can be used, preferably as a stopgap measure. The better course, if possible, is to integrate critical views throughout the article. That may be a good way forward here. I don't think we have to keep every piece of criticism or every controversial statement, but we do need to reflect the fact that Beck has been heavily criticized (and just to be clear, this isn't a left/right issue or an issue of bias, for example we have a huge article devoted solely to criticism of Noam Chomsky).

Personally I don't have a big problem with the current controversy section except that I think it's too long, but if others do not like it they should propose ways in which it could be broken up and parts of it integrated throughout the article, or ways in which the section could be reframed (perhaps as a "reaction" or "response" section) such that it contains both critical and laudatory views. But removing all criticism/controversy is a non-starter.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridicules. If anyone went into a pundit like Olberman on the left and added a controversy section, it would be down in minutes and the user probably banned. But for Beck its ok... that's totally POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.61.226.88 (talk) 05:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I have no problem with controversy surrounding Keith Olbermann being included in his article. So, no, I'm not being POV here. And your assertion that any user who added controversial material about Olbermann would be banned is quite difficult to swallow. If one added it over and over without discussion that user might get a block, yes, but that would have nothing to do with left vs. right but rather with edit warring. If you have a problem with the Olbermann article then you should take it up over there - it's really not relevant to this discussion.
As I said above there's no question Beck is controversial and that fact should be discussed here, it's just that there's probably a better way to do that than having one huge controversy section at the end. If you have suggestions about how to go about that please opine.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridicules...-unsigned comment added by 148.61.226.88 Learn how to spell, then you can complain.

News with tears

He's cries so much on TV and he's infamous for it. Shouldn't it be a part of this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.202.50 (talk) 21:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"manifistation of his ego?" err, What? --70.142.53.178 (talk) 03:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama is famous for using a teleprompter, why is that not mentioned? Oh wait... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.30.75.229 (talk) 09:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Every time I go to the Obama artilce I get confused, I cannot tell if I am looking at the article for Barack Obama or Jesus Christ.--E tac (talk) 12:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Glenn_Beck&oldid=279570230"