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 SerialJaywalker (talk | contribs) at 19:13, 29 December 2009 (→‎Requested changes). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Pbneutral

Article Paints Beck in Positive Light

Am I the only one who read this article and thought it was treating Beck with kid gloves? I mean the man is a laughing stock in this country, routinely blasted for his on air temper tantrums, weeping, and instability, yet one doesn't even get that impression from the article. I know the article needs to be balanced, but come on. The man has displayed truly bizarre behavior on air and the radio, been taken to task for it by reporters, and hardly a mention of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.110.167 (talk) 20:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to read the rules before you go editing pages and posting your POV all over the place. And just because this article doesn't declare to the world what an ass YOU think Beck is, does not mean that the article paints him in a positive light. J DIGGITY SPEAKS 21:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IP, speaking to what I take to be the substance of your statement: I personally likewise believe that the hyper protectiveness shown by the phalanx of spirits that hang around and protect this, as well as any, BLP on Wikipedia tends to go overboard a bit. (See this hilarious definition on Urban Dictionary.) However, speaking to your tone, and your apparent belief that Beck appreciators inhabit but the fringes: it is also true that commenters on WP's talkpages are encouraged to leave partisanship at the door (that is, IP, try using the tone of an AP reporter as opposed to the tone of a opinion page column in your comments here; thanks).↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 23:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't edited the article at all. I am just pointing out, a lot of the criticisms of the man appear to be absent from the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.110.167 (talk) 23:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Better said (IMHO). And, I agree.↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 23:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The same could be said for a large number of BLP's, most notably Barack Obama. Why aren't you there throwing a hissy fit?
This is something that I will never understand. It's called a double standard. I'm terribly sorry that Wikipedia decided not to be a website devoted to making sure that everyone has easy access to the worst parts of people's lives. However, there are a lot of sites that are willing to let you say whatever the hell you want about some people. Take Liberapedia's page on Glenn Beck, or Conservapedia's page on President Obama. If you are really wanting "the whole and complete truth" to get out about Glenn Beck, go expand that article and leave the people that actually want to try to remain neutral to trying to be neutral. J DIGGITY SPEAKS 00:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Speaking for myself and not the IP), I think the Obama articles are vastly over-protected from notable content conceivably interpretable by some as criticisms, as well (and believe a nonpartisan reading of the WP:WELLKNOWN section of WP:BLP supports inclusion of notable critiques of politicos and pundits).↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 00:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All notable events and reactions should be posted about any figure. Because someone who is extreme, should be presented as such. I haven't read the Obama article yet, but if the reverend wright issue isn't in there, that is a problem. With Beck, the man wept like a child on television and was ridiculed for doing so. He has become a laughing stock for most mainstream Americans. Yet after reading the article, one doesn't get that impression at all. I mean the man is clearly on the fringe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.110.167 (talk) 00:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The man is clearly on the fringe..." Uh, do you pay any attention to the ratings the man gets? At 5:00, he regularly beats all of his competition combined. The only way he could theoretically be behind his competitors is if you combined, and then doubled them! I'm sorry, but "fringe" inhabitants don't have that kind of audience. J DIGGITY SPEAKS 00:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia itself doesn't think Beck is a laughing stock because of his tears et cetera; however, that some commentators do, perhaps could be noted (along with the fact that yet other commentators disagree with this notion).↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 00:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe inhabitants do have those kind of ratings. And half the people tune in because they can't stand the guy. The other half tune in because they know he'll do something crazy. The remainder of viewers are fringe folk themselves. But my point is tons of people, including Shep Smith from Beck's own network, have pointed out how unhinged the man is. It is worthy of mention. Most moderate and mainstream people find Beck's behavior unusual if not down right nuts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.110.167 (talk) 13:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Half the people tune in because they can't stand the guy. The other half tune in because they know he'll do something crazy. The remainder of viewers are fringe folk themselves. Okay, so you're now purporting to know the intentions of three million people, and you don't know how to add (1/2 + 1/2 +more ≠1). You see, this is called POV, and there is a reason why it is severely discouraged. Look, I'm sorry that you don't like Beck. I personally do, for reasons that are my own. However, this site is supposed to be neutral. If you can't be neutral about things, you should either leave, or stick to the people that you are sure you can be neutral with. Seriously. And, I don't know about you, but I don't watch too many TV shows that I can't stand the people on it. I know The Office is popular, but I don't watch it because I think it's stupid. I know that a lot of people don't like watching WWE, but I watch it all the time, because I like it, and for no other reason. I admit that I do watch as much Olberwomann as I can stand sometimes, but that is usually on days where there is literally nothing else on (I despise Olberwomann because of his whining and his rudeness, not because of his politics or his ideology). I'm sorry, but saying that 1.5 million people watch a TV show at 5pm "because they can't stand the guy..." That sounds like wishful thinking on your part. And it really doesn't matter what "most mainstream people" think, it is not appropriate to start talking about how "unhinged" he is on his own BLP. If you want to start a Glenn Beck Controversies page, click on the red link and cite your sources. Until then, please read some friggin rules before you come up in here and start making judgments on articles. J DIGGITY SPEAKS 15:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work random IP. I think that summarizes the true problem. We have said what several of the controversies are but we haven't laid out that aspect of it. There is a big difference between being a self described "clown" and acting like a nut (oddly enough I don't think he would mind that categorization). We need sources though. It would also need to be worded in a way that is not "Hey, this guys is a lunatic and everybody hates him, look at this list of quotes making fun of the guy..." If some quality sources are found and we do some good summarization style there should be no BLP concerns. Cptnono (talk) 13:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diggity: I am not asking for POV, I am asking that we mention how many main stream commentators have accused Beck of being fringe or crazy. One doesn't have to look far to find such statements. As I pointed out, Shep Smith, from Glen's own station, has made fun of the man for his unusual behavior. Personally I do think he is unhinged, but I don't think the article should take that position. It should just report how many people agree with the position, which is an awful lot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.110.167 (talk) 13:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, you personally think he is unhinged, and you think the article should report how many people agree with you. You're absolutely right, there is absolutely no POV in that statement. *eyeroll* Have you even bothered to figure out what exactly POV is? Read that, and then come back and try to prove to me how getting your point inserted into a BLP is not POV. Seriously. J DIGGITY SPEAKS 18:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention the total lack of reference to the widely reported "Get off my phone" incident. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.110.167 (talk) 14:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If people want to see what an in-your-face critical-of-Beck ("hit"?) piece is, here is one:

"... ¶ Actually, Beck is a problem of taste as well as ethics. He laughs and cries; he pouts and giggles; he makes funny faces and grins like a cartoon character; he makes earnest faces yet insists he is a clown; he cavorts like a victim of St. Vitus's Dance. His means of communicating are, in other words, so wide-ranging as to suggest derangement as much as versatility. ¶ He is Huey Long without the political office. ¶ He is Father Coughlin without the dour expression. ¶ He is John Birch without the Society. ¶ He is an embarrassment to all true conservatives, men and women who believe sincerely, thoughtfully and sensibly that the role of government in American life should be limited. Of course, Beck does not call himself a conservative; he is, rather, a libertarian, which may be defined as a conservative-squared, a person who wants the feds to collect no money in taxes, spend no money on programs, but make available all services that the libertarian deems necessary for his own convenience and safety. ¶ It is remarkable that Beck has attracted the amount of attention he has. Remarkable because, every night, Fox's Sean Hannity and MSNBC's Keith Olbermann stage a duel of one-sidedness in political commentary that would have been the talk, and the shame, of a more civil era. ¶ Remarkable because, every night, Fox's Bill O'Reilly stages an exhibition of contentiousness, mean-spiritedness and self-aggrandizement that would similarly have affronted civil viewers of the past. ¶ Remarkable because, every night, CNN's Campbell Brown stages an exhibition of a different kind, one of honorable pugnacity, an exhibition that would have stimulated viewers of the past but instead makes her a part of her network's continuing decline in prime-time ratings. ¶ Yet Glenn Beck surpasses them all. He is the talk of the talkers. It is he who causes commentators to comment, fans to swoom, foes to fulminate. And it is he who has motivated me to burrow up from my literary researches to opine on journalism one more time. ¶ ..."---Emmy award-winning media critic ERIC BURNS (2 Dec 2009 HuffPo (link))

↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 18:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let me try to rephrase this so my point gets across better. THIS IS A BIOGRAPHY OF A LIVING PERSON. This is not the place for everyone's opinion of the man to be posted. This is an encyclopedia, not a friggin blog site. If you can't be bothered to actually read the guidelines, here is a small excerpt for you to check out:
"Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects must be considered when exercising editorial judgment."
That comes from the Wikipedia Guidelines on Biographies of Living Persons. Here is another excerpt from the same page:
Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints. The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral; in particular, section headings should reflect areas important to the subject's notability. Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Look out for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be promoting a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.
Does that clear it up?
And as for Shepard Smith, I don't pay too much attention to people that have dropped the F-bomb on national televison. J DIGGITY SPEAKS 18:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diggity: Your bias on this topic is clearly showing through. There is nothing fringe or controversial about noting the wide perception of Beck, that he is unstable and even dangerous. THis is one of the most frequent criticisms leveled at the man. POinting that out is entirely relevant to his notability. And, regardless of what you think of Shep Smith, the man is one of the leading faces on Fox News, and a Colleague of Glen Beck. But the list of notable people who have accused beck of being unstable and dangerous is virtually endless. It is clear that you like and admire Beck. And it is clear that lots of people join you in your admiration. He has a large following and that deserves mention in the article. But it should also mention the large number of people who feel he is off his rocker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.110.167 (talk) 20:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then name some. Put up some sources that qualify under Wikipedia rules for reliable sources. I know this means you might have to read some rules, but I believe in you.
And, since you clearly are not getting my point, I will try to clarify once again. I have no problem with "notable people's" perception of Glenn Beck. What I do have a problem with, is people coming in here trying to slander (or libel, or whatever you want to call it) people on their freakin BLP's. If it's a bias to ask people to follow the rules and guidelines, then I ABSOLUTELY have a bias. J DIGGITY SPEAKS 20:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am not here to edit the page itself. I am just making a suggestion for more experienced editors to follow up on. And your bias is obvious in this case. I have not slandered or libeled your precious Beck. I have just pointed out that notable people have called him crazy and dangerous. And that a large portion of the population feels the same. He is a laughing stock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.110.167 (talk) 03:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have yet to provide a link to a reliable source that backs up your claim. No sources, no inclusion. It doesn't matter what you think or what Diggity thinks or what I think. If you want to include such claims in a living person's biography they must be verifiable, backed up by reliable sources. Reach Out to the Truth 04:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My bias...I asked you to prove your point, within the confines of the guidelines, and you counter not with proof of your claim, but with another claim that I am biased. Have you considered backing up your claims with evidence? NOPE. Therefore, you should probably shut up. If and when you decide to come in here and try proving your assertions, then we all can talk about what you would like added to this page. And I'm glad that someone in here has a bias for the rules being followed. I think we ALL should be that way, regardless of how we feel about a particular topic.
Truth, that is my point exactly. Yes, I like Glenn Beck. I have not tried to make that a secret. However, I am more inclined to keep Wikipedia as accurate and as broad as possible than I am to improve the image of Glenn Beck. I have no problem including whatever is properly sourced, and whatever is applicable to a BLP. However, if someone is not going to follow the rules and guidelines, I really don't care what their opinion is, or what they want added to a BLP, or any page. J DIGGITY SPEAKS 04:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All I did mention shep smith already, and as I have pointed out, regardless of what you think of the man, his contempt for Glenn Beck (which is obvious) is significant since he is a fellow fox news caster. I only came in to suggest it should be explored by editors more familiar with Wikipedia than myself (I haven't edited the Beck page). For merely suggesting that, you immediately attacked me and ranted about the rules (which I haven't broken because I haven't edited the article). It is clear you are just a beckerhead who can't stand the idea that most of the country thinks the guy is nuts. But there are plenty of reliable sources calling him dangerous. THe ADL report is highly significant. As are the number of editorials in major papers following its release (Here is but one: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-rutten25-2009nov25,0,6632984.column). Here is another: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/11/17/2009-11-17_glenn_beck_is_scarier_than_rush_limbaugh_sean_hannity_says_antidefamation_league.html. Just google Beck and Fear, and you will see dozens of articles on the topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.110.167 (talk) 18:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, Shepard Smith, while he seems to be a pretty good journalist, and tries to be as neutral as possible in his reporting, is rather obviously a liberal guy. (Google "Shepard Smith Liberal" if you don't believe me.) I won't argue that Shep Smith's opinion on a coworker is germane and applicable, but it's not exactly without bias. Second, I "ranted and raved" about the rules, not because you broke them, but because you were asking us to do something against the rules. (And because you were asking us to do your dirty work for you.) This is supposed to be a neutral information site, not a compilation of everyone's opinion of the man. I can't stand that idea, simply because there is no proof, just your opinion. Third, the two sources you cite are all opinion pieces, and all base their opinions on the ADL report. One of them says that Beck was promoting the FEMA camps idea, when in fact it was Beck that disproved it. And I googled "Beck and Fear", and all I got was a bunch of blogs, which are not admittable according to the rules. Again, if you are under the impression that "most of the country thinks the guy is nuts," you should either admit that you have no proof for your supposition, or prove it, and then we will all discuss what we can add to the article, within the confines of the rules. If you have a problem with the rules, you should just go away, because everything added to the articles on Wikipedia is subject to the rules, and someone will find it and challenge it. J DIGGITY SPEAKS 18:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But we are talking about opinion. One cannot prove as a fact that BEck is dangerous or not dangerous. My only point was a large number of commentators, news people and academics think he is nuts and dangerous. Shep being liberal (which he isn't) has nothing to do with the fact that his opinion of a fellow co worker is important. You are not just referencing rules, like a hall monitor you are using them as a weapon to protect a figure you adore. Neutrality is fine, but it doesn't preclude painting people in the light they are generally seen. I would expect an article on Louis Farakan to note that many think he is an extreme guy. I would expect an article on Mao, to note he is viewed as one of the villains of the previous century. As the article is now, it looks more like a promotional piece for Beck. I am just trying to bring this to peoples' attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.110.167 (talk) 20:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Write a draft, FFS. Originally it was that he was a laughing stock and now it is the fear thing (which already getds play in the article). You have been so busy arguing that nothing is getting done. You only just recently provided sources. Take 10 minutes to stop complaining and propose a couple lines to add. Instead of having a knee jerk and defensive reaction to someone explaining guidelines and policies, you should be using that information to ensure you are improving the article in accordance with them.Cptnono (talk) 22:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since I still don't think you are getting it, I will try arguing this using your own tactics.
Shepard Smith isn't a liberal? Of course he is. There are several notable people that think he is a liberal. For instance, this guy, and then here he is grilling Joe the Plumber, which is a favorite pastime of liberals, and then, my centerpiece, a report from a well-known political action group, Free Republic, (you'll have to google it, WP won't let me post it). (Oh, wait, you waited for a week before you posted references. My bad. I'll let it ride.) It is obvious to a VAST MAJORITY OF THE COUNTRY that Shepard Smith is a liberal, and your being a biased shephead is obvious at this point.
I'm not sure if I did it right, but that's what your arguments looked like (except for the quick use of references).
I don't know much about hall monitors (we didn't have them in my school), but in all of the characterizations I've seen, I have never seen a hall monitor using rules and guidelines to protect certain people that he/she likes. However, in every characterization, the hall monitor has been true to form: he/she follows the rules. Maybe you should try reading the rules. Again, it's just an idea. J DIGGITY SPEAKS 22:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

YOu are missing the gist of my argument, I am not saying that notable people believing Beck crazy and dangerous makes him so (though I do believe he is), I am just saying that this reaction to him needs to be noted. ANd I agree with you, if lots of conservative viewers of FOx think Shep is too liberal because of his recent outburts, that is worthy of mention in his article. When I read a wikipedia article, I think it is important to know how someone is viewed by a range of people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.110.167 (talk) 14:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What you need to provide are reliable secondary sources that show the position is held by a significant minority, otherwise it's undue weight. Viewpoints held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, do not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not. This is particularly true with with a biography of a living person. The biography should be looked at with a long term historical perspective. Morphh (talk) 15:17, 08 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Morphh is right. That's what I've been trying to say, but you won't listen. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for what you want to be heard (yes, I realize I brought up another pesky rule). I'm glad that you think it's important to know how someone is viewed by everyone, but that's not how things are done. However, if, as I said previously, and Morphh just reiterated, if you can come up with some reliable sources that confirm your supposition that Beck is the laughing stock in the eyes of a respectable number of people, then that will be included in the article.
As for Shepard Smith being viewed as a liberal, no, it is not worthy of mention in his BLP. It is notable in everyday life, perhaps, and if Smith had a "Political Positions of" article, it would be notable there, likewise if there was a notable controversy involving an obvious political leaning by Smith, it would be worthy of mention somewhere. Otherwise, it is not important. J DIGGITY SPEAKS 18:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, 24.147.110.167. There you go. What from that peice needs to be in the article. I think "...And Fox's ratings surge is inextricably linked to Glenn Beck." That will more than likely read as positive. I also think "His shtick is so wildly theatrical, in fact, as to invite comparisons to fictional demagogues and ranters,.." and "one whose unpredictability has been a significant part of why he's drawn so much attention." are noteworthy. "ticking time bomb," is cute. It grabs the reader and is interesting. However, this isn't a magazine trying to right article to get more sales in the check out line. I wouldn't necessarily be against its inclusion. So what do you think? A whole lot of complaining and no follow through. What from that story would improve this project in your opinion? This isn't a forum for general chit chat and you are starting to sink into that.Cptnono (talk) 04:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should ping 24.147.110.167.'s talkpage, Cptnono. (<Thinks to self> Hey, do IPs' talkpages tend to be pingable?)↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 22:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How did an avowed Glen Beck supporter get put in charge of this page? Does whoever creates a page get to control it? I find it disturbing that some who is clearly a big fan of glen beck and wants to promote him gets put in charge. He even comes out and says it. "I like glen beck for my own reasons" I mean its obvious but dont come out and say it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.215.136.154 (talk) 17:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm the only person that has stated that they are a Glenn Beck supporter (as far as I know), I assume you think I'm in charge of the page. Uh, that would be a no. I do not claim that title, nor do I want it. Now, I try to do my part to make sure that this BLP stays within the GUIDELINES, and I don't think I'm the only one. However, that does not put me "in charge." I might be the "watcher" (since I don't have a life and spend most of my day watching my watchlist), but that don't make me in charge. Sorry to burst your bubble. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 18:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Goldline

I've removed an insertion under "other" saying that he is a paid spokesman for Goldline International, citing this. The cited source doesn't directly support the assertion, but there is a link on that page to this interview audio, which begins with Beck saying, "Uh, full disclosure here, ...uhm... this is my ... this is my gold guy but my gold guy happens to be a sponsor of this program, so I want you to understand clearly going into this that this is a sponsor of my program. Uhm, we're not going to talk about, you know .... we—we're gonna talk about gold, but I want you to know—full disclosure—sponsor of the program ..." I don't think that supports the assertion that he is a "paid spokesman". Also, the connection doesn't seem very notable and the cited source reads and the clip sounds very promotional about Goldline. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While we're on the subject of "full disclosure," I should make it clear that I just changed the reference from this to the Goldline reference. While I personally don't find a half-true "Yahoo! News" story a good citation, if there is a good number that okays it, I can't really say anything. And I would disagree that the new source does not directly support the assertion. The citation says this: "Exclusive precious metals sponsor of the Glenn Beck radio show, the third highest rated talk radio show in the country. See what Glenn says about Goldline." I'm not sure how that doesn't support the assertion, but I've been wrong before. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 02:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another source that support the assertion: Goldline International Introduces a New Company Spokesperson. --Jmundo (talk) 02:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll buy that. My concern was that a spokesman or spokesperson is someone engaged or elected to speak on behalf of others, and having X as a sponsor (which is what the first source cited seemed to support) is not the same thing as being a spokesman for X. The source which you provided above does support the assertion that Beck is a Goldline spokesperson. I'm still doubtful that this is notable enough for inclusion in the Media career and income section; it would probably fit better in a Controversies section (see this), but I won't pick that nit just now. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It almost appears to be a controversy the source is trying to push. The whole bottom third of the article I read makes it appear completely innocent while the opening makes it sound as if it is the biggest deal ever. Has anyone seen this has gained any traction in the coverage? Cptnono (talk) 21:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You guys really seem stuck on trivialities. Bytebear (talk) 00:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have any of you listened to XM radio? Randi Rhodes, Hannity, Thom Hartmann, Laura Ingramm...they ALL advertise for Goldline or some other gold service and have been for at least the past two years. This much ado about nothing. Arzel (talk) 01:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ha. Excellent point Arzel. Except that you don't have to have XM Radio to hear those shows. Citing that Beck is a spokesman for Goldline might be something that is relevant(but probably not. Who cares?), but not if the insinuation is that it's a COI because he promotes chaos to influence the price of gold. I mean, I think Beck is nuts, but you can't put innuendos and accusations in a WP:BLP with no reality basis in facts. You could make the same accusations towards all of the hosts Azrel lists above, who at one time or another can be accused of promoting 'chaos'. DD2K (talk) 16:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
sure, nobody cares, including fox.--Jmundo (talk) 17:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm....I don't believe I used that phrase. But the links are interesting. That's a different tact than suggesting that Beck is promoting chaos to influence the price of gold and suggesting a link to his relationship with Goldline. There is some news there, but I'm not sure adding anything until there is something substantial is a good idea. DD2K (talk) 23:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is actually a very interesting situation. This guy is pretty upset about Thom Hartmann doing exactly what people are accusing Beck of doing. And just how many stories were published about this.....um none. So I guess the NYT only cares about apparent COI when it is a conservative that is involved. Even Colbert (whom I think is funny) did a segment about this issue but didn't mention that this little conflict of interest appears to have no political line in the sand. I like this story because it reaffirms that there is a liberal bias of the media in general. Same situation for two people on different political spectrums, but it is only a story for the conservative. yeah. Arzel (talk) 00:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's not actually a valid criticism. The Times wrote the article because Beck works for Fox News, a supposed news/media outlet, and FNC has rules for it's employees. Tom Hartman hosts his own radio program and isn't on a news network. Perhaps if Keith Olberman had the same deal and MSNBC had rules regarding their employees having spokesman deals, and the NYT didn't cover the story, you might have a point. But your current analogy and conclusion seem pretty far removed from any sort of dotted line. It's like saying A + B = Oranges.DD2K (talk) 05:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He compared Tiger Woods to O. J. Simpson

Worth mentioning? [1]Stonemason89 (talk) 21:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no. Bytebear (talk) 00:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto.Jimintheatl (talk) 14:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Negative. ThinkEnemies (talk) 16:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It depends. If it was done in a racist way, yes. Absolutely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.110.167 (talk) 22:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a Controversies section

Does anyone else see the need for a Controversies section? (I know we've had this conversation before, but it's time to have it again.) It seems that there is a new controversy involving Beck every day (a testament to the political establishment's hatred of the man), and it is certainly worth mentioning most of these controversies. As much as I like Beck, we are supposed to be neutral and present as much information as is warranted, and, in my opinion, a section is warranted. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 17:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. He has received far more attention since moving to Fox News, leading to more scrutiny and thus, more controversy. We need to be careful to avoid this proposed section from becoming a bulletin board of daily blogs. ThinkEnemies (talk) 18:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, and that might be the problem. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 18:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still, it's worth the risk to balance the article. Definitely need to keep Van Jones, Anita Dunn, and ACORN in the Glenn Beck Show, and out of this BLP. If we can keep it to criticisms of Beck himself, his political views perceived as controversial, and maybe his "antics," this section will benefit the article. ThinkEnemies (talk) 18:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. Apparently I haven't checked the article lately. I concur with John Carter on separating the Public Reception section, and expanding the new subsections. Merry Christmas all. ThinkEnemies (talk) 23:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I would alter the "Public perception" section to "Criticism and controversies", and place all such material, maybe in separate subsections, there. Remember, "criticism" doesn't necessarily mean negative criticism, so most of the extant material there could probably stay. John Carter (talk) 18:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there really a controversy every day? Or is is left-leaning critics elevating mundane trivia creating a perception of controversy? It seems like partisan hypocrisy to me. Seriosuly, you are basically wanting to add a section to add POV and allow for bloat. Let me give you the flip side of this. There are a lot of interviews and information about Beck and his conversion and activity as a Mormon. Should we have a section detailing every article and statement he has made bout his religion? Yet, you want a section where you want to document every word uttered by any critic of Beck. Bytebear (talk) 06:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, calm down. Seriously. No, I do not want a section where we can post every single thing anyone says about the man. That's against several guidelines, mainly WP:BLP and WP:RS. I'm not trying to discredit him. I'm trying to help keep the article as neutral as possible.
It is mostly hypocrisy (although it can be bipartisan, since Beck has severely criticized the Republican establishment for it's corruption and and various other things), but there are some things that are fairly controversial. For instance, his statements about Obama, the racist comment. While I can't say that I disagree with his statement, it is, rather obviously, a highly controversial thing to say, and that's not the only controversial thing he has said. I'm not saying we should report every dingbat's opinion of the man (although there is an editor or two that think it's appropriate to post an EL to every dingbat's website-we all know who you are), I just think a Controversies section would be appropriate. What I meant by, "there seems to be a new controversy every day," was that he seems to be calling someone out every other day for the appearance of corruption and scandal, and the rest of the days someone is trying to discredit him. I just think it's worth a section. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 06:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By creating a section specifically for controversies, you open the door for BLP violations and article bloat. I personally think most of the "issues" addressed in the article are trivia, and we have recently had discussion on whether Beck's promotion of Gold and his commentary on Tiger Woods. Do you really want to open that door? We need to be looking at paring down the trivia, not creating a venue for people to add more. Again, think of POV, and then think if the Mormons came here with the same enthusiasm as his critics, and decide if you want a section called "Praise and adulation". Bytebear (talk) 06:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point (it was a very persuasive statement). I really do. But I still think it's worth the risk, on a trial basis if nothing else. I am willing to open the door (I'm not worried about someone watching this page intently, because I do that every day) because this suggestion was made to me by a very respected administrator (at least, I respect him...I can't speak for everyone), and I think it's a good idea. I would say that the minute it becomes a problem we can either put it back the way it was, or we can ask for better protection. Again, this is NOT a backdoor attempt to slander the man. If you look on my talk page, and at all my statements on this page, I am a huge Beck fan. (I paid 30 friggin bucks to become an Insider, for God's sake!) But I also try to be as NPOV as possible, and that includes stating the (verified, reliably sourced) facts about Beck, and not worry about how he comes off in the end. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 06:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is we are losing perspective on what this article is about. It's about what makes Beck noteworthy. The trivia of a few critics who find every jot and tittle to complain about is not what this article is about. I see a whole paragraph about the "Goldline scandal" has made it into the article. Are you saying that Beck is known for this scandal? In 30 years, or 100 years, will Beck be known for this issue? No, he is know for being a radio and television host, and best selling author. When the compromise was agreed upon to add even a few examples of "criticism" it was not to highlight that issue, but to show how his shows impact society. What has been lost is the view that the issues are not there in and of themselves (i.e. as a stand alone section) but rather how they relate to Beck and more specifically his show, which is why I was against the inclusion in the first place of such issues, as they are more appropriate to his show, or to the article about the specific issue (if there is one). Bytebear (talk) 18:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gold?

Should all these go in this article or should they go here? Dflav1138 (talk) 18:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should bother reading the article before you come walking in with a bunch of non-RS references and a couple that are already mentioned in the article. Just an idea. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 19:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, you think it should go here? Dflav1138 (talk) 19:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the criticism, specifically about comments he may have made on either his radio or televsion show which do not seem to address the individual beyond that, would probably best be put in those articles. Reagrding his Mormonism, personally, I know it is generally counted as a rather conservative religion, and he is more or less a conservative pundit, libertarianism being regarded in the US as kind of extreme conservatism, so I could see a bit more information added on it, particularly if it comes directly from him and if it is in what seems to be an honest, direct manner, rather than in what many would call the somewhat intentionally inflammatory material of his shows and at least some of his writings. I personally think the article as is probably overstates the media material, which is or can also be covered elsewhere, and a bit more directly biographical material about the subject would not be out of line. John Carter (talk) 19:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with having a controversy section. It creates issues with NPOV Article Structure and goes against general guidelines in this case, particularly being a BLP. Separate sections containing negative evaluations will become a troll magnet - this is apparent by looking through our own history. Our problem is we have too much crap going into it. The thread started that there is a controversy every day... No.. this is the problem.. it's not a controversy.. it's just news. This is not a news webpage - it's an historical biography in an encyclopedia. We need to separate the real controversy from the historically unimportant news. BLP policy is strict on [[WP:BLP|criticism and praise, and we're ignoring it and treating it like normal content. It should be summarized to only a few paragraphs covering the real controversies that received significant attention. Everything else should be integrated into the article as appropriate for the section or in other articles that are more specific to the topic. Just because we can find sources for an news item, does not give it sufficient weight to justify adding it as criticism. Cover the main criticism points, and let the news take care of the daily grind. Morphh (talk) 20:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

This page is now temporarily fully protected. It has been asserted that Shepherd Smith's comments were deemed relevant for inclusion in the article as per comments on the talk page. I have to admit I don't see where this consensus took place. So far as I can see, the content in question seems to be about a Piece in the New Yorker regarding Beck's program. I cannot see how this article is where any material referring specifically to either of the subject's programs necessarily belongs. There are extant articles on both the radio and TV programs, and it seems to me the bulk of the material on those programs should be placed there. Some mention of Beck's on-air and I think in-print persona is obviously relevant to the article on the person himself, but I'm not sure how much, considering seems to be a persona at least a little exaggerated for public consumption. WP:SS would seem to apply about material which is directly related explicitly only to either of the programs, and possibly the books with separate articles as well. Anyway, I would welcome discussion as to why any specific material which seems related to either program should be included here. Some such material is obviously called for, but which and how much space should be given to them is another matter entirely. John Carter (talk) 22:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the point, that massive wall of other ppl's posts is not necessary. Soxwon (talk) 04:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All I have to say is: "Mr. Jim in Atlanta , tear down this wall!" ThinkEnemies (talk) 05:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the clutter, but I reposted this discussion b/c an editor denied it had ever taken place and accused me of lying. Not only did the discussion occur, but the editor himself took part in it, and while doing so, actually deleted and did not restore some of my comments.Jimintheatl (talk) 15:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In all honesty, the discussion copied above is both difficult to follow and understand. If possible, a diff link indicating the differences between the first and last revision included would probably be a lot easier to follow. As an individual, the points that strike me as relevant are:
  • (1) Is the piece substantively an editorial? If it is, then there is a real question as to whether that specific item qualifies under RS, because it isn't really "sourcing" anything other than the writer's opinion.
  • (2) Is it specifically about him as an idnividual, or is it presented in the context of one of Beck's works, either print, broadcast, or otherwise? If the latter, then this article frankly already has too much material about his media endeavors, and those sections could and should be substantively shortened, at least IMO. I think it is generally understood that most such opinion-presenters do in fact "overplay" themselves for their media appearances. If this is about the media appearances, then I think it might better quqlify for inclusion in whichever article is discussing the specific item in question. John Carter (talk) 18:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, since I haven't been on here in a while, I thought I would clear some things up. First of all, here is the link to the entire discussion. The most important part of that discussion is this statement by Justmeherenow:

"In any case, since I believed that the "racist" statement likely has already been established as being notable, all I was pointing out is what I take to be the nuance of Franklin's admittedly still-negative take on this issue (but, please only take my opion about this for whatever it might be worth to you)"

Note that the editor responsible for bringing it up stated that his original intent was not to include the piece in this article, but instead to point out, in his opinion, a really good example of nuance. Nowhere in that discussion did I find anyone that was actually for inclusion. Therefore, yes, Jim, you were right that I was the only editor against inclusion, however, there was no one actually in favor of inclusion.
Second, yes, I did delete a user's comments. That was the result of my own lack of attention. If I remember correctly, I clicked on the page to respond, and that specific edit had not been added to my watchlist, and I highlighted my entire edit to remove it (I can't remember why), and that one happened to be beneath mine. I did notice afterward that I had deleted someone else's comments, and immediately set out to apologize for that (seeing that it had already been restored). Here is the proof that I did so, even though it was promptly deleted (with a borderline-personal attack edit summary to boot, which seems to be a pattern on that particular page).
So, Jim, you might not have been lying, but you certainly were misleading and withholding the entire truth. Since calling someone a liar is a breach of WP:CIVIL I apologize for calling you a liar, Jim. I tend to call it like I see it, even if that requires incivility.
Oh, and one more thing: I don't care for the New Yorker for one reason: It's primary focus tends to be New York (at least in the articles I have read), and art, two subjects I do not care for. Yes, I see a liberal bias, but that does not stop me from reading and watching news articles and programs. I read from the Huffington Post and Media Matters all the time (mainly to try to figure out how people can tell blatant misleading statements and half-truths), and I occasionally watch Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow, despite their obvious liberal bias. I don't go so far as to actually include them as an RS (for the same reason I don't go to NewsBusters or WorldNetDaily), since I can see the bias, and realize that that is pushing the rules just a little over the edge. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 20:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again I'll say that just because we have a reliable source like the New Yorker, doesn't mean that the content should be given any amount of weight in relation to the biography of the person, particularly if it is a form of criticism, which BLP requires higher standards for inclusion. I don't care if it's included or not, but we should be careful with including fluff and show that the position is relevant or more than a tiny minority opinion. There is probably enough with the fear angle to include something, but that entire section needs to be summarized in some way. I agree with John Carter - the relevant material should be placed in the proper sections or articles. Morphh (talk) 21:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that criticism of this type doesn't necessarily belong in a biographical article. Also, I want to stress to all involved that media personalities such as this are probably much more important to those media in the long run than to the basically huge and unmanagable world of "biography". For those people who are interested in the development of talk radio, for instance, I think it would be much more useful to them to have the material regarding his radio show in the radio show article, because that will be the one that they more obviously see as related to the topic. They may well think like I do, that the biography is more about where he was born, went to school, married, had kids, and such. So it probably is in everyone's best interests, particularly the fans of his radio show, to include the material on his radio show in the radio show article, and probably to a lesser extent the fans of his TV show in that article, particularly considering the obvious relationship to the network who broadcasts the show. John Carter (talk) 17:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Public reception section is dogshit

Just about the entire section is a slam-piece, citing almost all liberal news sources. This kind of crap is the reason why nobody believes Wikipedia is neutral on politics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.203.4.35 (talk) 07:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You not providing sources to adjust the section might also be to blame. Or just shit.Cptnono (talk) 07:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Concur. If you have a problem, why don't you do something about it, besides griping about it? J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 10:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistencies in Article

In this article, Glenn Beck is painted as an entertainer and a pundit, a talk show host and a reporter. Is it common practice to have a wikipedia article contradict itself on so many levels? How can you call a man a pundit when his arguments have been shown to be fallacious in the past, or more often simply false?[[2]] The famous parody of Beck's birther movement, about him having raped and murdered a girl in 1990, is a (personally) hilarious example of his fallacious arguing. His behavior and statements do not conform to that of a pundit. Just as Keith Olbermann and Rush Limbaugh are not pundits, neither is Glenn Beck. It is arguably better to have the wikipedia article summarize the people's perception of him (as either a pundit or an entertainer, depending on the perspective) than labeling him as either. Otherwise, where is the NPOV?

Also, the guy above calling Olbermann "Olberwomann" - is that really appropriate? I understand you disagree with Olbermann's views, but personal attacks are unnecessary. You simply cannot present yourself as a neutral spectator and still inject a partisan agenda into the discussion. GRHooked (talk) 07:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Glenn Beck is painted as an entertainer and a pundit, a talk show host and a reporter" sums it up well. If you have sources discussing the differences between the common labels applied to the subject that would improve the article. Otherwise, it is SYNTH and your opinion contradicting what some sources have said.Cptnono (talk) 07:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Injecting a partisan agenda into the discussion?" Okay, let's work that out. First, let's take your example. "Olberwomann." I have a personal dislike of Keith Olbermann (previously referred to as "Olberwomann," cause I find it funny). How is that injecting a partisan agenda? To me, it shows a dislike of a specific man. Oh, wait! I forgot. Nowadays, you can't dislike someone for any reason except ideological reasons, unless you dislike Obama for ideological reasons, and then you're just a racist. You're right, my bad. It's just too confusing for my simple, Missouri-raised mind to understand. That automatically makes me a Republican drone (except for the fact that I dislike the Republicans much more than I do the Democrats, and I am not registered with, nor do I subscribe to, any party.
Now, in the reality I grew up in, it was theoretically possible to dislike someone for reasons outside of politics. Like, for instance, hypocrisy. Here's a good example (since we are bringing in partisan websites): 1. Another good reason not to like someone is impoliteness. Here's another good example: 2. A third reason is pretending to be something you are not, or misleading people as far as you can: 3 and 4. And the last reason I care to mention (and the reason why I call him Olberwomann) is all the whining: 5 (yes, I realize that Beck cries continuously, however, I personally let emotional reactions that have to do with patriotism slide). And it is not a personal attack to give my opinion on a non-user, so please don't label it as such.
But how is this article contradicting itself? Beck is an entertainer: He calls his radio show, "The Fusion of Entertainment and Enlightment," and he is an accomplished stand-up comedian. He sounds like an entertainer. Beck is a pundit: "A 'pundit' is someone who offers to mass-media his or her opinion or commentary on a particular subject area (most typically political analysis, the social sciences or sport) on which they are knowledgeable. The term has been increasingly applied to popular media personalities. In certain cases, it may be used in a derogatory manner as well." How is that not true? Or is it that some people don't like giving him any more credit than they absolutely have to? Beck is a talk show host: Go to Glenn Beck (TV program), and Glenn Beck Program for proof. Glenn Beck is a reporter: "A reporter is a type of journalist who researches and presents information in certain types of mass media." Sounds about right. Again, how is this contradictory?
As for Politifact's little Truth-O-Meter...wow. They found ten things that he has said this year that were not true, out of (probably) thousands. Man, that kind of lying is almost habitual, right? But, of course, not all of those "lies" actually meet the general criteria to be called a lie. Of those, only two are actually statements either based on false information, or a theoretical lie (I say theoretical, because I don't like calling people liars unless I have proof). The rest were untrue based on someone's opinion, whether it was the people at Politifact, or Beck himself.
For instance, the "Andy Stern" one. Here is a small excerpt: "Stern led the pack for the first data release, which covered visits from Jan. 20, 2009 to July 31, 2009. But he was surpassed by several other individuals in the second release, which updates the data through Aug. 31, 2009 (and which was made public more than a week before Beck aired his comment)." Oh, wow! He must have been lying, and it is not possible that he simply did not know about the new list!
Or, the "Van Jones is an avowed Communist" one: After stating that Jones specifically said he "needed to be more radical," and describing several Marxist actions he took after leaving jail, they list a few things he has said since then, and say, "That doesn't sound Marxist to us." Well, then, Beck must be lying! (Note: No one has ever found a clip or statement from Jones that renounces Marxism.)
Or, and this is the best one, in the "Van Jones/Truther" one: After discussing the petition that Jones supposedly signed, and giving the White House statement on it, they say this: "Jones' name is listed on the petition , and he has not disputed that he signed it. Democrats such as Howard Dean said that Jones made a mistake by signing the petition without knowing its complete contents." (*Head slap*) How is that a lie? He signed the petition. Now, perhaps he didn't know what was on it, but in my personal experience, you don't sign something without reading it first, and if you sign something, you admit it openly, no matter what it said. If he signed it by mistake (I'm not sure how different the actual petition could have been than the first few sentences suggested it to be), then he should just say, "I made a mistake when I signed it."
Lastly, and this is the dumbest one, the "RomneyCare bankrupting Mass." one: This is kin to the old, "Chicken or egg" question. Which causes government to run out of money first: more spending or less revenue? Well, here is a simple question to answer that question: Which can government control? SPENDING! Yes, the almost-$1 billion/year doesn't quite take care of the $5 billion deficit, but it would have helped, and that's just $1 billion more in debt than they are now. So, of course, you can say that RomneyCare is not bankrupting Mass., but that is a matter of opinion.
So, in the future, you might want to do some research on your research. You know, make sure it doesn't put forth a partisan agenda. Or something like that. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 09:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is weird to see how defensive you get. Are you Glenn Beck? I don't see otherwise why this matters to you so much, but please remember this is not a forum for general discussion on the man. This has to do with the article alone, please stay on topic. As far as your definition of pundit: does Wikipedia policy typically allow you to use words as they are defined on Wikipedia, or as they are actually defined in a dictionary? A pundit is more understood as an expert on a subject. In fact, this is the definition of the Wiktionary entry: "A professed expert in a particular field, as called upon to provide comment or opinion in the media." What field is Beck an expert in? Fear mongering, demagoguery? He is certainly allowed to his opinion, but to call him an expert on opinion is simply wrong. GRHooked (talk) 15:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Am I Glenn Beck? Ah, you caught me. Despite the fact that I make over $20 million a year, I care enough about what people like you think to come down here and pretend to be someone else...Of course I'm not Glenn Beck. And it matters to me because when people come in here and claim that there is a problem with the neutrality of an article that several editors have collaborated on, using a biased argument, is hypocrisy, and that guy is indirectly accusing me and several other people of breaking the rules. For some odd reason, it bothers me. I'm also wondering why WP:NOTAFORUM is getting thrown in my face, when everything I said was a response to a post about the consistency of the Glenn Beck BLP, on the BLP's talk page. Yeah, that is a total breach of the guidelines. Again, you caught me.
As for the claim that Beck is not a pundit, I think, honestly, it really doesn't matter what the hell we call him. (In case no one could tell, I've had this argument before, and it exasperates me.) Why the hell does it matter that hardcore to some people? So we call him a pundit. A pundit is, by definition, someone knowledgeable in a particular field. I would contend that Beck is quite knowledgeable in the field of punditry and commentating itself, seeing as he regularly has over 2.5 million viewers, almost as many viewers as the most watched television show on a news station, at a slot where a year ago the most anyone got was a little over a million! But, of course, that's not at all notable, and easily accomplished by anyone. On the flipside, let's not call him a pundit! It will accomplish something awesome: It will cause all the whiny Beck-haters to shut up about it, and it won't make a bit of difference! Hell, that would be enough for me to support the idea right there. Except, Mr. Hooked, that you are supposed to refer to him as the reliable sources refer to him, and there are numerous sources that call him a pundit. So, no, I will have to withdraw my support, based solely on the rules. So, no, not to call him an expert would be wrong. And also, here is that Wiktionary entry you posted, only with some emphasis on the important part: "A professed expert in a particular field, as called upon to provide comment or opinion in the media." I do believe even Beck-haters would have a hard time arguing that point without resorting to name-calling and debasing of character and accomplishments (i.e., claiming, as is claimed here, that Beck is thought of by more than 100% of everyone in America as a crazy lunatic and a right-wing hatemonger), but I'm willing to see them try. It might be funny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshuaingram (talk • contribs) 17:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was never proposing you were Glenn Beck, please calm down. This is NOT a general discussion on what you think of Beck, this is about the article. I do not care what you think about the man, and the reciprocal is very obviously true, so how about this: you calm down, and discuss (with emphasis on the important parts) THE ARTICLE like an ADULT.
Now, if to be a pundit you must be an expert in the field of punditry, then I don't know what to say to your logic. If being an expert in entertaining someone makes you a pundit, why aren't Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert listed as pundits? GRHooked (talk) 23:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He does meet Wikipeida's definition of pundit with "...or opinion-leader who analyzes events in an area of expertise in the popular media" in my opinion. Expertise might be debatable but he obviously knows more about politics than the average Joe. Application of the knowledge might be a problem. Are you trying to say he isn't a journalist? Regardless, don't talk about this not being a forum then completely disregard a key aspects of the project such as using reliable sources. It isn't for us to decide if he is a pundit/news anchor guy/jerkoff/sunshine or not. I might just be being CHILDISH, though. (couldn't resist :) ). This discussion really might be better at an article discussing the overall concerns of entertainment in the news in general. Make sure the sources are there, though.Cptnono (talk) 09:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Calm down? I fail to see what I have said that is not considered calm. Passionate, maybe, but I have not been screaming like the crazed maniac you are implying me to be. Could you point out some non-calm things I've said, so in the future I don't freak anyone out?
Second, yeah, you did imply that you thought I was Glenn Beck. " Are you Glenn Beck?" was your exact phrase, and I responded as such. Again, I don't see a problem with this.
Third, everything I said was a response to what you said, which, where I'm from, it is customary to respond to someone's statements. If you have a problem with this, let me know and I will ignore everything you say in the future, or you could put a little "respond to this please" behind the sentences you want me to respond to.
Lastly, again, everything I have said has been a response to you, and I have responded with what I thought was an equivalent level of maturity. So, if an editor wants to have a grown-up discussion with me, they should probably start by making grown-up statements. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 01:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Beck does not self-identify as white

Since the article already mentions Beck's comments about Barack Obama's alleged "deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture", it might also be worthwhile and relevant to note that Beck himself does not self-identify as white. [3] Stonemason89 (talk) 15:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how they are related. Then again, I am not searching for a controversy where one doesn't exist. Also, anything added off of this should be with a cite episode template without a link to Media Matters (unless there is for sure no copyright violation over there).Cptnono (talk) 09:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested Additions to Glenn Beck Article-Page

In addition to the book "Christmas Sweater", Glenn Beck has a new book for children (with pictures.) I have prepared the line to add, but as everyone knows, the article-page is protected and can be modified only by an Administrator. Here is my code-text to add, . . . please & thanks.

  • The Christmas Sweater: A Picture Book Simon & Schuster, 2009 ISBN 978-1-41-699543-2 (For pre-teens and grandparents.)

Thanks Again. Keep up the good work .!. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC) . . . . [It's done. Thanks!][reply]

There is no mention Of Becks many disagreements with the Bush Presidency. He had all sorts of Arguments with how bush was dealing with the dept and the border. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.52.161 (talk) 16:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crying

Why isn't Glenn Beck's crying mentioned? A google search reveals many sources discussing the times he has cried on the show and how he used Vicks vapor rub to fake cry. This led to controversy and thus his show becoming more popular. Shouldn't it be discussed? Do a google search to see the sources. Wikipediarules2221 08:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do a google search and provide the links.Cptnono (talk) 11:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has been mentioned, parodied, criticized in multiple mainstream news sources. Beck crying on air, is pretty common on the show. Probably deserves some mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.110.167 (talk) 04:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So provide the sources.Cptnono (talk) 04:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Highly rated Cable News program ≠ "most highly rated program on cable TV"

The recent addition in Public Reception is incorrect in stating that the show is one of the "most highly rated programs on cable TV." It is highly rated for a cable news program, but that is a very small pond in the larger world of cable television. No news program even cracks the top 20 for cable ratings (by way of example, Spongebob draws three times as many viewers on an average day than Beck's progam). --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree that Beck's show is not one of the most highly rated progams on cable TV. If that was changed to, "highly rated programs in cable news," or, "highly rated programs on any cable news channel," that would be much more accurate. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 22:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I understand that Fox and Becks consider it a commentary program rather than a news program.[4] We can call Fox a news channel, but we should avoid calling the program a news show.   Will Beback  talk  23:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. It's obvious on it's face that it's commentary not news, but such a statement would need reliable sources. Since self-identification carries substantial weight in these matters, Beck's and Fox's statement as such is all the verification that is needed. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested changes

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Glenn_Beck&oldid=334769265"