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 Bytebear (talk | contribs) at 21:11, 20 January 2010 (→‎"Conservative" label). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Pbneutral

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]

I agree. It will be hard to find sources, however, as most of them are either directly from Beck's website (which isn't that bad, and still within the guidelines, but some will be questioning the legitimacy of using his site as a source), or from sources that are not usable. Give me a little bit and I will find some good sources. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 17:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Beck discussing the 9/12 march
  2. Beck interview with Michelle Malkin
  3. Beck discusses Progressivism with a caller
  4. Beck discusses Bush with Limbaugh
All of these are from Beck's site, but all of them are archives and transcripts of things Beck said. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 18:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to a recent Gallup poll, Glenn Beck is the fourth most admired person in America. This should be added to the Public Reception section, along with an explanation that he came in fourth with 2%, behind Obama (30%), former President Bush (4%), and Nelson Mandela (3%). Source can be found here. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 17:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Glenn Beck. Glenn Beck is a highly controversial personality. With other controversial people and subjects I have noticed a "criticism section". Yet, for some reason there seems to be no such section. If I was better at doing such things I would undertake this task myself. Is there a PR firm keeping this article "sanitized"; or, devout worshippers keeping it free of criticism. The absence of a "criticism section" just seems to be a flagrant absence. 71.158.215.49 (talk) 22:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism sections are actually frowned upon. The article has tons of criticism if you actually read the article.Cptnono (talk) 23:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Criticism sections are discouraged (if not outright prohibited) on Wikipedia anyway. But on articles about controversial subjects, they're just poison. It's much better to weave notable criticism into the article as is done here. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also Agree, Criticism sections are discouraged and often a sign of poor writing. Good articles have the criticism woven into the article where appropriate based on weight. Morphh (talk) 1:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. While I have argued for the addition of a criticism section to this article in the past, I have to admit I have changed my mind. There is a fair amount of criticism in this article, and that should be good enough. If the people that have problems with this article can't read the article before they criticize it, they should be soundly ignored, in my opinion. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 02:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Under 9/12 Project, the sentence "The event was inspired by Beck's 9/12 project" should be changed to "The event was partly inspired by Beck's 9/12 project" as the source clearly states that there were many inspirations for the protests"Jojuko (talk) 20:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Plan, MLK

There should be a mention of his upcoming book The Plan, as well has his upcoming Martin Luther King Jr. Day speech at the Lincoln Memorial, which will coincide with the release of The Plan. Stonemason89 (talk) 03:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We generally don't look into the future on WP articles. Both of those issues could be viewed as promotional in nature. Arzel (talk) 03:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CD

I'm removing "While working in Connecticut, Beck appeared and sang background vocals on The Delrays' Red, White and Blues CD, a fund raising effort by then Governor John G. Rowland produced by guitarist Tom Guerra. The CD was well received and was promoted by a series of live appearances." I was inclined to tag it but we have discussed lack of sources on this page. Also, I can't really tell if this is important or not. Any sources or thoughts on it?Cptnono (talk) 05:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose expanding quote

Currently:
In 2006, Beck asked Muslim congressman-elect Keith Ellison, a guest on his show, to "prove to me that you are not working with our enemies...And I know you're not. I'm not accusing you of being an enemy, but that's the way I feel." Ellison replied that his constituents

Proposed change:
In 2006, Beck remarked to Muslim congressman-elect Keith Ellison, a guest on his show, "I have been nervous about this interview with you, because what I feel like saying is, 'Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies.' And I know you're not. I'm not accusing you of being an enemy, but that's the way I feel." Ellison replied that his constituents

Reasoning:
1. As it is currently, it incorrectly paints the exchange as Beck asking a question when as it happened Beck was commenting on his feelings and that is what Ellison replied to. Although an argument can be made that he was using his feelings as an excuse to indirectly ask the question, the whole quote more accurately portrays the scenario as it actually unfolded.
2. It is the correct quote (including quotation marks) from the listed source.

PaulOtt (talk) 16:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm hesitant to expand the content any further for weight reasons, we should make sure we have enough context to correctly portray it. So, I would support this change. Morphh (talk) 17:35, 07 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Morph summarized the reasoning perfectly.Cptnono (talk) 22:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ADHD diagnosis?

I have heard Glenn Beck make jokes about being "riddled with ADD" on the air several times. It sounded like humorous self-deprecation, usually in the context of him jumping from subject to subject in free-association. This article states that he has been diagnosed with ADHD, and the citation is this web page that states simply that "[h]e has often discussed his diagnosis of ADHD on his radio show." It doesn't strike me as a reliable source. Please understand, I'm not disputing this, and I could either believe this or not depending on persuasive evidence. The provided link is not persuasive because it is anonymous (no way to evaluate the author's identity, let alone reliability) and the claim is unverifiable (no mention of when he said it on the air, a quote of the exact words he said, etc). It would be interesting to know one way or the other, but in its current state, this claim seems a bit dubious. CosineKitty (talk) 23:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found two references for the ADHD claim, one that was already here (part 3 of the Slate article), and on Glenn Beck's own web site: a transcript of an interview where he talks about taking medicine for "ADD or ADHD" and not liking how it made him feel. I removed the healthcentral.com reference because I still think it was too weak. CosineKitty (talk) 02:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't like the term African-American

"African-American is a bogus, PC, made-up term. I mean, that's not a race. Your ancestry is from Africa and now you live in America. OK, so you were brought over -- either your family was brought over through the slave trade or you were born here and your family emigrated here or whatever but that is not a race." [1] [2] Stonemason89 (talk) 03:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you also going to include, "Beck’s on-air guests agreed, noting the frequent misuse of African-American as a label, using, for instance, the term incorrectly applied to someone from Jamaica. Also, it’s not used to describe South African-born Charlize Theron, who is white and now a U.S. citizen." (taken from the first reference). The second reference is so bias, I don't even know where to begin. Sounds like you want to take out the context to promote a specific POV. Bytebear (talk) 03:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And why is this in any way relevant to his notability? Encyclopedia.. not a tabloid. Morphh (talk) 13:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Glenn Beck talks on the radio and TV for hours every day. If we included this opinion, we would set the precedent to include any other opinion of equal note, which would bloat the article without limit. The "political views" section could arguably be made more detailed than the few sentences it now contains, but to be a good article, it should remain an overview of his philosophy, not an enumeration of specific statements he made. CosineKitty (talk) 15:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was the whole problem with the broadcast, they were complaining about all the different terms for black people in America (noting for instance that African American isn't comprehensive enough to address people from jamaica), and didn't realize their own criticisms supported the use of the different terms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.194.51.179 (talk) 02:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was this article written by Beck or something

Seriously. The man is clearly deranged. He spouts conspiracy theories, and over half the country makes fun of him for it. But based on the article, you'd think he was someone respected by political philosophers or something. When is reality going to intrude on this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.194.51.179 (talk) 02:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The real question is, why do people have such stupid biases? It seems like every other day there is some idiot bitching about the fact that the BLP of Glenn Beck isn't a hit-piece...oh, I'm sorry, I meant, it seems like every other day there is some enlightened soul, desperately seeking to make the truth known, pointing out that the BLP of Glenn Beck is not an, "accurate description." My response is this: READ THE RULES before you decide to make stupid claims, and then wonder why no one takes you seriously. It generally saves your time, and ours. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 03:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering if some of this may be from people just reading the lead and jumping to conclusions about the entire article. Since the lead does not yet fully summarize the article, perhaps it does not present some of his controversial nature. While I don't think the lead is any place for a specific criticism, maybe we can come up with some additional prose to expand on his public reception. Morphh (talk) 3:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
No, I've had this article on my watchlist for a quite long time. This article has always had new and/or anonymous users coming on it loudly exclaiming that it needs to include more about how much people hate Beck in a way flatly in violation of WP:NPOV. There seems to be something about him, that people see the need to process-wonk to include their own point of view. I'm willing to be there are a few other such figures on Wikipedia, though I have yet to find them. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Magog, may I suggest going here, here, and here (that last one especially). While only the last one comes close to the level of vitriol and megalomanical hatred of the idiots that come here, all three of those are targets of some level of the same stupid-ass shit. And, no matter where it's done, it's just as stupid. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 04:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, the page for Rick Santorum received exactly the same type of treatment until the day he lost the election to Bob Casey. Now, no one has significantly attacked the page in over a year.Npeters22 (talk) 11:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I look at his two ways. IPs are boohooing. 1) They don't understand what Wikipeida is just that it comes up top on a google search. 2)They are left leaning jerkoffs (a joke because I am sure they aren't). so next IP that comes in bitching and moaning we need to find out EXACTLY what is wrong. Cptnono (talk) 06:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now to clarify, lest there should be the appearance of a cabal, it has nothing to do with political affiliation; Wikipedia is neutral and will treat any figure the same regardless of affiliation. The same goes for obnoxious editors on Janeane Garofalo, Michael Moore or whoever. All this being said, I'm sure many of the IPs (if not the above one) are, in fact, obnoxious partisan jerkoffs. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • we shouldn't be uncivil to those who are unaware of wikipedia's policies. new editors are often unfamiliar with wikipedia's core tenets, such as WP:NPOV and WP:RS, and can become irate or confused when contentious articles are written with a NPOV backed by strict RS's. regardless, we experienced editors should know that WP:civil is also a fundamental policy, and so we should attempt to only engage in civil discourse with these new editors. name calling is an unacceptable way to deal with policy ignorance because it's unproductive towards the collaboration process. Theserialcomma (talk) 09:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I was not calling anyone a name, I was saying that some out there probably fit the description. I was also making an (apparently) poor attempt to be facetious. Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we should be nice to new editors, and most everyone in general. However, I personally have problems dealing with people that don't take the time to check into something before griping about it. For instance, it says at the top of this page, "This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute." And also, "Please be neutral when editing this highly sensitive article. It discusses a topic about which people have diverse opinions." I mean, it's not like those boxes are hidden from sight. People just don't read them (mainly because they don't care). Now, if someone comes in here and says something to the effect of, "Why isn't (specific thing) and (specific thing) mentioned in this article?" Then I automatically respond fairly politely, as I do not like to beat around the bush, and some people find blunt words offensive. For instance: Criticism of Glenn Beck. Glenn Beck is a highly controversial personality. With other controversial people and subjects I have noticed a 'criticism section'. Yet, for some reason there seems to be no such section. If I was better at doing such things I would undertake this task myself. Is there a PR firm keeping this article 'sanitized'; or, devout worshippers keeping it free of criticism. The absence of a 'criticism section' just seems to be a flagrant absence." If you look above, no one was rude to him, no one was in any way uncivil, because he was not some arrogant d-nozzle with a major case of MPOV. When someone walks in here with the megalomanically phrased statement: "Seriously. The man is clearly deranged. He spouts conspiracy theories, and over half the country makes fun of him for it. But based on the article, you'd think he was someone respected by political philosophers or something. When is reality going to intrude on this article?" Or, "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." (In case anyone are unaware, the previous statements were both made by IP's, and both thought the article was not negative enough.) In both these cases, I responded with a blunt recommendation to, "read the rules," before you go making stupid claims on talk pages. I'm blunt and slightly rude about it for one simple reason: I didn't bother to read the rules myself until I got my ass chewed out on the BASEketball talk page. Before that, I had no incentive. And while I am aware that the d-nozzles that like to come in here and tell us we are being too polite by not reaming the shit out of everyone they don't like really don't care about the rules, I still have to try. If Wikipedia didn't have rules, and no editors read them, this place would be the partisan shithole that Conservapedia and Liberapedia think it is. And the idea that either of those sites could possibly be right about anything frightens me to my core. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 14:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All the references to "left leaning jerks" by editors makes it hard not to believe there isn't bias going on here. Nuetrality is fine, but ommissions can be just as POV. Leaving out key controversies, or giving equal weight to both sides in a controversy (even if one side only reflects a small percentage of the population) gives a skewed perspective on a persons biography. Biographies should be given the same objectivity Film pages are. Just about every movie gets a reception page, that tries to show how well recieved the movie was. Politicians, Pundits and other media personalities, deserve the same treatment, so people can place them into the right cultural context. As it is now, Wikipedia is just guilty of the Golden Mean fallacy. And it should go both ways. I don't care what political party a person belongs to. If they are unliked by a large segment of the population (as both Glen Beck and Barrack Obama are) that needs to be mentioned.LynnCityofsin (talk) 17:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So what exactly are you proposing be changed? Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
LynnCityofsin, I don't think the comments regarding left leaning jerks was meant as anything bias. The same thing could be said of right leaning jerks, or center leaning jerks. I believe the frustration was more a matter of where the charge was coming from and the lack of information with it. Morphh (talk) 18:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That some effort is made to show in the biography how divided people are over a person and in what proportions (there must be polls out there we can draw on here). Glenn beck has a very passionate and solid base of support, that must be mentioned in the article. But how divided people are over the man, and the fact that he has crossed lines no recent popular pundit has (in terms of positing elaborate theories) deserves mention. Like him or not, he is a controvertial figure. But you can read the article and not realize how controvertial Beck is. Same for Barrack Obama. His poll numbers have plummetted and his lack of popularity will translate into lost seats for the dems. What is more, when statements by such people can be demonstrably disproven (as with Beck's sometimes fallacious reasoning (Barrack Obama issued bail outs, hugo chavez issued bail outs, therefore Barrack Obama is heading a socialist takeover of the country OR Obama's reasoning that we are at war on terror, but terror suspects aren't enemy combatants). Yes an Ecyclopedia shouldn't have POV, but it can still point out that 2+2 don't equal 5. And it can report on the state of someone's popularity if the numbers are there to support it. LynnCityofsin (talk) 18:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that there are any polls out there that measure that. Do you have any sources to support this reasoning. I believe the article does cover some of these things in the "public reception" section. Please provide some sources to the information you believe is lacking. We can then determine the weight it should be given. I would consider some of the issues you mentioned as minor and not unique to Beck in the conservative talk space. Morphh (talk) 18:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly finding polls on whether Barrack Obama and Beck are liked/disliked, and in what proportions shouldn't be that hard. Here are the first few I found on a google search. Some of the polls are from a particular segment of the population, but that still gives an overview of how that group views the person: http://www.mediaite.com/online/glenn-beck-almost-as-admired-as-nelson-mandela/ http://www.twiigs.com/poll/Politics/38512 http://www.pollingreport.com/obama_fav.htm http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/12/31/123630/27 http://www.pollingreport.com/obama_ad.htm

I certainly know I have seen plenty more in the past six months. But those are the first I have seen. Aside from polls alone, are the number of groups dedicated in one form or another to hatred of these men. I can't tell you the number of anti obama sites people forward to me. Or the number of Glenn Beck Sucks or Glenn Beck Really sucks, sites there are (and many of these are high traffic sites). Then there is the public debate over both of them. Unless you have been living in a cave, I think it would be possible to deny both Barrack Obama and Glenn Beck are men people pretty much either Hate or Love. There are very few people on the fence with them.

But it doesn't take a poll or a reliable news report to identify faulty reasoning. If pundits or politicians are in the habit of employing fallacious logic, I don't think it takes much to point that out. Especially if the story is already part of an article. There is being objective, and then there is not applying any standard of truth to an article. Right now, wikipedia seems to be operating under a postmodern approach of all truth is relative. LynnCityofsin (talk) 19:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that any of those are reliable sources for such information. To your last statement, Wikipedia operations under an approach of reliable sources, not our original research regarding truth. Morphh (talk) 19:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Polling Report is most certainly a reliable source. The First link was cited in a number of major news papers. The others are windows into the opinions of smaller subcommunities, not the general population. As I already said, those were just the first few that came up. There have been tons of polls on this subject. If not Glenn Beck (which I am sure there has been), I know a number of major news outlets and reliable pollsters have done polls showing disapproval of Barrack Obama. That you would suggest otherwise is baffling to me. The fact that editors aren't bothering to look for such polls, doesn't meant they aren't out there. I see them every day. I think the truth is, most editors are biased in one direction or the other, and have little interest in seeing the truth some of the polls reveal (since most polls suggest positives and negatives). Regarding logic, that doesn't require a valid news source. If someone made a claim that was demonstrably false or fallacious (as well as newsworthy) it deserves mention. Beck routinely makes such arguments, and Barrack Obama has as well. And I am not an editor here. I have no interest in editing a wikipedia article. Just trying to give constructive criticism as a reader. I seriously encourage you to look up the wikidia entry on the Golden Mean Fallacy. Because there is a lot of that going on here. The point is if you are not putting things like popularity, favorability, controversy into some kind of perspective, you are not really giving people useable information. Just listing the arguments for and against a person, isn't enough, you really need to make an effort to show how much support an argument has. Otherwise you magnify minor criticisms/controversies, and diminish major ones, so readers think they are all equal. LynnCityofsin (talk) 19:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lynn, welcome to the page. I'm glad you could join the conversation. However, there are a few problems with your comments. 1) You have to make sure you aren't breaking the rules with your sources. I suggest you read WP:RS at some point in the near future. The Daily Kos is a blog site, and not considered worthy of being used on here. That rape shit is not even close to being considered worthy of being mentioned, except for the backstory. Just a few minor problems there. 2) There are groups dedicated to just about anything. There is a National Association for the Advancement of White People, for God's sake. There was a website dedicated to getting the Dixie Chicks thrown out of the country for their comments regarding President Bush, despite the First Amendment. You can find groups for just about anything. 3) Wikipedia is not an opinion site. Therefore, unless it is reported by a reliable source, we can't start putting up that Beck regularly uses fallible logic. The same for Obama. 4) BLP (Biography of Living Person)'s are subject to more scrutiny than normal, for legal and common sense reasons. You should also read WP:BLP.
I am not trying to belittle you here, but you might also want to start using Mozilla Firefox, and turn on the spellchecker. It's hard to take you seriously with a misspelled word in each sentence.
Again, I am glad you have joined the conversation. You seem to be a smart person. However, you have to read the rules before you can understand why things are done the way they are. At first glance it can seem quite backward, but after a while you get the hang of it. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 19:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lynn, sorry.. I didn't consider Polling Report as it was not a poll on Glenn Beck. It may be meaningful for the Obama article if that particular poll or results are notable in his overall biography. But keep in mind that those are primary sources, not secondary ones, which might be required for something like this. I find it sort of odd that someone would poll if people like or dislike a talk show host. In any case, it's probably best to stay with sources like Time Magazine, unless the poll receives attention in the larger media and can be put into context by secondary sources. Morphh (talk) 20:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diggity, I realize the rape story is bogus. The telling thing about the poll, was how many people at that website thought it was true. And again, I get that you need realiable sources, but if you are looking at sub communities (say the pro beck crowd, or the anti beck crowd) you can cull valuable infomation about that community from their own polls (for instance if Beck happened to put a poll on his own website about something, targeted at his listeners, that might be valuable, even if his website isn't normally regarded as a reliable source. When it comes to information about the opinions Beck fans, it could be viewed as a reliable source. My point isn't that if there is a site proposing to ban the dixie chicks, wikipedia needs to agree. But mentioning that such a site exists, if it is heavily trafficked, might be valuable. Especially in view of the larger controversy around them from that incident. What I am suggesting, is we do that, but also make an effort to convey some sense of proportion. I can easily find ten reliable sources calling Beck a fearmonger, and ten calling him a hero, but that doesn't mean the country is split down the middle on the guy (though it could be). As a reader of the encyclopedia--and again I am not an editor, except every once in a while if I happen to know a lot about a subject--I would really like to avoid the golden mean problem so many biographies have. Equal treatment is given to too many points of view, and you come away thinking the population is 50/50 on any given person. Citing polls would be a good way to balance that out with some sense of proportion.

I don't get why you need a reliable source to say someone made a fallacious argument. If a person made a noteable public statement, and the reasoning was fallacious, then the editors should be able to point that out. If you are going to report that someone said something, and that something is proveably false or the line of reasoning flawed, why can't an editor point that out? That isn't point of view, that is applying objectivity to an article. It's a truth standard. If beck or obama say, "the sun is made of ice cream", I think an editor should be able to say, the statement has no basiss in fact.LynnCityofsin (talk) 20:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're not getting the point. We are not here to promote original research. It does not matter if Beck or Obama come out tomorrow and say that the sun is made of ice cream. To immediately log on here and (in the article) point out that he is wrong, (and I know this sounds stupid) and not have a secondary source backing you up, is against the rules. This is used primarily to stop people from making factually inaccurate claims, which happens every day, and I admit that sometimes it is counterproductive. However, it does not matter whether or not you agree with the rules. You can't just break them because you see the logic in breaking them, and expect everyone else to go along with it. Our opinions do not matter! Just because a person sees reality one way does not make it the absolute truth! In order for it to be considered truth, a reliable source as described by Wikipedia has to have made the same claim, or at least supported the claim someone wants made. If you disagree with that rule, then go to the original research talk page and start a discussion.
I figured you knew that the rape story is bogus. All it takes is two seconds of reading, one click and another two seconds of reading to figure that out. However, that poll cannot and should not be used for anything in this article, for one plain and simple reason: The idea that a little over 14,000 people could believe that bullshit is so farfetched, so mind-numbingly stupid, that it makes me want to get a gun and go apeshit on those idiots! (False accusations with the intent of smearing people always piss me off, no matter what the ideological persuasion of the person.) That particular poll is either fake, or a bad attempt at humor. (Especially if you read some of the comments. I admit that they are creative, and funny in an abstract way, but the fact that shit like that is causing people to think someone was raped by someone that never raped anyone puts it over the line.) And I never meant to imply that by posting these polls, wikipedia agrees with the outcome. I was merely saying that wikipedia should not be using absolutely fake polls for sources. I understand your fear of the golden mean problem, but this article is not here to tell people what the country as a whole thinks about Beck. This article is here to give people some facts (and, honestly, a decently told story) on Beck's life. If you can come up with some decent additions to the Public Reception section (or any other section), feel free to add them. However, please read the rules first. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 22:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To some degree, the Golden Mean Fallacy is addressed by our policy on Undue Weight. Morphh (talk) 0:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Lynn, As an example... here is something that would probably be acceptable. Reliable secondary source is USAToday that discusses a reliable primary source Gallop Poll, in which Beck is listed forth as most admired by Americans. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-12-29-admire-gallup-poll_N.htm Morphh (talk) 14:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'When I ask him to respond to the charge that he is a conspiracy theorist, [Glenn Beck] answers, "I am the guy who debunked conspiracy theory."' Maybe we should listen to what Glenn Beck himself (who testifies he received death threats from "truthers") has to say to that charge (and all the others): Glenn Beck on conspiracy theories, his critics on the right and left, and how he resembles Howard Beale of 'Network' by James Taranto… Asteriks (talk) 13:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Morphh: The first link I put up there was an article about that Gallup poll. Like I said, those were just the first that came up when I did a search. James Taranto: I see no issue with allowing Beck to respond to the charge (the fact that he is responding demonstrates the charge is out there and is an argument the conspiracy theorist criticism should be included). But it shouldn't be a matter of just letting Beck decide whether he is or is not a conspiracy theorist. And frankly, his argument is kind of weak. He basically says he can't be one, because he called out the Truthers. Debunking one conspiracy theory doesn't make you any less a conspiracy theorist (in fact, conspiracy theorists do that all the time).LynnCityofsin (talk) 16:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the following interview links from the "External links" section because it was turning into a link farm.

Please do consider using the above links as sources, which should be referenced in-line. The problem with links like this in encyclopedia is that they're context-free. Writing about them in the article is better because it explains their significance. --TS 13:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


And I'm putting them back. You must be kidding, right?! How many links were there, in this link "farm" of yours? 700? 70? 17? No. Seven. Seven entries, and you consider that a "link farm"?! more than half of which must — by your decision — disappear?!

All links were/are interviews of the subject at hand, and therefore helpful — an easy, quick-to-find help — for the reader, the student, or whatever to get a better idea thereof. What on Earth, pray tell, is wrong with having those in an encyclopaedia (not the content, but simply the titles and interviewees)?! Has the possibility occurred to you that these readers and students and so on may make up their own minds — without the need for anybody to "explain their significance"?! Or maybe it is that people on the right-hand side of the aisle need people (nuanced people) on the left-hand side to put into perspective (aka as to castigate, to ridicule, or to otherwise belittle) any positive views thereof? Asteriks (talk) 14:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I lean toward removing the links as External links. Links to articles or interviews should be used as references, not external links. External links should go to something like Beck's web site or some official site/page that provides information beyond what would be included in a FA encyclopedia article. While there may be details in the interviews beyond the scope of the article, I'm not sure they are particularly relevant enough to include as an external link. I find them fine if used as a footnote source or as a generic reference for the article, but I would not recommend them for the External links section. Morphh (talk) 15:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would leave the above links out as well. You/we/I could easily find 1,000s of links to interviews, opinion pieces, whatever about Beck. How do we/you/I decide which ones are worthy of inclusion while maintaining balance/NPOV?? Best not to "endorse" any of these and just stick with the "standard" subject's own sites, ie, offical web site, blog, twitter, ect. as is done with most BLPs. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 16:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a strong opinion pro/con about these particular links. I do agree that it would be better if they were instead used as references for content in the article. Let's step back a minute from any argument about bias and imagine this were an article about a less controversial topic. Some pertinent questions would be:

  • If I were to include this as an external link, how many other links of equal relevance could be added by others later? (If the answer is dozens or hundreds, perhaps this one link is out of place here.)
  • Does the external link I am about to add provide an overview of the topic, or even an overview of a widespread take on the topic?
  • Does the proposed external link in turn provide links or references to a wealth of authoritative information?

Now, don't get me wrong: I'm not saying these are all mandatory criteria for inclusion. I'm not in any position to lay down dogma; this is just my own opinion about where I would draw the line. If the real motive for adding the links is to correct an imbalance in fairness, that is a fine goal. The most persuasive way to accomplish that goal is to find reliable sources and weave them into the text, written in a neutral point of view. And please, be specific about any accusations of bias. Start out with the assumption that others here are trying to make the best article possible, and tell us what's wrong and needs to be fixed. CosineKitty (talk) 16:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Asteriks has badly misunderstood what I'm saying--and I'm okay with the restoration of those external links, too. It's just that I think the links are not much use in the form they're in now, and we'd be better off looking closely at the material and incorporating the most important parts of it into the article itself, using the links as references inline.
Asteriks suggests that we should instead just list the links and leave people to 'make up their own minds — without the need for anybody to "explain their significance".' Well if we did that we wouldn't be writing an encyclopedia article, but a list of "interesting things you may find on-line about X" page. It really is our main task to read and evaluate the importance of external sources. For people just looking for links there is Google search. --TS 16:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I worry that including them as content would be original research. Wikipedia policy states that we should use third party sources, not primary sources, and these appear to be primary sources. Bytebear (talk) 01:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bytebear, I don't agree with your first statement regarding OR... that suggests that we write something that is not supported in the reference, or make statements or judgments not based on the material. That's a completely separate issue. If we're just reporting facts, or stated opinions, then it's not OR. I can understand your second point, and that may be true. Primary sources can be used... just depends on what it's being used to support. For example, I'd be fine with a primary source Interview being used to support the statement that he went to school at xyz, and worked at so and so radio, that his mother committed suicide, etc. They're not controversial or critical things.. just details of his life. If it's something more, something controversial, something in doubt, something criticised, then additional sources or secondary sources would be required to provide proper context and support. Morphh (talk) 1:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Opinion pieces as sources

In this edit, I made a small wording change. My edit summary included the remark, "Also, this comes from an unattributed opinion piece." The source is named in the footnoted citation, but I am mindful to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Self-published sources, which says, "Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g., 'Jane Smith has suggested...')." Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Conservative" label

Why this article describes Beck as a "conservative political commentator"? He says about his own political view, "I consider myself a libertarian. I'm a conservative, but every day that goes by I'm fighting for individual rights." There are mainstream sources which describe Beck as libertarian (BusinessWeek) [3] and fierce libertarian (The Australian) [4] And he is definitely NOT a mouthpiece of American conservatives [5] I will propose not to use any ideological label in the lead. --Defender of torch (talk) 07:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beck is both a conservative libertarian. Particularly on social issues, he is a conservative. And when it comes to the constitution, he is a conservative. When it comes to the free market, he is also a conservative. Remember, many libertarians are critical of Beck. He isn't what one would call a mainstream libertarian. LynnCityofsin (talk) 17:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with Lynn... he is more of a libertarian-leaning conservative than a conservative-leaning libertarian. For example, he does not favor immediate legalization of all drugs. He has said on his radio program that our society "is not ready for that", but that we should head in that direction when the culture has evolved to handle more personal responsibility. I would prefer something like "libertarian conservative" to "conservative" by itself, and would strongly prefer either to nothing at all. CosineKitty (talk) 17:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for the clarification. One who does not support drug legalization in the name of society (i.e. giving importance to the society than to the individual) is not libertarian. However he is not opposing drug legalization, he is arguing for a gradual decriminalization of drugs. Since he has libertarian leaning opinion (unlike mainstream conservatives), I am still uncomfortable with the explicit conservative label used in the lead. This is why I will support not to use any ideological label. And there are plenty of sources which describe beck as libertarian, so the explicit conservative label is inappropriate and definitely misleading, IMHO. It is obvious Beck is not a representative of mainstream America conservatism (for example his criticism of Bush). --Defender of torch (talk) 17:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, can someone provide a neutral source which documents Beck's view on homosexuality? It will be a great indicator of Beck's ideological position. If he opposes homosexuality, he can be labeled as conservative without any hesitation. --Defender of torch (talk) 17:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You would also have to provide evidence that all conservatives "oppose" homosexuality. That is a vague and sweeping statement, like a conservative automatically wants to round them up and put them all in prison? Or did you mean something more specific? Also, about criticizing Bush, lots of conservatives (notably Rush Limbaugh) had strong opposition to some Bush policies, for example Medicare Part D (drug coverage entitlement), bailout programs, and the comprehensive immigration reform bill. Instead of establishing arbitrary litmus tests (person X argues for position Y, therefore he is a Z), I suggest we favor self-identification and consensus of reliable sources. CosineKitty (talk) 18:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may be incomfortable with the label, but it is both how he is described in most news sources, and accurate. I have no problem with calling him a libertarian leaning conservative. But he is definitely not a true libertarian. LynnCityofsin (talk) 17:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I just had a massive shut down over at Media Matters for America where how they are described in most news sources is apparently irrelevant. I do believe there is a double standard on how Wikipedia defines labels, with some getting by on "self identification" and others on "popular perception." I just want the standards to apply equally. Bytebear (talk) 21:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From what I have seen, Beck doesn't oppose homosexuality but opposes same sex marriage. Basically I think he is personally against homosexuality (on religious and cultural grounds) but doesn't feel there should be laws probiting it. LynnCityofsin (talk) 18:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Glenn_Beck&oldid=339025372"