Talk:Glenn Beck

Was this article written by Beck or something

Enough, start a new section or better yet quit arguing and take it off-wiki
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) So what exactly are you proposing be changed? Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) '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) 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) Complete agreement with the top post. This article has so much pro-Beck bias its embarrassing. Funny thing is, it used to be much better. It wasn't that long ago that there was a controversy section. It was clear, and provided useful information. Now the page is just spin. 67.149.196.50 (talk) 20:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC) Any specific examples besides the lack of the controversy section (it is frowned upon). Specific lines? Holes? Words?Cptnono (talk) 20:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC) Geez its pretty obvious the majority of people editing this page are Beck fans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.16.187 (talk) 03:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC) I actually take offense to that. I just don't hate him like some people do.Cptnono (talk) 03:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Again, here is a golden opportunity to make this article more fair. If it is biased in favor of Glenn Beck, what are we leaving out? Point us to the facts that are missing. Alternatively, point out where in the article we have used misleading language or have whitewashed something. If you just drive by, drop some accusations, then leave, that accomplishes nothing. Help us make the article better. But be specific in your criticism, or it will be ignored. CosineKitty (talk) 16:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC) Take all the offense you want, it doesn't change the fact that this article is clearly pro-Beck. Especially with all the controversies it ignores. Wikipedia is an ecyclopedia, where facts matter, not a platform for populist sentiment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.16.187 (talk) 00:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Encyclopedic biographies are generally not a list of controversies or praise. If controversies are significant enough that they become part of the persons notability, then we'll include them. Wikipedia is not news. We take the most prominent areas of his life. Public reception and criticism are one part of his life and weight will be applied for that content based on prominence in reliable sources. Again, as CosinKitty implied, be specific. Your comment is unhelpful - in fact, it's just disruptive for people trying to improve the article. Morphh (talk) 1:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC) I strongly concur with Morphh. Take a look at President Obama's article. While there is significant controversy surrounding Obama, the vast majority of the article is not based on this. Boromir123 (talk) 01:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Obama doesn't cry in public or advocate insane conspiracy theories. But even so, he is a public figure and there are considerable controversies that warrant inclusion in his article too. By the standards you have set in these articles, the entry on hitler should just focus on his role as a german leader and not on his terrible role in murdering millions of people. As a person who used to contribute to real encyclopedias, I honestly think wikipedia is missing the entire point. I am not suggesting you come down as pro beck, anti beck, pro obama, or anti obama, but you should provide the important details about their public stances, activities and utterances people need to formulate their own opinions. Right now their isn't enough information in the Beck article for people to form that sort of judgement. It is basically an advertisement for Beck. This is not an academic or objective approach. It is a cowardly approach. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.16.187 (talk) 02:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC) How about you read the article, find exactly what you don't like, get some sources and then comment here. If you don't do the first part your comments are just filling up space better used to improve the article. ThanksCptnono (talk) 03:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC) No, 173, don't read the article. First, read Wikipedia's policy on writing a Biography of a Living Person, then read the article and come back with specific criticisms. And, please, try to make them constructive criticisms. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 00:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC) it's should be worth mentioning that he makes up stuff on the spot. i rermber once he suddenly came out with "evry one green job kills 2 other jobs" seroously, no one's ever reasearched that. also, he spout complete lies. one time, he said “And remember those whale protestors who actually attacked and rammed into a Japanese whaling ship? (ADD moment, your honor) Whales? I mean, they're great and everything, but when you are risking life and limb to stop someone from catching a whale, wow. Who's daddy didn't love them? Anyway, the boat that sunk the Japanese ship is from Paul Watson's organization.” this was the same week the japanese wha;er sunk the Ady Gil. what does that say about this guy? i think Bush was better! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.204.217 (talk) 19:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC) The Spanish government’s renewable energy initiatives have destroyed 2.2 jobs for every new “green” job created, concludes a new study by economics professor Gabriel Calzada of King Juan Carlos University in Madrid. Calzada says American jobs will suffer the same fate if the United States similarly attempts to promote renewable energy at the expense of conventional energy sources. --The following is an excerpt from, "“Study of the Effects on Employment of Public Aid to Renewable Energy Sources,” written by Thomas Cheplick, published in Environment & Climate News, July 2009 publication date, 07/01/2009, Publisher: The Heartland Institute. You might want to do some research before calling someone a liar. And also, the Ady Gil or whatever, sunk as a result of ramming a whaler. Seriously, it's called research. Oh, and so you don't think I'm making it up, here's the source.J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 22:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Diggity, I have to say I agree with the poster that wikipedia doesn't seem very encyclopedic. Perhaps instead of demanding people read the Wiki guidelines, you should be defending those guidelines. The criticism being made is obviously against wikipedia itself, not just the article, and I tend to think the criticism is a good one. Reading the article again, I really it is a a victim of the golden mean fallacy (as are most wikipedia biographies). That isn't how real encyclopedias operate. It shouldn't be how wikipedia operates. Right now, it basically whitewashes controversies, and paints even the most extreme public figures as uncontrovertial. The Beck article is no exception. Perhaps if wikipedia changed its approach you would get real academics like myself to contribute. Until then, I suppose it will have to settle with fan boys and people who don't understand the issues they are writing about. Same thing happened on the fort hood page. My attempt to include an opinion by the most respected authority on Religious Terrorism, was edited out, because people editing the page had no working knowledge of the field and were letting their politics get in the way of producing a quality article. And just so people don't think I am some left wing nut, opposed to Beck and trying to fiddle with the entries on terrorism, the opinion I tried to add was Bruce Hoffman, stating that he felt Fort Hood was an act of terrorism. LynnCityofsin (talk) 20:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC) This page isn;t for general discussion on Wikipeida but this specific article. We don't need anyone working on this article if they can't stay neutral and refuse to follow basic instruction on how to use a talk page.Cptnono (talk) 21:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Then where is the place for a general discussion about wikipedia, and why is it wrong to raise general issues when they arise in specific instances? Cptnon, this isn't an issue of people not being neutral. Its the editors mistaking balancing out the details of a public personality in order to appease both sides of the political spectrum for neutrality. And as I've said before, it isn't encyclopedic either. This is why wikipedia has little credibility with people in academia and journalism. It simply isn't a reliable source of information on public personalities, because it omits too many important details. Posters here have pointed out countless times this is the case. You and Diggity shout people down and wave the wikipedia guidelines like they are the constitution. See my concern over the Fort Hood article. It seems wikipedia is more concerned about avoiding partisan flak from either side than it is about producing a quality information source. I am sure you will respond by caling on me to point out something specific I want changed, or calling on me to produce citations for a particlar edit. I am not here to edit. I gave up on that with the Fort Hood article. But I am here to level a general criticism both of the Beck article and wikipedia in general. Instead of hiding behind the guidelines, or shifting the ball to me, you should take some responsibility as an editor/contributor. LynnCityofsin (talk) 21:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC) If you refuse to use the talk page to better the article (presenting specifics and sources) then your comments are just wasting space and you are wasting your time. Cptnono (talk) 21:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Lynn, Cptnono is right. This is not the place for this discussion. However, I will respond here for the sake of simplicity. There are reasons for these policies and guidelines. And I can tell you have not read them, simply because if you had, you would not be arguing for the "golden mean fallacy," and all that shit. I will give you a small excerpt from one of the policy pages (All words that are bold and italicized have my added emphasis): Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States and to all of our content policies, especially: Neutral point of view (NPOV) Verifiability No original research We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. As of early 2010, efforts to improve sourcing of material about living persons are under way. A discussion of how to accomplish this is taking place at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people. (←Here is where you can discuss this, Lynn!) 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. This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to information about living persons on other pages. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material. Therefore, an editor should be able to demonstrate that it complies with all Wikipedia content policies and guidelines. Does that answer your question? Wikipedia is the way it is because there are lots of people out there that do not give a shit about people's privacy, people's image, people's reputation. They are simply out to bash everyone they disagree with. Are there things that could be added...no, should be added to certain articles? Absolutely. If you wanted to look back at some of the old discussions, I was originally for adding a Controversy part to this article. However, that merely opens the door for every asshole with an opinion to add crap that either doesn't matter, isn't applicable, or is a blatant smear. Wikipedia is not perfect. Not by a long shot. However, I think they are doing a good job with what they have to work with. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 22:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Maybe you have the right idea. Just to clarify, Wikipedia:Village pump is probably better than RfC for venting about Wikipedia in general. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is also something that needs to be read closely. Balance was mentioned up above. There is tons of stuff discussing tone, choice of words, and so on at that wikilink that a new editor should read if they want to comment on specifics.Cptnono (talk) 23:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Diggity: I have read the guidelines on biographies. Call it crap if you want, but its true that wikipedia is a perfect example of the golden mean fallacy in action. Youc an keep citing your policy guidelines all you want, it doesn't change the fact that these articles are clearly missing critical controversies, as well as accurate overviews of how the individual is perceived by the general public. What you do is give equal voice to all sides, rather than try to contextualize each individual figure (something that can be done without original research by the way). I will restate that I am not a left wing or a right partisan. I actually consider myself fairly objective. Showing all sides of a debate doesn't mean you ignore the broad view of things. If someone is generally regarded as far to the right, by most of the people,even if that person has a highly rated tv show, you should point that out. As I said, you wouldn't want an article about HItler, Stalin, or Mao, to try to present the favorable and the negative POV on them equally. And you would certainly want to place them accurately in their context. Right now, the fact that a sizeable portion of the population considers Beck nuts, and the fact that he routinely misrepresents the truth and employs logical fallacies in his arguments, is difficult to discern from the article. Not saying it should be an anti beck article, but the facts about his lying should be present. Just as the consensus among most counter terrorism experts that the Fort Hood Shooting was a terrorist attack, should be noted in that article. Let me ask you a question, do you think the entry on Evolution, should provide treat the Theory of Evolution and intelligent design as equally valid theories, just because there are lots of people who buy into intelligent design and reject evolution? LynnCityofsin (talk) 00:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC) You would not have asked that if you had read the policies and guidelines provided above since something similar is actually addressed there. As this talk page is for discussing this article and generalizations are not helping, you are bordering on using it as a forum. This is not what this age is for so please stop.Cptnono (talk) 00:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC) I did read the page. I understood the page. Yet I asked the question. Perhaps the problem isn't that users aren't reading the guidelines, but that there is a more fundamental problem with wikipedia and its approach. Keep pointing to the guidelines if you want to. That doesn't change the fact that the Beck article is seriously flawed, as are most other articles on people and controversial topics. You might not like me saying this, but there is a reason college educators do not allow their students to use wikipedia. It is a bad source of information. Let me type that again, wikipedia is not recognized as a legitimate source in colleges. That should tell you something. Beyond the campus, a number of journalists have been burned for using wikipedia as a source. LynnCityofsin (talk) 02:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC) Anyone who uses Wikipedia as a sole source instead of reviewing the references needs to start doing their homework better since they deserve to be admonished for being lazy and not verifying research or double checking the standards required from their prof. Fix it if you think that is a problem. You can help improve this collaborative project by providing specific details for this article or you can go make yourself feel better by venting at the Village Pump. This isn't the place for a debate on the merits of Wikipeida but a place to discuss improvements to a specific article.Cptnono (talk) 03:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC) One should never rely on a single source. But that isn't the point. Wikipedia is almost universally rejected as a source at all, even if you have others to go along with it. It isn't used by academics, it is not supposed to be used by students (virtually every professor on every college campus has a policy of not allowing wikipedia as a source), it isn't used by journalists (or at least they aren't supposed to use it), and its generally looked down upon in the business world. The reason is, anyone with an axe to grind can go on and post what they want, and the editors tend to try to reconcile the views of people of different extremes (which is why I keep pointing to the golden mean fallacy). This article is a perfect place to point out the problem, because it is a clear example of the problem. LynnCityofsin (talk) 14:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC) Okay, Lynn, we get it. You don't like that Wikipedia won't take you more seriously than anyone else, even thought you're a...how did you put it? "Perhaps if wikipedia changed its approach you would get 'real academics like myself to contribute.' " (Even though most academics know how to spell, and know correct grammar.) We get it. Okay? You don't like that Wikipedia is not more liberal (and not in the ideological way) with how articles are written. WE GET IT. You don't like that you aren't allowed to include certain things about "popular opinion." WE GET IT. You don't like that the "golden mean fallacy" is waaaaaaaaay to common here. WE GET IT. But here's the deal: WE CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT. Why are you even talking about this here? From the first post you made about this, Cptnono correctly pointed out that this is not the place for this kind of criticism. And yet, you keep responding here. Cptnono and I have both pointed out the correct place for criticisms and complaints. Have you even looked at those places? I know for a fact that you have not edited either the Policy section of the Village Pump, nor the discussion on BLP's, unless you did it anonomyously (which would be kinda counterproductive), or under a different username (which would be sockpuppetry). You know what? Why don't you name some controversies. Would that be okay? It doesn't break any policies, it doesn't hurt anything. Name some sourced controversies. If no one can successfully argue against them, and a consensus of registered and confirmed users (I say that so we don't have a slew of people logging in as IP addresses giving the same opinion repeatedly...which, as a guy with access to the nine computer labs at Missouri State, I could easily take advantage of...) agrees, then we will go about adding some of them. Oh, and throw in the perception of Beck, also. We'll hit that, too. Okay? But please put it in the new section I am putting at the bottom. This section is long enough. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 15:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC) Well Diggity, like most people I type hasty responses and don't pay much attention to my grammar or spelling on a discussion page like this. Clearly I couldn't be an academic if I made such mistakes or happened to have a condition like dyslexia. As for the rest of your post, I have no interest in contributing to a page that will be reduced by editors trying to please both sides of a debate (as happened to my contributions on the Fort Hood Shooting page. I am done, and am simply pointing out the problems on the Beck page, to raise the issue with other readers. Defend wikipedia and the beck article all you want. So keep resorting to ad homs and throwing the ball in my court if you want. That doesn't change the fact that what I say about wikipedia (that it is not regarded as a reputable source) holds true. And the Beck article helps bolster that point. LynnCityofsin (talk) 15:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC) Look, put up or shut up, okay? I give you the golden opportunity to prove your statements, and you tell me that you don't want to argue anymore? That sounds like you have no controversies to add. Hmm...sounds like you're full of shit. Sorry. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 16:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC) No diggity, you are not giving me any opportunity I didn't already have. You are just dodging the criticism and trying to impede any real discussion by ending the debate. I made very substantive criticisms of the article and of wikipedia. All you've done is adopt your internet tough guy pose. If the article and wikipedia are so great, why doesn't anyone recognize it as a legit source. And if so, what is the point of wikipedia if not to be a legit source of information? LynnCityofsin (talk) 17:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Specific Controversies discussion

GO ON THE DAILY SHOW GLENN BECK. GO ONE ON ONE WITH JON STEWART. EVERYBODY WANTS TO SEE THAT. WHAT ARE YOU TOO PUSSY?

If you have a specific controversy you would like woven into the article, please start the discussion here. If you would, please put a header before each new controversy. If you do not know how, just post what you want and someone will add one for you. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 15:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

What's the point with you guarding the article? LynnCityofsin (talk) 17:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Let the record show that I gave Lynn every opportunity to come up with specific controversies to prove her point, and she chose to ignore the invitation for a substantive discussion and decided to keep making the same statement over and over again.
Lunn, until you come up with some specific controversies we are missing, I am done talking to you. And I "guard" this article from vandals and idiots that decide to use it as an attack forum. I have no problem adding anything that is factually correct and adequately sourced. If you don't believe me, just come up with some controversies and see how far I am willing to go to accommodate you. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 17:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The record shows nothing of the sort. I did make an effort to provide sourced data in the discussion board. However you didn't think reputable polls were good enough sources. I expressed no interest in editing the page myself. I just tried to point out directions editors should be heading in. I already tried making contributions on the Fort Hood Page, and it was a wasted effort. It is clear it would be here as well.

One only need look at your editing history to know you are a partisan with an axe to grind. You may claim to be objective, but it clear you interest is in defending sites related to your political point of view. You have a habit of selectively pushing the guidelines. LynnCityofsin (talk) 17:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Anyways, my criticism is much broader than a few controversies on the Glenn Beck page, and you have yet to answer the fundamental criticism about wikipedia. The fact remains, few journalists, academics, or professional writers regard Wikipedia as a valid source of information. It is a flawed encyclopedia.LynnCityofsin (talk) 17:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

But here is a start for a controversy if you want something specific. Glenn Beck's constant comparison to the Obama administration with Stalin and other communist leaders/regimes. Clearly a controversial topic. Clearly a leap in logic to say that promoting an agenda of social programs can be equated with Stalin's regime (which confiscated private property, killed millions of people, and jailed political dissidents). And many, many writers have noted the problem in this comparison. There are of course, many, many more controversies associated with Beck. But that would be a start. And it would be particularly appropriate because it is indicative of Becks frequent use of analogy to prove his point, and his use of hitler ad infinitum. LynnCityofsin (talk) 18:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, can you provide some reliable and neutral third-party sourcing for that?. Also, the personal attacks are not appropriate. Soxwon (talk) 18:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Then tell Diggity to stop with the personal attacks and the tough guy routine. There are certainly reliable sources on this subject. I've already stated I have no intention of even trying to edit again after what happened on the Fort Hood Page. I just offered that up as a lead to the editors who claimed they were objective. It should only take 5-10 minutes for them to find sources on the topic. LynnCityofsin (talk) 18:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that's not how wikipedia works, if you would like to see material inserted into the article then provide the sourcing. Though please note that MMFA, Alternet, and HP are not useful sources in this instance. Otherwise you are wasting time. Also, I simply read this section with which you being by saying editing the article is useless since Diggity is "guarding" the page. Soxwon (talk) 19:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I have yet to see Beck directly compare the Obama administration to Stalin. Yes, he made a documentary on the truth behind Stalin's, Hitler's, and Che Guevara's actions and regimes, but not once did he directly compare the two in that documentary.
As for my being, "a partisan with an axe to grind," prove it. Prove that I am a "partisan" in any way. And please point out the guidelines that I selectively push. And by "prove it," I mean, show me specifically where and when I am guilty of said accusations, not continue to hurl accusations like you're Keith Olbermann. And please don't ask me to resign. That would just be too much. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 19:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Diggity, you only seem to edit pages related to right wing talk show hosts, and conservative topics. That and you have ignored valid poll results I sited, apparently because they didn't jive with your politics. But yes, I cannot prove what is in your heart. However I can conclude based on your edit history, based on your hostile attitude here on the beck discussion page, that you are a partisan with an axe to grin. With soxfan it is much easier to prove his bias, because he states right on his user page that he is a capitalist conservative and goes on to state much, much more. I've pointed to a specific controversy. And you are clearly being selective in your memory. I not only recall watching a number of episodes where he compares the Obama administration directly with Stalin and with soviet Russia; I've found the clips on youtube and am watching them right now. I watch Beck too, and have an excellent memory. LynnCityofsin (talk) 19:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Please stay away from personal attacks. I'm open about where I stand, if I hid it, would that make me less bias? Everyone stands somewhere, being open about shouldn't discredit everything I say. Soxwon (talk) 20:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

But clearly you are right Diggity, there is no evidence at all that this article is overrun with pro beck editors. None whatsoever. Funny that the vast majority posting here are clearly Beck supporters. Followed closely by Beck opponents. Anyone who was truly interested in what the man stands for, what he has said, and how he fits into the American political context would not find anything of value in the article.

But if you want to prove to me you are objective, follow the lead, and write about it. I already found a number of sources and clips, so I know he made the comparison and it generated controversy. And many reputable sources have pointed to the logical flaw in the argument. So if you are truly objective, as an editor you should have no problem including it in the article. LynnCityofsin (talk) 19:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I stick to mainly conservatives. But that couldn't be because I simply stick to subjects that I have a wider base of knowledge, no. That is absolutely proof that I am a "partisan." Or, could it be that I am honest enough to stay in areas that I actually know something about? Hmm...
Secondly, if YOU want to add that to this article, feel free, as long as it is factually correct, and correctly sourced. I have no, uh, "axe to grind," when it comes to this particular area. I generally don't add new content to the articles. I tend to backcheck the new additions, and fix spelling and grammatical errors. So, again, if you want it in the article, do it yourself. Until then, keep bitching and see how far that gets your agenda. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 19:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I never said there couldn't be another explanation. But I do believe my conclusion that your partisan leaning is clouding you objectivity is correct. And if your range of knowledge is primarily limited to conservative talk shows, one might conclude your range of exposure to the different points of view is equally limited. All you have to do to prove you don't have a partisan axe to grind is follow the lead I posted. I already mapped out the result myself, so it should be an interesting test of your objectivity. If you do this, I will stop with my "bitching". Or you can continue with the internet tough guy routine and I (along with many others) will believe the Beck article is compromised by partisans. LynnCityofsin (talk) 19:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

So, in other words, if I do what you say, you will think better of me? Are you actually trying to blackmail me into doing your dirty work for you? (Insert obnoxious laughter here.) Thank you, Lynn. I really needed the laugh. Except now I have to change my pants.
OF COURSE YOU THINK YOUR OPINION IS RIGHT!!!!! I have never heard anyone say, "Well, you just proved me wrong, but I still think I'm right!" But guess what? I am not subject to your opinion. I'm sorry if that bursts your academic bubble, but I do not care what gets put into this article, as long as it is factually correct and correctly sourced. So, for what might be the hundredth time, and the fiftieth person telling you the SAME DAMN THING, if you want it in the article, DO IT YOURSELF FOR F**K'S SAKE!!! J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 19:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Lynn, nobody here has to prove anything about their objectivity or lack thereof. Both of you are letting this get way too personal. Please stick to the topic of improving the article. CosineKitty (talk) 19:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Diggity, you should really relax and stop with the swearing. Of course I am not trying to black mail you. I have stated dozens of times, I have no interest in editing the article (my experience with the Fort Hood article showed me the futility of that). I do not want to take on the role of an editor, but as I reader, I am happy to point out problems with the article, and plenty of others use these discussion boards to do so. All I am saying is so far you have demonstrated a lack of objectivity and a tendency toward partisanship. You want to prove to me you aren't, then follow the lead I laid out. That would show me you are actually just concerned about the facts, and not just selectively concerned (since you only seem to create a stir when one of your right wing hosts is painted negatively by careless use of the facts, and never seem to care when careless use of the facts paints them in a good light).

CosineKitty, of course he doesn't have to prove anything to me. But clearly he is emotionally invested in our discussion, and I have provided him with the tools to change my opinion of him. As far as getting personal goes, Diggity has been doing that long before I came around. And he does it with greater intensity and more frequently. Also, he is an active editor, I am really more of a reader. I don't think I am out of line to say Diggity has a habit of bullying people like myself who simply disagree with him.LynnCityofsin (talk) 21:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

This is now boring me. Lynn, you're a rolling ball of contradictions. You think we should add what you want us to, but, even though you have it within your power to edit the article yourself, you get mad that nothing gets done. Seriously, you should just go away. If all you are going to do is bitch (oops, is that another swear word?) about the lack of quality, and do nothing about it, then stop wasting our time. I think I will take Soxwon's advice and stop feeding the trolls. Later, Lynn. Hit me up when you have decided to do something besides complain.
By the way, the only person who has the right to tell me to stop swearing are admins and my mother, so, no thank you. Oh, and feel free to insult me all you want. I am not emotionally invested in this argument, now that it is in the open that you have no evidence to back up your accusations of guideline dodging and partisanship. If the truth isn't obvious to some people by now, then I guess I will just have to deal with the heartbreaking reality of non-universal approval. If anyone needs me, I'll be in my room crying. :'-) J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 22:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I already told you I have no interest in editing, but these discussion sections remain a forum for readers. That is why I am not contributing. I will contribute once it becomes clear wikipedia intends to be a serious encyclopedia. Interesting that this entire discussion you weren't able to answer any of my criticisms with a logical argument. All you did was attack me personally or admonish me for not contributing. You didn't answer any of my criticisms of wiki, and you didn't make any effort to demonstrate your objectivity to me. I pointed you in the right direction for creating a more well rounded article, and you chose to ignore the lead. You seem to have enough time on your hands to comb the pages for minor spelling and punctuation errors, following up on Beck's claim that the Obama admin. is like Stalin's Russia shouldn't have been too hard. But instead you just denied he ever said it. Once again I am watching the clips, and he clearly does say it. All you need is google and an open mind. LynnCityofsin (talk) 22:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The talk page NOT a forum. See WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:Talk "The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page (accessible via the discussion tab) is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject." ----Asher196 (talk) 22:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I am advocating changes to the article. And I might add I am not basing them on my personal views, but on a desire to see wikipedia used as a valid source. But it is fair for readers and editors to discuss problems, both specific and general, with an article. I submit that far too many editors on this page and others have strong political views that color their contributions and changes to the article. LynnCityofsin (talk) 23:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. If it was, then you could cite Wikipedia as a source in other Wikipedia articles, which you can't, obviously. Wikipedia relies on WP:RS. If you have reliable sources for the content you want added, then by all means list them here. using Glenn Beck's words or video of Beck speaking would be considered original research, which is not allowed. See WP:NOR Asher196 (talk) 23:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I know wikipedia isn't a reliable source. That is the problem here. What is its purpose if it can't be used as a reliable source? Are we just throwing junk against the wall and waiting to see what sticks? Quotes are supposed to come from the original source. I believe a video link, or transcript of the broadcast, constitutes the original source int his case. LynnCityofsin (talk) 23:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Using the USA Today Weekend article as an RS

I'm not sure using that article is a good idea, simply because Beck himself said four of the ten things he supposedly "said," he never actually said. Now, since he does not specify which four things were not said by him, I have no idea if that article can still be considered an RS. Does anyone know of a precedent for this situation? And should we remove the "I believe in global warming" statement from the article? J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 21:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

When/where did Beck say that he didn't say four of the 10 things? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

We can certainly report his denials if sourced, but I don't think we can just disqualify a perfectly acceptable RS because the subject of the article disapproves unless there's some legitimate third-party discussion about the reliability of a particular article. Gamaliel (talk) 23:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is a perfect example of your bias diggity. Beck is not the one who gets to determine the truth of articles written about him. As the other poster said, the denial should be included. But you can't disqualify the source just because Beck objects. LynnCityofsin (talk) 23:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

In addition to what Gamaliel said above...if Beck denies it and the people who wrote the article can't provide proof that he said some (or all) of the those things, then it is a violation of WP:BLP to include the statements. End of story. At any rate, I still want to know where/when/if Beck made any denials. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 00:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

BLP doesn't require that kind of "proof", it requires a reliable source. USA Today is a reliable source under the RS policy. There's no evidence that USA Today goes around fabricating quotes. Gamaliel (talk) 00:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I heard Beck's show where he denied four of the ten things. If no RS reports on this, then can a primary source be used at all? Asher196 (talk) 00:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

No, Gamaliel, you are mistaken. According to WP:BLP:

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.

This Rush Limbaugh incident is a case in point. Both CNN and MSNBC admitted they were wrong about the Rush quote. So, if a WP:RS cannot verify a particular claim when called upon to do so, then it is not admissible in Wikipedia. I mean, do you really think the Rush article should reference claims which the reliable sources admit that either they can't verify or have apologized for reporting as true?

Now, if Beck doesn't firmly challenge the source, then there is no violation of WP:BLP. However, if he does firmly challenge the source, and that source is not able to verify their claims, then it is not admissible in Wiki (except in an "historical" context). Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 01:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

He commented on it on his radio show last Friday. Here is the transcript from the show in question. It is my understanding (based on what he said-I'm looking for that part of the transcript) that this article was following an interview by the writer of the article. So, yes, if the subject of the interview is disputing what was said, then it does matter. There's a WND story about it, but we all know that's not exactly RS material. Give me a minute and I will do some more research. Again, he does not specify exactly which four are wrong, except for the Reagan quote. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 00:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Although I frequent the WND Web site (some of the articles they reference are interestingly "fun"), there is NO WAY that they can be considered a reliable source. On that we agree. In fact, the only reason that I'm here on Wiki right now is because WND reported that Beck thinks that Anthropogenic Global Warming may be true - which I found odd, because he "debunks" it frequently. Nevertheless, try to find what you can, and we can proceed in sorting this out. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 02:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance of your lengthy quote from BLP. Nor do I see the relevance of the Rush Limbaugh incident. In those instances the news organizations admitted error, so obviously we should not use an erroneous source. But we should not put ourselves in the position of being the ones who judge the news organizations. Who verifies these claims? How do we verify them? You are extrapolating a complicated procedure that simply isn't in the policy. It's quite simple: The policy requires reliable sources. We have one. When that source becomes unreliable, then we should no longer use it. Gamaliel (talk) 04:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

It's true if it the content of an interview is disputed that is important, but it doesn't mean Beck should be taken at his word, or that we should assume the writer was lying. The fact of the matter is, the writer most likely has a recording and a transcript of the interview, while beck is just going on memory. I would suggest paraphrasing the content of the article, and including a section on Beck's claim that he was misquoted.LynnCityofsin (talk) 01:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

If the author of the USA Today article has a recording, then that's a different story. However, at this point, I agree with you when you say that "I would suggest paraphrasing the content of the article, and including a section on Beck's claim that he was misquoted". Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 02:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Unless Beck refused to give him permission to record, it is unlikely the interview wasn't recorded. That doesn't mean it is available to the public. But most magazines prefer to have a record of the conversation for when these sorts of disputes occur. LynnCityofsin (talk) 02:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I think at some point we have to consider WP:WEIGHT and the importance of the information in the USA today piece. WP:BLP states we "must get the article right". If the information is in doubt (based on statements from the person interviewed), then we should require multiple reliable sources to verify whatever data we propose to include. If the information is particularly important to the article, then it should be reported in multiple RS giving the statements more weight and verifiability for inclusion. Morphh ^(talk) 14:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is a transcript from Friday, February 26, of a discussion about the article and its accuracy. (Full Disclosure: I wrote this transcript. There might be some minor word errors, or misspelled names, but it is as accurate as I could type it. If anyone doesn't believe me, I will make this pledge: if someone can prove that I misquoted him in a substantial way, I will delete my Wikipedia account permanently.)

Glenn: I have been reading in all kinds of papers that I am a global warming believer.

Pat: Yeah, I read that too. I was surprised. I spend almost all day, every day…

Glenn: No one was more surprised than I am.

Pat: Yeah, that you’re a global warming supporter?

Glenn: Yeah. Here’s what I am. I’m a supporter of the thermometer.

Pat: Okay.

Glenn: Okay?

Pat: You do support the thermometer?

Glenn: Yeah. I think that quote was taken from when-Stu, you’ll probably know, 2004-5, somewhere in that area?

Stu: Yeah, I think so.

Pat: And the quote was, what was the quote?

Glenn: The quote was, “You have to be an idiot to not notice that the temperature has gone up." And what that was, was a line that, we were talking about global warming, and I said that if you want to look at a thermometer, yes, the temperature has gone up. However, that doesn’t mean that man created it, and that doesn’t mean that it won’t go back down. Climate change. Climates change. They have throughout the history of the earth!

Stu: Yeah, your position, as outlined on Page 4 of a #1 New York Times Bestseller years ago, outlines this exactly. And it is a position consistent with every…

Glenn: Do you have it there?

Stu: Uh, yeah, just a second. It is a position consistent with every skeptical scientist that Al Gore calls a, “Flat Earther.” People like Richard Linson (not sure of spelling) from MIT, and John Christie from the University of Alabama, and Royce Spencer and all these people who Al Gore continually berates for not knowing anything about science, they all talk about that the globe has warmed, and that they think that man could have some sort of effect on it, although they don’t think it is as major as some people in the alarmist community. I mean, that’s not a crazy position. That doesn’t mean you’re turning liberal. And, it is something you have defined on the air, and in books, dozens and dozens of times. Uh, here’s the uh, I do have the one here if you’d like it…

Pat: And since that quote, I’m thinking, based on again, the thermometer, you’ve kind of evolved out of that, because you’ve seen that the temperature hasn’t gone up.

Glenn: Yeah, well, no, we’ve been lied to. We’ve been lied to. There hasn’t been any statistical change since 1995. If you remember right, they were talking about in 2003 or 4, that it’s still getting hotter and hotter and hotter. Well, that was a lie. There hadn’t been any statistical change since 1995.

Stu: Right, and 1995 is a short period. Obviously you’ve been talking about it over a century, which, obviously you’ve accepted about a .7 degree Celsius temperature rise.

Glenn: But I’ve accepted also that there have been thirty-year periods where it was warm, then thirty-year periods where it was cold, then a thirty-year period where it was warm again.

Stu: Right, it is…

Glenn: Climate change. Climate change.

Stu: The same rate of change that has happened two other times since 1880. It’s not that shocking. And as you point out in the book, this is An Inconvenient Book, if you have your reading copy nearby, “Yes, I think the globe has warmed a bit, approx. 0.74 degrees Celsius, plus or minus 0.18 degrees, in the last 100 years. That is, by the way, a 24% margin of error in that number. That is a consensus. Yes, I think that man might be responsible for some part of that warming,” uh, and then you go into some jokes. Uh, “I believe that natural changes are playing a part in the climate, I believe that we don’t fully understand the climate yet, and we must be careful until we do so. I don’t believe that so-called “solutions,” such as the Kyoto Protocol, are the answer for a myriad of reasons, I believe that science, government, and the media must stop shutting down dissenting views, and because I live in the Northeast I would like thirty degrees of global warming in the winter, followed by a ten degree global cooling in the summer, and a gentle global breeze would be nice, too.”

(Crosstalk between all three)

Pat: That’s a crazy position, that’s crazy!

Glenn: All right, now here’s the other crazy position, this one came from U.S. News and World Report. That I also do not like Ronald Reagan. Now, I think this…

Pat: Really?

Glenn: Yeah.

Pat: Huh.

Glenn: Now I think this came from USA Today Weekend, and I cannot think of the context in which I said this. I’m not going to say that-because the reporter was quite nice, just there was a lot of things that just weren’t quite right in that story. But this is kind of a big one. Where I said, apparently, that Ronald Reagan wasn’t even a Republican. I cannot imagine the context that I said that in. Um, Ronald Reagan was the kind of Republican I’m looking for now. Ronald Reagan was one of my heroes. I cannot imagine the context in which I said that. I’m not going to say I didn’t say that, I just need the context in which I said that. Because it’s not that. It could have been, “He’s not even a Republican, like John McCain, cause he’s not."

There is a little more after this where they go into a discussion about how Reagan left the Democrats because they betrayed him, then went to the Republicans, and if Reagan were around today, he would either leave the Republicans or lead them to save the soul of the Republicans. Beck went on to blame his crazy statements on the fact that he is "currently wearing his dead grandmother's teeth, and her slip," (a reference to Congressman Slater's story of a constituent who had to use her dead sister's false teeth because she couldn't afford her own). Then they went through and named off some things that global warming scientists have disavowed recently, including glaciers melting, sea level rise, warming since 1995, and some other things.

Based on these statements, I think it is a good idea to remove the statement that was added as a result of this article, and no reference should be made to this article without something saying that Beck disputes it. WP:BLP demands we get the article right, and if the subject of the article says his opinion is different, and proves that his opinion is taken out of context for an article, then that article should be removed from the references, or at least followed up with a statement like, "although Beck himself says this is not his opinion." (Although, the statement should be much better than that one.) J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 21:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Diggity. Since Beck disputes the assertions, then the USA Today article was obviously badly written. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 00:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you people serious? Beck disagrees with the article so it must be wrong? USA Today is a reputable source, and if they haven't printed any retractions, I see no reason not to mention the article. Lots of famous people deny saying things they said. Why is Beck's word being given more weight than USA Today's? This is just another disgusting example of a famous person's leering fans cleansing their wikipedia article. Wikipedia isn't worth a darn if this is allowed to continue. It shouldn't surprise anyone that Beck said something he doesn't presently believe (or at least something he realized he audience doesn't want him to believe). He is one of the least consistent pundits out there. He basically says things as they enter his head.

First, this talk page is for discussion on improving the article, not a forum for you to give your opinion on Glenn Beck (especially since you offered no proof of your rudely-stated opinion, and feel free to prove me wrong by offering proof that Beck is not a consistent pundit). Second, according to the policies and guidelines on a Biography of a Living Person, all sources must be verifiable. That includes stories that are disputed as factually incorrect by the subject (or target) of the article (or attack story). Until and unless USA Today comes out with their proof of that statement, it has to be removed because it may or may not be false. So, thank you for your opinion, but we are doing the right thing based on the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. While you are still entitled to your opinion, voice it in voice it in the places where you can say pretty much whatever dumb shit pops into your head (as long as you agree with everyone else), because the people there care much more for their opinion than the facts about a person. You can also do that here, but the same rules apply. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 01:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

"Until and unless USA Today comes out with their proof of that statement, it has to be removed" Incorrect. USA Today does count as a reliable source and therefore does not fail verifiability. Also, I believe "fuck off" is borderline uncivil. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 01:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The paper is fine. That particular story is not. We do not need to give it play in a BLP if it is disputed.

Fuck off does actually cross the line. He was being attacked so I understand the frustration but striking it out would be good form.Cptnono (talk) 02:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 02:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Beck's dispute of the article should be noted. But USA today is a valid source. Reference to the article shouldn't be removed just because beck now says he was misquoted. The fact is, if he was truly misquoted and didn't think the article accurately reflected his interview with the writer, a retraction would have been made or there would be a lawsuit. I think it is obvious Beck was just backing away from statements he felt could have weakened his image. But there is no reason to believe that the USA today article misquoted him. This is a common claim by public figures. If you want to prove the article wasn't real, site a news article on the subject. Beck's own show is hardly a valid source in this case. LynnCityofsin (talk) 02:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

No one is saying USA Today as a whole is not reliable. This particular story has too many red flags and frankly isn't needed. This is starting to come across like bickering for the sake of bickering. It harms the article more than it helps so find new sources that are not disputed if such info is required.Cptnono (talk) 02:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Cptnon, Diggity lashes out by insulting posters all the time. This is not an isolated incident. And he wasn't being attacked personally. His reaction in this case, and in others, is way out of line. And it is frankly intimidating to people to have a Beck fan like him attacking anyone who disagrees with beck's politics here on the wikipedia page. It just shows he isn't responsible enough or objective enough to edit the article. LynnCityofsin (talk) 02:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Cptnono, no it doesn't. There are no red flags. Looking at the article and searching for any other articles about it, it doesn't appear to have any issues. Like I said, public personalities routinely claim they were misquoted or taken out of context. Unless there is a retraction printed (because a writer for USA today will definitely have a recording of the interview and shown it to the editors since Beck's comments), there is no reason to suspect the article is flawed. No red flags. Just Beck backtracking. LynnCityofsin (talk) 02:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Or the writer was incorrect. We don't know. There is no reason to assume Beck is lieing. Like I said, it isn't needed. Find another source if getting the information is needed. Also ask yourself if and why this is a personal objective. Is it to improve the article or to belittle the subject?Cptnono (talk) 02:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

But the only source is that article. Because that is where he made the statements. Again you are giving too much weight to Beck, who is clearly biased in this case and not a reliable source. If the article isn't true, there will either be a retraction or lawsuit. If there isn't a retraction, then it should stand. And yes, we should assume he is lying until there is proof he didn't say what the article claims. You and Diggity should ask yourselves what your objectives are. You are both clearly beck heads. I am just trying to bring some balance here. As it is, the article is heavily weighted toward beck. LynnCityofsin (talk) 02:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, here is where I have to admit to being wrong. He was not personally interviewed, as I previously stated (however, I will point out that I also voiced my uncertainty of whether or not it was a personal interview at the time). That makes this story more an opinion piece than anything else, as they offered no proof of his saying any of these things. Had this been a personal interview, my opinion would be to change this article based on the USA Today story, and add his dispute. But since it is simply someone "pointing out what Beck says," it things should not be changed. We have a duty to get the article right.
But something just occurred to me. I have no problem mentioning this article, none whatsoever. My problem was the change made in the Political Views section (the change that I reverted). If someone wants to add the article and the controversy surrounding it, feel free, but be sure to do it right. I simply objected to making changes to this article based on the USA Today article. I apologize for any misunderstanding. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 02:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm actually not a fan as I have said before. How about you assume Beck is not being honest and I assume the writer made a mistake? ONe of them is wrong and we don't know which. If you really want to add similar info go find other sources.Cptnono (talk) 02:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Cptnono. If the information is worth including in the article, it should be easy to find in other sources. If we can't find other reliable sources, then it likely fails WP:WEIGHT. It's not our job to add every detail of Beck. We should cover the prominent, relevant, important areas of his life. If we don't get his opinion on xyz... ok.. it must not be that important if we have to rely on a single source that's disputed. Let's get it right.. if there is doubt, don't include it. We'll get it later in another source if it's important. Morphh ^(talk) 3:04, 02 March 2010 (UTC)

How about something like this in the Political Views section?

In 2010, USA Today Weekends published a story called, "Don't Judge Beck By His Cover." This story included political views held by Beck, which the author based on statements made by Beck. During the Glenn Beck Program on February 19, 2010, Beck disputed several facets of the story, including the story's interpretations of his views on global warming and Ronald Reagan. (Only with citations)

And once again, I will state my position on personal attacks: It is not a personal attack to point out to someone either what the policies and guidelines are, our mandate to follow the policies and guidelines, or both. It is also not a personal attack to give people suggestions on where the appropriate place for their opinions is, even if that suggestion is given in a rude tone, and with rude words. That would be a slight breach on civility, but not really. I find it quite uncivil for people for people to come in here and bash people in the wrong forums, and, as it says on my userpage, I employ tit for tat strategy. I am not apologetic for that, nor will I change anytime soon. So, go ahead. Go find an administrator to whine to, I really don't care. If people have the right to come in here and say stupid shit, I have the right to respond in kind. If you can't take it, don't dish it out, and we won't have problems.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshuaingram (talk • contribs)

I assume you are directing the second paragraph at LCoS. I am actually going to be boohooing to an admin if she continues to make assertions against me that I find offensive.

I do like your edit idea though. I don't think the story deserves weight myself but am OK with it if consensus says that ti does.Cptnono (talk) 02:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

No, Cptnono, I'm not referring to you. I certainly don't agree with you on everything, but you're pretty fair across the board, and you actually give a rip about the policies and guidelines, UNLIKE SOME PEOPLE, and that's all anyone can do.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshuaingram (talk • contribs)

I don't see a basis for including this as a notable issue in itself.. this is not a controversy, nor part of Beck's notability. I see no informational value in the dispute. A biography should not cover such minor events. Morphh ^(talk) 3:04, 02 March 2010 (UTC)

Diggity, you are a bully, plain and simple. And you have been berating people with hostile posts and curse words long before anyone attacked you personally. It isn't just a case of retaliation. You start off by attacking anyone who just disagrees with you. LynnCityofsin (talk) 14:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this has to do with USA Today or RS. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 14:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't. But someone should point out to diggity, he doesn't have the right to swear at other users, just because he believes he is being attacked. In fact, I don't believe anyone has sworn at him, only attacked his ideas or his objectivity. LynnCityofsin (talk) 15:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, Lynn, seriously, just shut up about me. Seriously. You don't know what you are talking about, and you are starting to get on my nerves. You've been a registered user for, what, 3 1/2 months? Did you go through and look at everything I have done on here? If you haven't, then you are giving your opinion on things that you have no knowledge of. If you have, that just makes you a sad person with nothing to do but find people to give a hard time. I have never gone out of my way to be rude to someone. I will not claim that I have been all sunshine and lollipops to everyone that has walked in here, but you cannot tell me that I am automatically rude to everyone with a post. I am perfectly nice to people that walk in here and respect the policies and guidelines, and people with general questions. I am not nice to people that come in here with malice towards the subject of the articles I watch, and decide that the collective efforts of several well-established and well-seasoned editors must be the result of, "a bunch of fanboys trying to build the subject up." I am not nice to people that come in here and start a section called, "Public Reception section is dogshit," and then continue to bash the article for "non-neutrality," when what he meant was the fact that we use too many so-called "Mainstream Media" references, which he called "liberal media." (Which, theoretically, wouldn't that make him "on my team?") I am not friendly towards people that walk in here and try to label Beck, "The leader of the lunatic fringe," and then claim that that particular addition was made, and I'm not kidding, "in good faith."
You know who else I am not nice to? People that think they are right, despite people using evidence to the contrary. For instance, there was this IP address that made this claim:

"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.

And then, after I pointed out that he is beating his competition at 5:00 15:1, they say things like this:

"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."

Now, after displaying another obvious moment of POV (and proving an inability to do basic math), do I make a rude statement. And that statement was this:

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."

And that wasn't even all that rude! So, please, unless you are going to stop generalizing, or maybe do some research before you make inaccurate claims and judgments, just let it go. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 16:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Basically you have used as examples a handful of my more extreme statements and a single example of one of your moderate statements. You've routinely engages in swearing, cursing and bullying (though you've edited most of that out of your comments, so it isn't there for people to see---however others have called you out on it). And again in the case of Beck, if you don't see that he has a general reputation for being on the crazy side and fanning the flames of conspiracy theories (he is lampooned for this all the time), I don't know what to say. And again, I don't actually dislike Beck. But his reputation should be noted. The entire point of both the Daily Show parody and the SNL parody was Glen Beck is a Conspiracy Nut who resorts to logical fallacies all the time. This has been restated in a number of news magazines and editorial pages. And for the last time, I have no interest in editing the page. I see how broken it is. And how much bias has infected it. I am not going to bother contributing to something that is in the middle of a tug of war between the most extreme sides. LynnCityofsin (talk) 17:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm...I never heard Beck promote a "conspiracy theory". Can you please list one that can be verified? Thanks. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Bill, dependent on your definition of conspiracy theory, Beck does actually talk about them a lot. He might not "promote" them, per se, but he does point out the facts behind some. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 18:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

What I mean by "Conspiracy theory" is Wikipedia's definition of Conspiracy theory (see also fringe theory). For example, the economic ramifications of the solutions for Anthropogenic Global Warming are hardly in doubt. Or that President Obama has a socialist agenda also cannot be disputed. I mean, he's up front about wanting to nationalize health care in the U.S. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

That's true, Bill, but, as I'm sure every Beck hater is willing to point out, he said the Obama administration is turning into the radical regimes of Stalin and Hitler, and can be likened to the horrible actions of Che Guevara (although they have a hard time supporting this point, because all he really did was compare aspects of certain policies, and point out the words of several members of the Obama administration). "What about the FEMA camps," they say! Well, there is also the fact that he debunked the FEMA camp theory. Or when he analyzed and exposed the Communist and Socialist symbols in the artwork at Rockefeller Center, everyone was starting to shout, "Conspiracy Theory!!!" without actually listening to him. Oh, another good one that these idiots have up their sleeve is to call him a racist hatemonger, and then you ask for proof, and the ONLY THING THEY HAVE is Beck giving his opinion (which used to be acceptable in this country, but not anymore) about how Obama looks at race. You have Arianna Huffington running around saying, "Glenn Beck is telling people the government is going to slaughter them!!!", when in fact he is talking about the economic policy of the US and of Obama. But here's the problem: You will never convince these people that Beck is an okay guy. You know why? Because they watch Keith Olberwomann, Rachel Mancow, and Chris "I got this thrill going up my leg" Mathews, read only Lamestream Media (a.k.a. Mainstream Media) publications (such as the New York Times, Washington Post, the New Yorker), spend time only at crazy Liberal/Progressive opinion sites like the progressive watchdog Media Haters (a.k.a. Media Matters) and Media Matters After A Few Drinks (a.k.a. the Huffington Post), and are under the impression that you have to be a moronic, redneck, racist, uneducated, barely-conscious retard to believe in any of this, or go to a TEA Party, or become a 9-12er...when it's these people that usually have no proof of the statements they make. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 22:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

No, what I showed was that when people walk in here and make comments with the intent of bettering the article, and without an inordinate amount of POV, such as your first statement, I respond with a calm statement of fact. Only when people start making outlandishly stupid statements, such as your second statement, I respond with sarcasm and, as you call it, "bullying." And you know what? If you want to call pointing out the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia "bullying," so be it. I'm the biggest bully I've ever seen. I use curse words because, as stated on my user page, "This user is politically incorrect. Hence, he will speak plainly and directly to the point rather than trip all over himself trying to be inoffensive." I am not here to be nice to everyone, to make sure that I hurt no one's feelings (although I will not speak rudely to people that have not spoken rudely first). And I'm sorry if that hurts your feelings, Lynn, but, again, I DO NOT CARE.
Now, you need to stop attacking me on this talk page. You have every right to criticize me, absolutely, and if you feel I need to be criticized, please do so. Please stick to your convictions, please have the courage to stick to them. However, do it in the proper forums. If you feel the need to complain about my MO, do so on my talk page. If you feel the need to go to an administrator, please go find an administrator's talk page. If you feel the need to complain about me in a public forum, please go to the proper forum. But whatever you do, stop doing it here. If you want to provide a link here, well, that would technically be against the rules, but you could go to every regular user of this page's talk page (or whomever you please) and post a link there. BUT STOP DOING IT HERE. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 18:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

His linking the Obama administration to a secret communist take-over is absolutely in the realm of conspiracy theory. His claim that the US ignored Chinese cyber attacks as payment to the chinese is a conpiracy theory. On his radio program (less so on his television program) he has accused global warming activists of actively destroying the economy in order to help establish a single world government. If you haven't seen him do any conpiracy theory stuff, you haven't been paying attention to the show. His stock and trade is creating elaborate scenarios on his black board, based on conjecture. Again, I don't dislike Beck, but you have to admit, conspiracy theory is his thing. LynnCityofsin (talk) 18:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

You may not dislike Beck, but you think he is so far out on the lunatic fringe that he is just going to lie and manipulate people to get his "crazy" ideas across. Liking and disliking people is not the only form of bias. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 18:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Diggity, its saying things like "F Off" and berating people, that is bullying. Also, I would like to point out, I haven't touched the Beck article throughout this discussion. I have just been pointing valid things out on the discussion page. I would also add, one can be just as POV by omitting (or pushing aside)( critical facts about a person's life or his or her statements)LynnCityofsin (talk) 18:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I will note that I never actually said "F Off" to anyone. I provided a link to a page that informed people how to "F Off". There's a difference. And I berate people for not following the policies and guidelines. AND FOR GOD'S SAKE WE KNOW YOU DON'T EDIT THE ARTICLE!!! Jesus, you've beat that horse so much, sometimes I see those words in my sleep! WE KNOW ALREADY!!! And I would like to know what "critical facts" I have "omitted" or "pushed aside" about Beck's life. Please, provide me with some evidence of this. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 19:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Fact One: That he is widely regarded as a bit of a nut and right wing conspiracy theorist. Fact Two: That he does engage in conspiracy theory musing on his show (heck is format of his television show--that is what the chalk board is all about). Fact Three: He has been inconsistent on a number of his own statements and beliefs (going from We have a terrible health care system to we have the best health care system in the world in about 9 months---but the pivot came with Obama Care. I will grant he has a huge following and most people recognize he is very good at what he does. But you can't ignore how polarizing of a figure he is, in the article. LynnCityofsin (talk) 19:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Fact One: Completely untrue, and I can prove it here, where a poll showed that Beck is the fourth most admired man in the world. Beck came in below Nelson Mandela, and above the Pope. How many people will admit to admiring a "right-wing nut and conspriacy theorist?" Fact Two: I agree, but he also supports these "musings" with verifiable facts. Fact Three: He has consistently stated that yes, we have a terrible healthcare system, but it is still the best in the world. And yes, he is a polarizing figure, but you can say that about a lot of people. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 19:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Without resorting to name-calling, I watch quite a bit of Beck's show and I certainly think the label "conspiracy theorist" fits. As Lynn said, that's the whole point of the chalk board, and I think it's not entirely true that Beck is always using verifiable facts. Again, trying to be objective here, Beck's method is to refer to some verifiable facts and then portentously refer to some sinister "pattern" and point out how "it all comes together" to signify some unpleasant thing. One thing that Beck does quite often is to place items on the board during a commercial break that he has not mentioned at all -- ACORN and SEIU are common ones -- but still refer to the board as something akin to a scientific equation that has been proven. It should go without saying that if you keep gesturing at a visual graphic with the words ACORN and SEIU on it, but have not made any reference to those items, then we are not strictly in the realm of "verifiable facts" anymore. And it should also go without saying that the ranking of Glenn Beck in any poll is utterly irrelevant to the question of whether or not the monicker "conspiracy theorist" fits or does not fit. If you create an analogous situation like, "Is Madonna a believer in kabbalah?" and the rebuttal focuses on her many Grammies or albums sold, then the sheer depth of diversion becomes a bit clearer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Priceyeah (talk • contribs) 12:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

All that poll shows is that 2% of the respondents admire Beck. Also, I am pretty sure that poll was taken among Americans. It wasn't a global poll. I have always maintained he is loved and hated. But his fans do not make up a majority. LynnCityofsin (talk) 21:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

If you had bothered reading the damn poll question, it was, "What man that you have heard or read about, living today in any part of the world, do you admire most? And who is your second choice?" This means that Beck was the fourth most mentioned man by all respondents, meaning that he is the fourth most admired man in the world (by Americans), not "admired by 2%." And yes, that poll was taken among Americans, which is apt because Beck is an American political figure. I personally don't give a shit what people around the world think about our political figures, and that goes for the ones I don't like, too. And I never said that his fans make up a majority. I said that he is not...how did you put it? Oh yeah, your horribly neutral statement, "He is widely regarded as a bit of a nut and right wing conspiracy theorist." J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 21:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I did read the question. Diggity, look at the numbers again. Those are the percentage of people who selected that person as the most admired. He may be fourth on the list, but he only got 2% of the respondents. 2% of respondents to a poll saying Beck is the person they admire most in the world, doesn't preclude half or more of the country thinking the guy is a nut. Hell, Obama got something like 30% of the respondents, and I am pretty sure half the country thinks he is socialist scum. I actually think the two men are comparable figures when it comes to how polarizing they are. It is fair to say that Obama is widely regarded as a big government liberal, or radical if you like, becuase I think it is clear about half the country views him as such. By the same token, I think it is fair to say about half the country views Beck as a right wing conspiracy nut. LynnCityofsin (talk) 22:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I could agree with half. That seems to be the reach of the Mainstream Media nowadays. But what about the other half? Does the other half still, "tune in because they know he'll do something crazy?" Has your opinion on that half changed? And what about the remainder? I mean, we only covered two halves, there are still some left. Are the ones left still, "fringe folk?" J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 22:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

"Since Beck disputes the assertions, then the USA Today article was obviously badly written." (Bill) "Until and unless USA Today comes out with their proof of that statement, it has to be removed" (Joshua) Can someone help me follow the logic here? Pointing me to the text in BLP, RS, or V might help me understand. v/r. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 23:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

See my February 24th comment near the top of this section for my position on including the USA Today article. Do a search for "No, Gamaliel, you are mistaken." That is the first sentence of the relevant comment and it will make it easier to find it in this bloated section.  :) Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, yes I see that now. Thanks. BLP tells us to be careful and it tells us "an editor should be able to demonstrate that it complies with all Wikipedia content policies and guidelines." I guess I can try to demonstrate this if you'd like. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 23:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

What I was referring to was the edit that I reverted, which can be found here. If someone wants to add a few sentences about the story in question, along with Beck's challenge of it, that's fine with me. I had a problem changing his Political Views based on an opinion story in a newspaper, when the subject in question says that his position is different than what the story said. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 23:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

"If someone wants to add a few sentences about the story in question, along with Beck's challenge of it, that's fine with me." Ok. So how about '...although in a USA Today interview he acknowledged the phenomenon was happening, "You’d be an idiot not to notice the temperature change," and said there was "legit case that global warming has, at least in part, (been) caused by mankind."<ref name="usaweekend" /> though Beck challenges the accuracy of the interview<ref>Friday, February 26, 2010. The Glenn Beck Program or Glenn Beck (TV program)</ref>' ~a (user • talk • contribs) 00:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Does this seem fine with everyone? ~a (user • talk • contribs) 14:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely not, for the simple reason that he was not personally interviewed for this story. This was a story that was gathered using old Beck quotes from the past. Now, if you remove the words, "he acknowledged," (and filled it with something), I would have no problem with that. So, it would look something like this:

'...although a USA Today story stated that he acknowledged the phenomenon was happening, Beck challenged the accuracy of the report Friday, February 26, 2010 on the radio and Fox News.

How does that sound? I can add references later, but now I have to go to class. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 15:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Opposed - I'm opposed to it. I see no real reason or informational purpose for including it. The he said/she said provides little with regard to understanding his position. There is no controversy surrounding it based on additional reliable sources and the entire thing seems to fail WP:WEIGHT if we take this to the conclusion of why it's relevant. It appears to pick a single statement from a disputed source in contrast to a much larger pool of references available regarding his position on such topics. It seems this is being used as some "gotcha" method of comparison regarding his position, but we have no basis for making such an analysis or elevating this statement or story above that of other such stories. If it was just a reference to accepted information, that would be fine, but the only reason for this extended discussion is that the material in question is disputed. There is, however, no controversy or additional references to sufficiently justify adding content on the matter when placed in historical or even present context. Morphh ^(talk) 15:17, 03 March 2010 (UTC)

Diggity, I was half kidding when I said that; I thought that was obvious. But let me clarify my position. I believe approx. half (or at least a quart ot half) of of the US feels he is a right wing nut/fearmonger/comspiracy theorist etc. But I also think the other half (again quarter to half) think he is a brilliant man, shining the light on key issues. For the sake of argument lets say there are two large camps in the US: one views him as a right wing conspiracy theorist, the other as a champion of individual liberty and the common man. I think it is a good idea to quibble over the details, but I also believe it is obvious to anyone with even a vague interest in US politics and media that this is the case. LynnCityofsin (talk) 00:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

This is not a forum.Cptnono (talk) 00:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, this is not a forum. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 00:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Which is why I responded here. (Be warned: When you get there, it looks blank. Scroll down to find the actual page.) Anyone is welcome to join in the discussion. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 01:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. But I am just trying to get editors to understand the importance of explaining the perception people have of a public figure. Someone using wikipedia to gather information on someone needs to know why they are controversial and what their fans and their detractors think. With Beck it is absolutely obvious how he is viewed by large segments of the population. I know there is an aversion here to this sort of thing, but it is critical if you want the article to be encyclopedia quality. Trust me, I am a contributor real encyclopedias. And I am not doing this to knock Beck. He is a significant figure (both historically and politically), and you really need to help people navigate where he fits into everything. If it is just article that promotes or attacks him, it isn't truly academic. LynnCityofsin (talk) 01:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

We've gone over this. General musing isn't improving the article. Find some sources and make some specific requests. Cptnono (talk) 01:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I've made specific requests and pointed to specific sources already. I am not going to do your work for you. It is up to you if you want to improve the article or just leave it as the sparring ground for the left and right that it is. LynnCityofsin (talk) 01:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

It isn'y my work to do. Go away if you are not interested on doing more than chit chatting.Cptnono (talk) 02:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Cptnono. LynnCityofsin seems to be only interested in chit chatting. I've made my opinion clear in this section. Since LynnCityofsin is not willing to make any edits to the article itself, I'm done discussing this with LCOS for now, although I'll be watching the article. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 06:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Removal

Can diggity please be removed as an editor of this page. He is clearly biased. Clearly just trying to make this article make Beck look good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.16.187 (talk) 01:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

You cannot "remove" an editor from a page. You can file for an RFC, but I don't know much about that. Otherwise, if you would like to discuss specific edits that Diggity (Joshuaingram) has made, feel free to discuss them. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 02:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I second that. j diggity clearly has a political axe to grind, and he as much admits this one his personal talk page. He should not be an editor on this article, or even on this article's talk page. I just spent the past 45 minutes reading over this very long, annoying talk page, and he's not much better then a persistent, very eloquent troll. Unfortunately, RFC as it pertains to an individual user is clearly beyond...well, this doesn't quite warrant it, yet. Hewhorulestheworld (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC).

There is a whole dispute resolution process as mentioned above. I for one would be completely against any such "removal". The editor has done fine work minus a few uncivil comments here and there on this talk page. And even those I can't be too worried about since it was not completely one sided and they are not continuing. Hewhorulestheworld also needs to strike out his troll comment since that is not cool. Cptnono (talk) 02:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Cptnono. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 02:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Bill-the-wise-Cat; but I didn't spend an hour reading this Talk-section, yet. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 10:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Nationality

Why does the bio facts box on the right list "Nationality"? Why does it say "American"? Should this be deleted? Other celebrities have actual facts, not this vague term. Would Michael Jackson's entry have this? (It doesn't -- though it would be equally accurate.) I recommend removal. Johnpdeever (talk) 12:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you asking for it to be removed, United States, or American with a wikilink to US?Cptnono (talk) 13:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe the poster is pointing out that "American" isn't a formal nationality. LynnCityofsin (talk) 14:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Who says American is not a nationality? And what's wrong with claiming as such? My ancestors may have come over from Germany on one side, and Ireland on the other, but we have been of American nationality since the first one was born in America. I think "American" is just fine. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 15:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Because there is not nation called America. America is the informal term for the united states. American can refer to a Canadian, a Mexican, someone from the US, or any other person from North or South America. Suggest putting "US American" for his nationality.LynnCityofsin (talk) 15:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

On second thought, do we have a reliable source proving his status as an American? I want to see the birth certificate! For all I know, he was born in Brazil. LynnCityofsin (talk) 15:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Just kidding by the way;) But seriously, I don't have any problem with using the term American, but I do think saying US American will be more clear. LynnCityofsin (talk) 15:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Having added "American"/nationality to 1,000s of BLPs at this point, it seems to be the "standard"(if there is such a thing around here :)) for US citizens. I would leave "American" unless darn good reason and overwellming consensus to change. Thank you, --Tom (talk) 16:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I actually have to side with Lynn on this one. American isn't a nationality on its own, therefore it really can't be used in articles as such. However, I don't think US American is much better (more accurate, to be sure, but it just doesn't sound right to me). Maybe we could just put, "United States," in the nationality slot? I don't know. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 16:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I think Threeafterthree's suggestion is the way to go. Although being an American can technically refer to anyone who is a citizen of any country in the Americas, it is most commonly used to refer to the United States of America. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I bring this up because as I look around a little, I see white people with "Nationality: American" but not Louis Armstrong, Michael Jackson ... why? What does "Nationality" really mean? Birthplace covers it. Johnpdeever (talk) 13:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Birthplace usually isn't enough to inform people of where certain people are from, or currently residing. And besides, you get some people that claim a different nationality than that of their birth. Honestly, I have no idea why they categorize people like that, but they do. Of course, then you get people that claim to have been born here and really weren't. (Full disclosure: I am not a birther, and I agree with Beck that birthers are idiots or severely misinformed. Obama was born in Hawaii. I think if Obama had been born somewhere else, the Clinton machine would have found out, and would not have hesitated to make it public.) So, John, I really don't know why I responded to your question, because I don't know the answer. But we all know I do that a lot. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 16:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• The America article is a disambiguation page which disambiguates the term to The Americas and The United States of America, among other usages.
• The lead sentence of the United States article says, "The United States of America (commonly referred to as the United States, the U.S., the USA, or America) is ...". Questions re referring to the U.S. as "America" have been beaten to death numerous times. See, for example, here.
• Louis Armstrong and Michael Jackson were both U.S. citizens AFAIK but, while this Glenn Beck article uses Template:Infobox person infobox, which supports a nationality= parameter, their articles use Template:Infobox musical artist infoboxes, which do not support such a parameter. Feel free to add such a parameter or (probably better) to propose its addition at Template talk:Infobox musical artist. BTW, skin color has nothing whatever to do with this. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't think I could have said it better. Actually, I know I couldn't :). Thank you for the, hopefully, clear explaination...I actually used to link "American" to the United States article but stoped doing that since it seemed like overkill...anyways, anything else here? --Tom (talk) 23:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)ps, to answer Johnpdeever, I believe Nationality means what country a person is a citizen of...if interested, please check out the on going discussion about Bruce Lee on his talk page and chime in :)..Cheers!

I have a hard time believing this has not come up before. There should be a guideline in place already. Anyone know?Cptnono (talk) 23:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Social & economic justice Church controversy

"I beg you, look for the words 'social justice' or 'economic justice' on your church Web site. If you find it, run as fast as you can. Social justice and economic justice, they are code words. Am I advising people to leave their church? Yes! If they're going to Jeremiah Wright's church, yes! If you have a priest that is pushing social justice, go find another parish. Go alert your bishop and tell them, 'Excuse me, are you down with this whole social justice thing?' If it's my church, I'm alerting the church authorities: 'Excuse me, what's this social justice thing?' And if they say, 'Yeah, we're all in on this social justice thing,' I am in the wrong place."

— Glenn Beck, radio show, March 2, 2010

Hey I don't know if this should be addded but Beck has been drawing some controversy for telling Christians to leave churches that preach social and economic justice.[1] Richard (talk) 23:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I listened to Glenn Beck address this on his radio show this morning. He is specifically asking people to question their church leaders if the phrases "social justice" or "economic justice" appear in the church's mission statement or literature. Beck asserts that sometimes (but not always) these are code words for Marxism or socialism. (On a lighter note, you can try commanding people to leave their house of worship mindlessly just because of a phrase it uses; I doubt that would be very successful!) As to whether this merits inclusion in this article, I think it is too soon to tell, because Wikipedia is not a newspaper. If a month or two goes by and there is some perspective that this episode is a significant component of Glenn Beck's notability, I would see no problem with a balanced mention. CosineKitty (talk) 03:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

In addition to CosineKitty's statement, this seems to be something that is more suited to be added to the article about his radio show. But again, it needs to wait until its notoriety has been better established. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 03:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to add to this. I agree that we have to wait and see how this plays out, but in addition to the notoriety standard, it may be significant in the sense of explaining who Beck is. Whether you hold the view that Beck is important and sincere or that Beck is something of a charlatan who will grasp at whatever shocking idea will further his commercial goals, it fits into either narrative. People who are interested in Beck should be made aware that Beck thinks religion and social justice are, properly speaking, opposites. Having said that, I don't want to be dogmatic about it -- the notoriety standard does matter too. Priceyeah (talk) 11:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe the issue is notable enough quite yet, but believe that it is quickly reaching the point where it could be. Some recent media on the matter:

• Time magazine ~ Why Does Glenn Beck Hate Jesus?
• The New York Times ~ Outraged by Glenn Beck’s Salvo, Christians Fire Back
• ABC News ~ Christians Rip Glenn Beck Over 'Social Justice' Slam

Below are three excerpts from the above links ...

"What he has said attacks the very heart of our Christian faith, and Christians should no longer watch his show. His show should now be in the same category as Howard Stern."

— Reverend Jim Wallis, leader of the Christian antipoverty group Sojourners

"One way to read the Book of Mormon is that it’s a vast tract on social justice. A lot of Latter-day Saints would think that Beck was asking them to leave their own church."

— Philip Barlow, the Arrington professor of Mormon history and culture at Utah State University

"I hesitated to respond, because it seemed like such a ridiculous statement. But this is really an attack ... a misunderstanding, at least, of what the Bible says. Justice is a concept throughout the scriptures. It's one that should be and must be organized around any congregation. It's very disturbing, He's speaking on behalf of his political views and trying to take out of the biblical text the things that are going to oppose his political views. This is primarily a political motivation. It's not that Christians haven't been Nazis and socialists, but we're not talking about political parties here. We're talking about 2,000-year-old gospel."

— Reverend Peg Chemberlin, president of the National Council of Churches, which oversees 100,000 congregations across the country and has about 45 million members

  Redthoreau -- (talk) 04:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

FYI, the articles on this controversy have gotten enormous bumps - Jim Wallis from 100 to 2000 views per day, Fritz Julius Kuhn from 50-700, and Charles Coughlin from 500 to 3200. The only explantion for this would be coverage by Glenn Beck. I disagree with the policy that "nothing Glenn Beck says or does is notable until it hits the New York Times, and even then it's not notable" Bachcell (talk) 05:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

We have to consider things in the historical context. If we were to add every news story that comes out, we'd be adding lines to this article every week. There are only so many things we can cover properly in an encyclopedia, so we cover the things that are easily identified as part of his notability. That's not to say that it's not notable news, but that it's just insufficient to place it in his life's biography. Morphh ^(talk) 12:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Concur. And, again, all of these things are notable enough to put in the articles about his radio show and his television show, but different rules apply to BLP's, therefore we have to be careful about what goes into this article. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 15:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

As presently written, Jim Wallis is mischaracterized as a "blogger." Recommend a period after "some Christian bloggers." Begin new sentance "The Rev. Jim Wallis, leader of Sojourners, a Christian social justice organization, wrote on his God's Politics blog..." Over the course of 30+ years Wallis has become a major figure within the evangelical Christian world. Take a look at his Wikipedia page. Also, a notable Catholic response was made by Fr. James Martin, S.J. in the Jesuit weekly America Glenn Beck to Jesus: Drop Dead BlueMesa171 (talk) 17:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Mediabistro

Is Mediabistro.com TVNewser RS? It is a blog. Some of its contributors are or have been journalists but as a blog it has no editorial oversight or vetting process. It is true that we can use "blogs" when used as new media by reputable news outlets but mediabistro does not appear to meet the requirements. We should actually consider removing all information where it is used as the sole source.Cptnono (talk) 05:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I concur...up to a point. I think that if it is decided to ditch all mediabistro sources, all of the the sources in question that are up solely for the video that is embedded inside that particular URL should be left, unless that video can be found elsewhere. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 14:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Media controversies section, split into new article?

I believe that the "Media controversies" section as it currently stands is too lengthy (and inevitably likely to grow), and thus probably Wp:Undue in reference to the overall article. I would propose perhaps creating a separate article on "Glenn Beck media controversies" (etc) and then just include a condensed paragraph or two here on this article summarizing the main points - with a link to the main article. Agree? Disagree? Moreover, if agreed upon - I'm not even proposing that I create it, and would rather leave that to editors more involved here with the topic.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 11:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that would constitute a WP:POVFORK and has been struck down with WP:AFD in other articles like Bill O'Reilly. The solution, like they have done in the Bill O'Reilly article, is to reduce the size of the public reception and media controversies sections to comply with WP:UNDUE. We should not have a running list of minor controversies. WP:BLP states they should be relevant to his notability, meaning he's known in some part for the controversy itself. So we need to focus on the main controversies, and only mention other such controversies in a very broad single paragraph. Morphh ^(talk) 13:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Referencing clips Glenn Beck on his show

I have noticed many people have stated "He says ___ all the time in his show" or posted transcripts of what he said, promising it was accurate, but still denied by others for not having a reliable source. Here is a reliable database of clips of Glenn Beck speaking during his show which you can reference to any things he has said on the show. Hope I helped. ;) Ink Falls (talk) 22:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. However even with that reference it would be inappropriate for us to write that he "often" says something. We could use it to assert that he has said something "23 times", but unless there's a secondary source discussing the frequency of his comments then we'd still be engaged in original research.   Will Beback  talk  23:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)