Talk:Glenn Beck

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article has been mentioned by a media organization:


Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2016[edit]


There's a typo (the word "llater" needs to be changed to "later")

Propane13 (talk) 15:58, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done - thanks for catching the typo. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 16:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Glenn Beck. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:13, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Glenn Beck. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Political Affiliation[edit]

The article claims Beck was a Republican prior to 2014, and cites a Washington Times article as support he left the Republican Party. However, looking at his voter registration from when he previously lived in Connecticut to as far back as 2006, it shows he was registered as "Unaffiliated." Supporting the conservative policies of the Republican Party, which he states in the article were betrayed, is different from actually being a member. DanaWright (talk) 10:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

As the website is a "privately owned genealogy website" it does not qualify as WP:RS.04:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Universal Life Church[edit]

May I publicly question whether Glenn Beck having filled out a form online once to get a joke ordination from an internet church is Notable? And if so, does it belong under Religious Views and not, say, Stage Shows or Satire, Spoof or Parody? Because it's in there, and that's neither Notable nor NPOV, just a little jab. --Mrcolj (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

While comical, I don't know if it would be significant enough to include. I'm curious to see what others have to say because my decision could easily be swayed. Meatsgains (talk) 23:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
To clarify, I agree with you 100%. I think it should be removed. --Mrcolj (talk) 23:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Okay, one week of discussion, now editing.--Mrcolj (talk) 17:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)