Talk:Glenn Beck/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

objectivity of the Beck biography.

I commented twice before the article removed the comments Beck's mother was an alcoholic. This relates to Beck as it describes his upbringing. It seemed to me and seems to me now this obscures Beck as a person in favor of his controversies. In reviewing the documentation for the article I found the following quote in footnote 15, a biography of Glenn Beck,

"At the time of Beck's death, she (Mary Beck) held custody of her 15-year-old son, Glenn, with whom she had moved to Puyallup. She had left her estranged husband William behind in Mt. Vernon, Wash., another small city 100 miles due north. After producing two daughters and a son, the Becks' marriage had collapsed in 1977 under the weight of Mary's chemical addictions and manic fits of depression. It was in the two years bridging this divorce and his mother's drowning that a teenage Glenn Beck launched one of the most bizarre and unlikely careers in the history of American broadcasting."

I note the article not only removed the report of chemical addiction, but ignored the suggestion of emotional instability.

71.53.195.160 (talk) 00:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)DWright

I researched the other footnotes and could not find another independent source for the statement in the Slate article. I was disappointed to see the Slate article did not include it's sources of information. I'll continue to look for at least two more references.

71.53.195.160 (talk) 04:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)DWright

On one hand, I see what you're saying. On the other, this would be a rather delicate addition to make. For one, Beck is a controversial figure. We want to make sure the addition is, firstly, not given more emphasis than would be appropriate given sources available, and, secondly, is not treated as if it is making a point about him, but only reporting a fact about his life among others. Beck is very much known for his controversies, so a lot of weight is going to lean towards that. Perhaps if you want to work on the addition, you make a specific suggested change, and we can examine here what would work.

I think we can agree this has the potential to be a sensitive aspect of the article, and it would be very bad to appear to be attacking Beck through his mother, no matter what various editors may think about him. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 22:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

It is purported to be a fact in at least one source. It is a fact that may have occurred in his formative years and could have had an influence on his world view. Not all parents who are chemically addicted are "bad parents". In my experience they are often very good parents.

71.53.195.160 (talk)DWright —Preceding undated comment added 23:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC).

Unless a reliable source makes the claim that it impacted his world view, we won't speculate. Whether that one source is sufficient for including in the article partly depends on the source, and partly depends on how well the info is covered in that source. I'm not finding your attempted change in the history so far, so would you post the information/link here? Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 14:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

That, of course, would be more of the research. Your article already references Beck talking often about his mothers suicide and maybe there is something in those references. I asked Salon.com for their references. I so far have not heard from them. Salon might not be that friendly to Beck and I would want to look at their primary sources.

71.53.195.160 (talk) 21:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)DWright

I heard from the salon author. The statement that the marriage of Becks parents failed due to the chemical dependencies of his mother seems to be a condensation of several on-air remarks made by Beck in reference to her alcohol and drug use. The author is looking for those references.

Of course I will post the sources here as I get them. It might take some sorting through the context of Becks comments. It is possible these statements were taken out of context and not representative of what Beck meant to say. He is also known to speak first and think later. His comments need to taken within the context of his personal style of public speaking. I wonder if he has written his own biography. Do you know?

71.53.195.160 (talk) 22:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)DWright

Can't say myself. However, if it's condensed from several sources, there's a good chance we can't use it, as it would involve original research or a synthesis of sources. Trust me, there are very good reasons we don't want to do that. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 22:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 66.229.114.208, 27 April 2011

The ACORN section on this page seems to be very subjective, more objectivity requested. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.114.208 (talk) 20:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Also, it doesn't seem unduly subjective to me at all. — Bility (talk) 18:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Critism of Beck's style of delivery from other conservatives?

Like Beck I'm a Latter Day Saint and a political conservative. Beck's view that the Constitution of the United States is, along with the Declaration of Independence, an "inspired document" is not at all outside the mainstream of Latter Day Saint thought. The Book of Mormon itself pretty much says so. I would seem to be based on my own independently-formed views, inclined to be a supporter of Beck who seems to largely base his political ideal on the idea of Captain Moroni's Title of Liberty, as do I.

But though I agree with much of his worldview, I find his methods of explaining himself .... frustrating. I think he oversimplifies everything to the point that there's hardly anything there for people to learn. I would contrast Beck's style of delivery with other conservative commentators like Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin who while they largely agree with many of Beck's positions, they express themselves on a much higher level intellectually with a much greater respect for the education of their audience in terms of expectations. I'm pretty sure there have got to be other conservatives who feel the same way, who feel somewhat in sympathy with the many liberals trolling that "BECK IS AN IDIOT" because they feel Beck has somewhat oversimplified and dumbed down the conservative worldview in many instances, while other commentators (notably Mark Levin) will sometimes cover the same material in a much less intellectually shallow manner. Surely if anyone could find sources for this criticism of Beck - not of his policies but about his delivery coming not from enemies but from other conservatives, wouldn't that be worth including? --BenMcLean (talk) 21:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Freedom for Palestine

Freedom for Palestine (song) has just been created but could use some work including Beck's review of the song, the initial edit largely quotes coverage by supporters of the song in order to keep controversy to a minimum. Bachcell (talk) 14:24, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Fan logo, continually being added to article

I have attempted to remove a fan-made, SVG logo, supposedly meant to be Glenn Beck's television logo. The logo is very poorly designed, and does not resemble the actual logo used on the show. The user has reverted my removal of the image, calling it "vandalism", but the user seems to have ownership issues in wanting to have their fan-made work displayed in the article. Additionally, the user continues to suggest discussing here on the talk page, but has made no effort to do so before reverting. WP:LOGO also seems to advise against using logos that do not closely resemble the actual logo in use by a company or television show. The logo should not be in use in the article, as it strongly misrepresents the television show's logo. Gage (talk) 06:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree and am removing it based off of this explanation. Additionally, it looks to me like the NFCC guidelines say we should be using a low resolution logo (or one of small size) and this is neither of those. Kevin (talk) 06:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The image in question, first off is not FAN-MADE, secondly to say the "The logo is very poorly designed, and does not resemble the actual logo" Is not only untrue, it shows shamefulness and uncivility, on your part. You may want to refer to the source, I used. Now the only thing I see that may be incorrect is the title, maybe it should considered a "Screen Shot". Also keep in mind Vandalism is removing any image or part of an article, without any valid explanation Jetijonez (talk) 17:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Have, you tried actually reading Wikipedia:Vandalism rather than just linking to it. A content dispute is never vandalism. If this is indeed a screen shot, has the copyright holder (presumably the TV company?) given permission for its use? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Is any non-free image whether it's a logo, seal, or screen shot ever generally have permission for its use??? Jetijonez (talk) 17:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

It is not permissible to use a non-free logo that is of a large size or of a high resolution in this context per WP:NFCC. Additionally - and I even watched Beck's show last night to confirm - this logo really does not appear to be a screen shot or terribly accurate representation of the show's logo. If you believe it is, where did you get it? Also, please don't accuse Gage of incivility or 'shamefulness' - he's commenting on content in a way that you disagree with but not in a way that is uncivil. Accusing other people of being uncivil (and accusing other people of vandalism) can be uncivil behavior in and of itself. Kevin (talk) 20:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

"very poorly designed" That pretty much says it all, and I take that as impunity on my work. If he'd simply stated that the image was not accurate, that would have been sufficient. But forget that part, if you read my post thoroughly you'd have seen that I stated "refer to the source" So I would suggest go to the image and check out the Source for yourself....there's a link. Lastly I addressed the size to comply with WP:NFCC Jetijonez (talk) 21:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The image is not a screen shot. Screen shots are raster graphics. This is a vector graphic and was created in Sodipodi and Inkscape. You can't comply with NFCC with a vector graphic - it scales to any size. That policy is meant for fair use of raster graphics. If you want to add a picture of his logo, crop the real thing File:Glenn_Beck_Banner.jpg - inclusion should be covered under fair use. Morphh ^(talk) 21:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

No, it would fail regardless for two reasons. One, the logo does not significantly add to the reader's understanding of th subject of this article (i.e. Beck himself) and therefore fails WP:NFCC#8. If the logo were to be used under fair use it would have to be in the article Glenn Beck (TV program). However, since there is already a non-free logo in that article, this one would then fail for overuse (WP:NFCC#3a). Black Kite (t) (c) 21:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

True.. Morphh ^(talk) 21:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll note that you introduced an artifact in your latest version (circle that cuts through the logo). The logo itself is not too bad (the normal logo usually has more depth and flair), but I'd suggest removing the blue gradient and make the background transparent. That's not to say it should be used here. The reason for using the real logo is to make sure it conveys the meaning intended and avoid tarnishing or misrepresenting the intended image. Morphh ^(talk) 21:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Morphh for the input, I'm just gonna let go, though. Consensus, is to leave out, so it's gone Jetijonez (talk) 22:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 118.93.131.167, 25 April 2011

Hi there, there is no citation for the claim that glenn beck is a "conservative" as stated in the introductory paragraph. in the interest of neutrality, this word should be removed untill it can be properly cited.

118.93.131.167 (talk) 06:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

This is common knowledge, he's well known as "the crying conservative" and it's on his own website. There's no need to source every well-known, non-controversial fact. — Bility (talk) 15:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Not needed now, but we could note that Glenn Beck was the invited guest keynote speaker at the Conservative Political Action Conference in 2010. Here is the caption under his photo-portrait-picture on the top of the Article-page: "Beck speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference in 2010" Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC) They invited him because of his leading conservative thought and commentary, not to mention his conservative movement efforts.

Edit request from JamesDennisMark, 21 July 2011

Please include Keith Olbermann's comparison of Glenn Beck to the film character Lonesome Rhodes under the heading "Satire, spoof and parody"

JamesDennisMark (talk) 21:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Why? . . . Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jnorton7558 (talk) 10:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request , 25 July 2011 [Utøya island massacre]

I request that the following sentence be included in the first section of the article: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.46.239.238 (talk) 19:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

In his comment to the Utøya mass shooting in 2011, where more than 60 teenagers were shot by terrorist Anders Behring Breivik, Beck compared the victims of the shooting with Hitlerjugend [1]

46.46.239.238 (talk) 19:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure about it going in 'the first section', but given this [2] report in the Guardian, it seems to have attracted international attention, and may well merit inclusion in the 'Public disputes' section. I'll see if I can find other responses. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

3 more:

Daily Telegraph: [3]

Jewish Journal: [4]

USA Today: [5]

I can't check the Norwegian Media (don't speak the language), but it will be worth looking there too, no doubt. I'd say that was enough to merit inclusion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I'll have a look at the Norwegian media.

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 00:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's one. Dagbladet: [6]. According to Google translate, 'Election researcher and Labor Member Frank Aarebrot' said "He is a fascist. Only a fascist would say something like that. The man is a pig". He went on to compare Beck to Joseph Goebbels.

The Telegraph piece read like a hit piece meant to beliberately take it out of context. Let's be careful.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 00:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The Daily Telegraph, as a leading right-oriented UK newspaper, is unlikely to be publishing 'hit pieces' on Beck. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Frank Aarebrot, interviewed in the Dagbladet article, is a notable figure.

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 01:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Norwegian TV2

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 02:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Who is the Torbjørn Eriksen interviewed by the Daily Telegraph? Is he identical to the very notable Torbjørn Giæver Eriksen who's a State Secretary?

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 03:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems significant for inclusion, although not in the lead. TFD (talk) 04:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

_{Marking as answered while discussion occurs. Jnorton7558 (talk) 04:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)}

Edited the heading for the sake of clarity.

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 22:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

"Recentism" tag

I removed the "recentism" tag from the section on the Norway attacks, as I don't see any evidence of recentism. Yes, it has to do with a recent event, but that in itself doesn't make it recentist. A public figure comparing the victims of a terrorist attack/massacre to the Hitler Youth isn't just controversial now, it's controversial a year from now, ten years from now, a hundred years from now, etc. If someone wants to put that tag back in, they should discuss here why they think it's needed. -Helvetica (talk) 16:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It is the epitome of "Recentism". This was a deliberate out-of-context smear job. I'm beginning to wonder of those who are so adamant about the comment's inclusion see a greater connection between the two groups than Beck may.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 17:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

What, exactly, is out of context? The quote I keep seeing is: “As the thing started to unfold and there was a shooting at a political camp, which sounds a little like the Hitler Youth. Who does a camp for kids that’s all about politics? Disturbing,” What is the context that would change the meaning or implication of what he said? —Torchiest ^talk_edits 18:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

No one outside of leftist hacks are going to care about that statement in two weeks, max. The camp was formed sorely for one particular leftist political party, and not as a more general camp seeking higher morals (like anything Beck or Tea Party has been alleged). Given that the Hitler Youth were also indoctrinated by a single left-wing political party, there are parallels. Plus, we don't have the full discussion, just a soundbite. All in all, this is POV and recentism. See if it sticks after two months or so.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 18:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Hm, this is always awkward... King Bedford, as much as Mr. Beck has spoken to the contrary, any political scientist, politician or historian will tell you that the Nazi's were a far-right organization. The "Socialist" in their title did not reference Marxist idealogy, and in fact Communists was summarily executed. Hitler and his youths were fascists, the polar opposite of left-wing. Please learn terminology; just because Communism and fascism were both bad doesn't mean they're related. The Cap'n (talk) 18:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

How exactly does reporting what Beck said, or about how it was responded to constitute a 'smear job'? The only thing I see that might conceivably be seen as a 'smear' is Beck's own comment. (Though come to think of it, edits that describe the Daily Telegraph as a 'left wing group' might fit into the category). And with regard to your obnoxious (and ignorant) attempt to justify the comparison, I suggest you redact it immediatekly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Given that this ludicrous and somewhat unpleasant posting does not address the reason for adding an NPOV tag, I have removed it. It's completely illogical anyway - if you agree with Beck that there are parallels between the two, why on earth would you apply an NPOV tag to a section that reports his claim? Black Kite (t) (c) 18:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

IT IS DELIBERATELY OUT OF CONTEXT. WHich of the previous words do you not get? Here's a helpful wikilink: Webster's Dictionary.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 18:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Repeating yourself in capitals isn't going to help. Why is it out of context? In what context was the statement made that isn't reflected in the quote given in the article? Black Kite (t) (c) 18:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

What was the context? Wasn't Beck talking about the shootings in Norway? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not out of context, King Bedford. Beck's comments about the camp itself are accurately reflected in the quote. He went on to revile the shooter, but that's another point entirely. If the article were using the quote to state that Beck sympathized with the shooter, THAT would be out of context. As it is, the fact that he hates the shooter doesn't make comparing the victims to Hitler youth any less controversial or notable.

As to your second point, you figured out our plan. The International Liberal League of Evil will hear of this! The Cap'n (talk) 18:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I've again removed the "recentism" tag. Like I said before, just because it discusses something which happened recently doesn't automatically mean that this tag should be there. There needs to be a good reason for it. Equating the victims of a massacre/terrorist attack with the Hitler Youth is certainly controversial, and it will still be ten, fifty, and a hundred years from now. Incidently, the political party this camp was associated with is a mainstream Norwegian political party, currently the ruling party in Norway. You may strongly disagree with their politics, but that doesn't make them in any way like the Nazis! -Helvetica (talk) 21:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Beck says something insulting every couple months that receives some coverage. Most of the coverage is from or spurred by those who oppose him politically. And every couple of months someone tries to add something like that to the article. The whole layout of the section with subsections and lines of clarifying text gives more prominence than most of the comments deserve. That is why it is akin to recentism. If editors would focus on not highlighting new coverage and attempting to ridicule the guy (he doesn't need your help) then the article could actually portray the subject in a light that does not read like over-reactionary mud slinging. Maybe his comment will have some historical significantly. I doubt it will just like his other 1000 inflammatory comments have mostly proven to not be worthy of mention.

In regards to the "out of context" argument. I think the editor is wording it wrong. Of course the quote in itself is not out of context. However, to not mention that he did not agree with he attack leaves the reader to assume he was only blaming the victims and did not criticize the perpetrator. If you do not see that i how it could easily been read then you need to try to circumvent your own POV better.

So if we want the article to be more than a list of everything mean Beck has said, editors will need to focus on keeping a historical perspective in mind. Instead of listing every single quote that got picked up by Olbmermann or anyone else, it should be mentioned as running prose that don't highlight whichever news piece editors find interesting. Concise paragraphs without excess quotes instead of subsecitons with lengthy explanations and rebuttals.

And I agree this incident is of little significance. History has so far proven that mos of the stuff spewed from commentators receives no coverage within a month. That being said, I assume there is a way to work it in responsibly. Cptnono (talk) 21:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Since editors are bickering over the recentism tag, I have instead added a POV tag. Two editors have said why they think it is misrepresentative of a fact. Make sure it doesn't lead the reader to assume Beck condoned the attack and it can go.Cptnono (talk) 22:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Glenn Beck about the Utoya Island massacre in Norway

You should report what the gentleman said, that the boys killed in the Utoya Island massacre were like the Hitlerjugend. It's a shame for him, I understand it, but it must be said; he is an adult and he must be fully responsible for his statements.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/8660986/Norway-shooting-Glenn-Beck-compares-dead-teenagers-to-Hitler-youth.html

http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/glenn-beck-compares-victims-of-norway-attack-to-hitler-youth-1.375388 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.37.129.176 (talk) 17:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The article includes this already, in the 'Public disputes' section, under '2011 Norway Attacks'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

See above, topic no 5. I think it would be good lo let the matter cool down for some time, and then improve the section. The global perspective should be considered, and the parties involved in the dispute should be properly accounted for.

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 22:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd better say up front that I don't have a particular axe to grind here. I'm frankly uninterested in all this left-wing-right-wing pigeonholing, because honestly I think that both terms are now so indiscriminately thrown around that they really don't mean anything any more - they're just blunt instruments with which we can club people who don't agree with us.

That said, can there be some clarification on the nature of the dispute over the neutrality of the section on Beck's comments about Norway? Reading the article as it stands, and comparing with news reports, I can't see anything mentioned that isn't backed up by sources. I don't know what Wikipedia's stance is on news organisations as reliable sources, but the wording of this section seems reasonably undisputed in the media: Glenn Beck said what the article says he said; the response was as described. Wikipedia is not currently making any attempt - at least in this section as it stands today - to make any judgements on Beck's politics or morality: it is only reporting (accurately, as far as I can tell) what he said and how it was received. - Silvensis (talk) 07:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

It is up above. Cptnono (talk) 07:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll get back to the matter in a few days. I don't see any major neutrality issue. However, the account of the reception could be improved, and the extent of media coverage should be looked into. The main neutrality conflict was that an editor, erroneously as far as I can see, made reference to "left wing groups", and this phrase was reverted a few times.

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 07:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The only thing I can think of is that the section focusses solely on Beck's comment about the camp, and not about his attitude to the shooter. To be fair, Beck did condemn the shooter, and compared him to Osama bin Laden (He said he was 'no different from Osama bin Laden'). I think that would clear the NPOV tag. (Personally I think the section is fine - it's reporting a fact and is cited - but maybe the 'whole' truth needs to be covered. I suspect whoever tagged it did it for partisan reasons, and hasn't managed to come up with a coherent argument for why the NPOV tag was added. Hence me coming up with an argument for them (even though I can't stand the man and think his comments are extremely hypocritical)). So maybe this could be added, if it can be cited (I'm sure it can, but I'm not doing it - this is a fire and forget. I know we're not meant to give our opinions of the page subject on talk pages, but this sterile 'his comments are out of context'/'no they're not' discussion is clearly getting nowhere. I'm from the anti-Beck camp, but can see that the whole truth alters the enormity of Beck's crassness somewhat. Stevebritgimp (talk) 07:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's relevant to say that he also clearly condemned Breivik.

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 08:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that, as it currently reads, it's entirely NPOV. The section is headed "public disputes", not about his views on particular subjects. Clearly, Beck's condemnination of the killings is not something that has lead to any disuputes. Comparing the camp to the Hitler youth is something that has been disputed. Ergo, it seems reasonable to mention the disputed issue and nothing else. Otherwise why not mention that he compared the camp to the Hitler youth but that he also likes kittens? Robinr22 (talk) 08:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Because that would be irrelevant.

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 09:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Which is my point, no? His condemning of the shooting is irrelevent to the dispute over the Hitler youth comparison. It would only be a dispute (for which I read controversy...) if he praised the shooting. Robinr22 (talk) 10:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

No, your point is different from mine. It's irrelevant to say what he likes or dislikes. It is relevant to say what he said in context, because the account could otherwise be misleading to the reader.

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 10:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, im a reader and i dont find it misleading. I wouldn't presume Glenn Beck supported the shooting based on what is written and i just came here and commented because i couldn't understand why a NPOV tag was in place. 89.180.143.121 (talk) 18:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I can see there's some issue over the interpretation of what the man thinks about things. But I'd suggest that it's probably more relevant to the article to address public reaction to something he said, rather than speculate on why he might have said it. As I understand it, it's a documented fact that he made a comparison between the Norway camp and the Hitler Youth, and it's a documented fact that he's received public criticism because of it. So both those pieces of information can go in, with proper cites. His supporters may argue that that's misrepresenting him, but look at it this way: I've no doubt a great many famous people have expressed sorrow and sympathy for the Norway killings, and condemned the killer. Unless their reaction is particularly notable in itself, I don't think we'd need to create a section on each of their articles to say so. If someone receives notable criticism for expressing what are interpreted as opposing views, then that's worth covering here - and should be balanced out with any subsequent mitigation or explanation he or his staff might offer on his own behalf. I'd argue that the opinions of his supporters aren't relevant to the piece. - Silvensis (talk) 07:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

For Norwegian reactions, see also: 2011 Norway attacks#Domestic.

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 09:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Section POV tag

I went ahead and removed the section NPOV tag. The only reason I had seen for its presence was that there was no qualifying statement about how Beck had condemned the massacre. I went ahead and added that in. If anyone wants to restore the tag, then we need to know what exactly is the POV problem being alleged. -Helvetica (talk) 19:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

For the second time, it is discussed up above. Stop reverting and fix it already.Cptnono (talk) 04:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Fix what? 'I don't like it' doesn't justify anything. Explain how the article breaches NPOV. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Also: ″Make sure it doesn't lead the reader to assume Beck condoned the attack and it can go″. It did, before you reverted. Do you think that the edit that stated this breached NPOV? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

It was in there! I saww "undid" and assumed it wasn't. Make your edit summaries clearer and remember to actually cite sources in the future. And it wasn't there last night. Regardless if it worked out or not, this went down like complete bullshit.Cptnono (talk) 05:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't cite sources, for the simple reason that I didn't make the edit. Remember to actually look at the editing history in the future. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Not my fault it got stuck in (while still not being sourced or NPOV) without a talk page reply in the given section or without an edit history. You should feel bad for your part in it regardless of my embarrasment for assuming the worst in people. And while you are at it, you should actually respond to the recentism issue since half the edit war was over that and it is still an issue. Of course, you could instead see in two months when I remove it for no coverage. But I would rather the whole section get fixed instead of removing the fun stuff.Cptnono (talk) 05:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

"Websites" section

reads like a promo. The Website section of the article seems irrelevant in the first place (almost everyone and everything has a website, but that doesn't warrant an entire section) and should be relegated to the links area. Even if his website was unique and newsworthy, the section needs to be reworded.
"As of 2009, GlennBeck.com was estimated to receive five million unique visitors per month. Included in its subscription service..."
It goes on to promote the featured vlogs and put in a plug for Beck University. I'm just waiting to hear "for the low, low price of $19.95!" I move to delete the entire section; it's irrelevant and aggrandizing. This being the notoriously contentious Glenn Beck page, however, I want to put the proposal up on here before I do anything. Let me know if you have a valid argument for keeping it. The Cap'n (talk) 15:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I would say the whole wikipedia page reads like a promo 92.30.176.76 (talk) 19:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• Here is some of the media product material at the Oprah Winfrew blp:

Winfrey publishes magazines: O, The Oprah Magazine; from 2004 to 2008, Oprah also publshed a magazine called O at Home.[58] In 2002 Fortune called O, the Oprah Magazine the most successful start-up ever in the industry.[59][dead link] Although its circulation had declined by more than 10 percent (to 2.4 million) from 2005 to 2008,[60] the January 2009 issue was the best selling issue since 2006.[61] The audience for her magazine is considerably more upscale than for her TV show, the average reader earning well above the median for U.S. women.[59]
Online
Winfrey's company created the Oprah.com website to provide resources and interactive content relating to her shows, magazines, book club, and public charity. Oprah.com averages more than 70 million page views and more than six million users per month, and receives approximately 20,000 e-mails each week.[62] Winfrey initiated "Oprah's Child Predator Watch List", through her show and website, to help track down accused child molesters. Within the first 48 hours, two of the featured men were captured.[63]
Radio
On February 9, 2006, it was announced that Winfrey had signed a three-year, $55 million contract with XM Satellite Radio to establish a new radio channel. The channel, Oprah Radio, features popular contributors to The Oprah Winfrey Show and O, The Oprah Magazine including Nate Berkus, Dr. Mehmet Oz, Bob Greene, Dr. Robin Smith and Marianne Williamson. Oprah & Friends began broadcasting at 11:00 am ET, September 25, 2006, from a new studio at Winfrey's Chicago headquarters. The channel broadcasts 24 hours a day, seven days a week on XM Radio Channel 156. Winfrey's contract requires her to be on the air thirty minutes a week, 39 weeks a year. The thirty-minute weekly show features Winfrey with friend Gayle King.

Nonetheless, other than a summary, such info especially about programs that don't star Beck really belongs at the article about his production company, Mercury Radio Arts, just as an overview/list of various media products owned by Oprah Winfrey's production company belong at Harpo Productions.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 04:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Conspiracy?

It should be made more clear about how often Glenn Beck's behavior follows routine conspiracy theorist patterns. Its undeniable from the man's own words that he is either a conspiracy theorist, or at least has all the symptoms of being a conspiracy theorist. Whether or not he believes them is not at issue; its the fact that he uses language, rhetoric, idioms and fallacies well known for their associate with fringe conspiracy groups. The lack of acknowledgement that he does indeed use those words seems to be dishonesty by omission.

Just to make it absolutely clear, I am not say we should label Beck, just that we should make completely clear that his publicly used language is identical to those in all ranges of conspiracy theory beliefs. 74.132.249.206 (talk) 15:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The article already states this. It even has it in the lead of the article. ??? Morphh ^(talk) 15:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

If I might chime in, in line with this, the phrase "his critics contend he promotes conspiracy theories and employs incendiary rhetoric for ratings." Could perhaps be made to conform more concretely to his observed patterns of speech if it were to read: "his critics point out that he promotes conspiracy theories and employs incendiary rhetoric." To use "point out"/"observe"/"call attention to" in no way raises the issue of Mr Beck's (unknown) motivations, but does make it clear that he invokes conspiracy theory and incendiary rhetoric.134.2.246.212 (talk) 15:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

To say "point out"/"observe"/"call attention to" presumes the factualness of the item in question. To say "contend" is to characterize that factualness as something which is being argued by the cited source. The supporting source cited is one particular Beck critic (mediamatters.org) saying, "Fox News host Glenn Beck has become notorious for his conspiracy theories and incendiary rhetoric." (i.e., either arguing or pointing out that there are a significant number of other sources holding that Beck puts forth conspiracy theories and incendiary rhetoric), and describing what the cited critical source apparently feels are two good examples of conspiracy theories and/or incendiary rhetoric put forth by Beck. It looks to me like a matter of editorial judgement whether the cited source is making an argument there or pointing our a fact. The cited source does not appear to support the assertion re critics (plural) except that this is something which is being either argued or pointed out by the cited source -- that source itself being a source which is critical of Beck. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

"what they claim are traditional American values"

Recent edits have repeatedly added (or removed) the phrase "what they claim are" from this sentence - "Beck's supporters praise him as a constitutional stalwart defending what they claim are traditional American values". The phrase is currently in the article. I do not think it needs to be there - clearly, Beck's supporters are praising him for defending what they believe to be traditional American values - it wouldn't make sense for them to be going by anyone else's definition of traditional American values. Because the meaning of the sentence is the same with or without the phrase, it doesn't seem to be doing anything other than raising some NPOV concerns by implying that their definition is not correct. I didn't want to remove it without talking about it here first, but unless anyone brings up a valid objection in the next day or so on this talk page, I'm going to go ahead and take it out. Kevin (talk) 18:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. Morphh ^(talk) 18:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. NYyankees51 (talk) 19:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• Disagree. removing that phrase makes it sound like they are "defending traditional American values" as opposed to defending their perceptions of such. Since this country does not, by and large, believe in the same traditional American values as Beck, it should be clarified. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 19:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps better wording can be chosen so it does not seem to have a negative implication, but as we all know, if there is no real definition of such, we cannot write such a sentence in a fashion that makes it look like there is. Either way creates a POV. So... fully support different wording to say the same thing as "what they claim" without any POV implication... but total removal of some sort of distinguisher creates a different POV while removing one. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 19:26, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I tend to disagree with your statement that "Since this country does not, by and large, believe in the same traditional American values". They believe in different values, but traditional American values (see Traditional values) is a specific term that has a particular meaning in the U.S. which is tied to Family values. So by and large, they have the same definition for "traditional American values", whether they choose to believe in those values or not. Morphh ^(talk) 19:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Morphh, I have, and it actually supports my statement, including with showing use of it by people like Pat Robertson, who's definition of TAV is far different than the vast majority of the country. And Beck's most definitely are not the agreed upon definition either - largely because there is no such thing. This country has a wide set of "traditional" values. Many traditions, various value-sets based on them. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 19:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not opposed to an alternate wording if you can come up with one that is not POV, but I believe you are incorrect in asserting that the absence of such wording has any pov problems. I don't remember enough of my grammar/syntax to formally parse this out, so excuse the awkwardity here, but: the sentence as originally written indicated that 'Beck's supporters' believe Beck is a "constitutional stalwart defending traditional American values." It does not indicate that "Beck is a constitutional stalwart defending traditional American values" (which would be POV,) it only indicates that his supporters believe he is such. The original wording does not indicate that they are correct in their belief, whereas the current wording does indicate that they are incorrect in their belief. Kevin (talk) 19:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, I did run in to an edit conflict there, but looking at your new post, just to be clear: the original sentence also does not indicate that there exists such a thing as 'traditional American values.' It only indicates that Beck's supporters believe that he defends TAV. All of the meaning added by the disclaimer ("what they claim are") is already present in a straightforward reading of the original text. Kevin (talk)

I definitely see your point there, but you bring up another point; if it's already present in a straightforward reading of the original text off Wiki, but not properly portrayed in what is written here, then it's kinda a synthesis or interpretation of sorts. How about simply "defending their traditionalAmerican values"? (emphasis not intended for article of course). Or (poorly worded, but hopefully you get the gist) "defending the traditional American values they mutually hold". Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 20:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Robert, either of those sound fine to me. Morphh ^(talk) 20:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I just looked at the actual source cited for the comment for the first time. (I know, I know, I should've done that before starting this discussion :p.) The comment is apparently being sourced to the headline of an article which reads "Glenn Beck fans say he represents their American values." As an interim solution, lets use "their American values" since that's what the source actually says and hopefully eliminates some of the problems Robert is seeing. In the long term, I suspect putting in a totally different sentence there would be better. I understand that there's value in it being there (to add a 'balanced' description of views of Beck to the lede,) but it kind of feels like a subpar attempt to do so. I'll poke around and see if I can find something better to substitute in at some point when I have the time. (I guess part of why it feels subpar to me is probably that its citation is some journalist generalizing from two quotes) Kevin (talk) 20:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

In addition to responding to the proposals below, I'd like to note that on July 28, the sentence read:

Beck's supporters praise him as a constitutional stalwart defending what they say are traditional American values, while his critics contend he promotes what they say are conspiracy theories and employs incendiary rhetoric for ratings.

although the second qualifier had only been added two days earlier; I removed both occurrences of the phrase in what I considered a fair reduction of unnecessary POV from both sides. Interestingly, only the first "clarification" was deemed necessary enough to restore. Twice. Even though the only cited source for the second claim is Media Matters. NPOV? Fat&Happy (talk) 22:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposals

I think we all agree the current wording adds a negative POV connotation, so...

1. Change to "defending their traditional American values"
2. Change to "defending the traditional American values they mutually hold"
3. Simply remove "what they claim are" and make no other change
4. Robert, go drink some more coffee, you're off your rocker... ;-)

Thoughts? Did I miss any other ideas? ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 20:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support #1 or #2 (or perhaps #4) ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 20:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I dislike #2. In my mind, that has substantially more problems than any of the alternatives or the original. The original version doesn't imply that the 'traditional American values' in question are accurate or even that such a thing is a coherent concept - it just implies that Beck is praised by people who believe he is a 'constitutional stalwart defending traditional American values.' Option #2 would change the most straightforward reading of the sentence from "'Beck's supporters' praise Beck because they think he is a "constitutional stalwart defending traditional American values."" to "'Beck's supporters,' who hold traditional American values, praise Beck, because he also holds traditional American values." Kevin (talk) 20:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I can see that interpretation of #2, now that you mention it... thus I've struck out my support of that one above. Leaves me supporting #1 or #4. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 20:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

1. 1 looks good to me. Morphh ^(talk) 21:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support #3. It is clear that the beliefs being described are the beliefs of the people to whom they are attributed – his supporters. Accept #1. It doesn't hit the reader over the head with a hammer. But some similar qualifier on the subsequent contra-point would also be better in order to maintain complete npov. Fat&Happy (talk)

I thought about that (and checked)... it's already in place: "while his critics contend...". Unlike "traditional values" which does not have specific criteria list, critics has a specific meaning. (side note, no it's not clear, or I wouldn't have brought it up - it needs to be clear to more than just you; it needs to be as clear as possible to everyone) Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 22:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Hardly. "Critics contend" corresponds to "supporters praise"; both are equally clear and well defined. "Traditional values", like "conspiracy theories" and "incendiary rhetoric" are what the respective sides claim. If one needs to be identified as originating with the claimant, the other does also. Fat&Happy (talk) 22:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

ETA: Or is the verb the problem? Would "say he is" be better then "praise him as"? Fat&Happy (talk) 22:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

As the person who added the phrase, I agree that it is a bit redundant. However, I want to make it perfectly clear and the suggestion in 3 can be a bit ambiguous. I would go with 1 Soxwon (talk) 02:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

If what Glenn Beck supporters are defending was anything to do with american values (what are they anyway? being free?) than the US must be considered the most dangerous contemporary country for mankind. Or, to be more "objective" :) - there are no American values, there are values of people and they should be discribed in detail and not with a placeholder "american" which stands for different values for different people. JB, 30.9.2011 17:08 (MEZ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.73.36.130 (talk) 15:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Since it looks like #1 is universally accepted (if not terribly well-liked by all,) I am changing the text to that now. This has been a pretty neat example of how process should work. Kevin (talk) 18:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, and thank you all! Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 01:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request or addition

Could someone add a "Glenn Beck controversy" page. I came here looking for dates involving his infamous "You have to shoot them in the head," comment & nothing was to be found, despite the noted media frenzy when he first said it & again after the Arizona shootings...point of fact the ACORN scandal issue was, well, lacking, and most article seems to skate over a fair bit of Beck's history. This certainly has a strong pro-Beck POV — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.3.209 (talk) 21:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

No, controversy sections or articles are highly discouraged. You role criticism into the article topics as they are discussed. Morphh ^(talk) 00:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Wealth?

This article doesn't mention anything about his personal wealth. It is a very relevant issue. 109.77.121.222 (talk) 23:42, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Such Forbes estimates are notable, I'll admit. Still they are misleading. Mercury Radio Arts currently employs over 100 people, over 75% of which were hired during 2011--that is, how much is Beck's "wealth" being reinvested into his (solely owned) company?--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 23:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Why would where he invests it matter? PRONIZ (talk) 20:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I've added back the salary field in the subject's infobox.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 23:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Cocaine

Should there be a mention of his cocaine usage? (sources: Salon, Bloomberg)Smallman12q (talk) 17:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Beck's problems with alcoholism and drug abuse are already discussed in the 'adulthood' section. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

ratings

In the radio section, the info claiming that he is 3rd in Arbitron is outdated. He is actually tied for 4th along with Dave Ramsey and Mark Levin each with 8.5 shares. The first three are Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Michael Savage. Reference here - http://www.talkers.com/top-talk-radio-audiences/ Soley707 (talk) 17:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Gold Line and Glenn Beck

Recently Gold Line was charged for something like 19 counts of fraud and theft, and Glenn Beck is noted for promoting Gold Line. Is this worth mentioning? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.137.161 (talk) 06:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Not without sources that link one with the other. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:08, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Philanthropy/Charity

Hi there - I have been trying to figure out exactly what type of charitable or philanthropic work Mercury One does, but beyond selling clothing which is made by an American group that employs single mothers I can't find anything. Can anyone tell me what the profits are used for? And - beyond using a socially responsible company for its labour - how it is philanthropic/charitable? Thanks in advance! Zenira (talk) 10:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I can't find anything about the company ever giving any money to anyone (I guess that's too socialistic for Beck), or even ever claiming to. The "non"-profit organization is supposed to be self-sustaining, and I have found a source indicating that the profits go right back to the company to expand it. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Fwiw, what follows is from a MercOne donor appeal:

Tax Deductions. Mercury One's application for tax-exempt 501(c)3 status is presently pending. While our application is pending, the IRS does allow us to accept donations and for the donor to treat them as tax-deductible. You are urged to consult a tax expert prior to donating to fully understand the limitations that may apply claiming your contribution as a tax-deduction. How is Mercury One Different? Mercury One is not going to reinvent the wheel. We recognize that there are already good and great organizations out there fighting the fight in this area. Some are well known but ineffective, others are unheard of but do tremendous work in obscurity. Where great work is being done by good organizations, Mercury One will work with those organizations, where possible, to maximize the value and reach of every dollar.

--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 22:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Researching the question further, it appears that Beck intends MercOne as a "voluntary non-profit organization where members meet regularly to perform charitable works by direct, hands-on efforts" (ie, adapting a quote from WP's lede at the article "Service club"). Would such be philanthropy? or would another term be more apropos?

Here's a book that calls the founder of Rotary clubs a philanthropist.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 00:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Charity is voluntary. Government "giving" (which requires taking first) is not. Socialism is a form of government. I'd ask if that clears things up for you, but your comment makes me doubt you're actually seeking honest thought on anything related to Beck. -- Glynth (talk) 01:23, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Actor with the same name

There should be a disambiguation note for the actor here : http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0065140/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Savuporo (talk • contribs) 00:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I did not see a Wikipedia article for the actor. Let me know if/when there is one and I'll do it if you aren't familiar with how to create it.Cptnono (talk) 01:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 January 2012

Glenn Beck no longer lives in Manhattan, NY. he now lives in Dallas

Here is the link conforming it: http://www.glennbeck.com/2011/07/11/glenn-announces-move-to-dallas-tx/

68.89.171.83 (talk) 19:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

We can certainly say that he announced plans to move to Dallas. I can't find any source which says he's there now.   Will Beback  talk  20:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, I see there was already a ref for the move in the text, so I've changed it in the infobox.   Will Beback  talk  20:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

His GBTV broadcasts from both NYC and Dallas, and he lives in Dallas (and CT, I think). Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:41, 18 January 2012 (UTC) He's happy to be out of NY.

Religious

The bulk of the section on Religious (Influences) is comprised of pointless speculation. Just because something can be sourced doesn't make it encyclopedic. This section should be reduced to a paragraph or two at most. Davidwhittle (talk) 06:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The most obvious absurdity is all of the speculation about Beck trying to being a religious leader. Where is the reliable source for that fringe theory? Davidwhittle (talk) 07:09, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The section mostly consists of secondary sources instead of primary sources. Sticking mostly with what Beck says would open up the door to original research. The "pointless" speculation is (for us) unoriginal research.

The section at no point says he's trying to be a religious leader. It discusses his religious influences, and where they've driven his career. Please quote what gave you that impression that the section is about him trying to be a religious leader.

The first paragraph consists of things he's said about how religion has affected his life.

The second paragraph consists of how others believe Mormonism has affected his broadcasting style, and Beck's response. Each view is properly attributed to each person.

The third is about different evangelical criticisms of him, again attributed to each person, which does contain one person's attributed view regarding the disparity between political and religious agreement that happens to use the phrase "religious leader." In the context given in our article (without having to check the source), it does not appear that he is being portrayed as some sort of Mormon pope or some sort of cult leader, but "religious leader" in the sense he is a political leader: someone who people turn to for guidance on those matters.

The fourth is about how some Conservative Christians are not concerned with Beck's religion in the face of political agreement, again, attributed to the individuals that give those views.

The last paragraph regards interactions with Billy Graham.

I'm not really seeing how you're getting a grand sense of the article trying to portray Beck as some sort of cult leader.

Ian.thomson (talk) 01:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for reciting the contents of the section in question - it makes it all the more painfully obvious that this section fails to serve its encyclopedic purpose of addressing religious influences - although I must ask if there is an equivalent section (on various purported influences) in the articles for Obama, Bush, Jon Stewart, and if not, why not? The 1st and 2nd paragraph address the point, although I think they give UNDUE weight to fringe elements of Mormonism (such as the White Horse Prophecy). After that, the section strays far away from its original purpose and veers into speculative studies about whether Beck is a religious leader or a political leader and what others THINK about that. Then, I'm at a loss to understand why Beck's meeting with Billy Graham enters the picture - is anyone asserting that Graham had somehow had a pertinent religious influence on Beck? If not, how is it relevant? Davidwhittle (talk) 18:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Trying again: this article is about Glenn Beck. The section in question is about Religious or Ideological Influences on Glenn Beck. The first part about Beck's Mormonism is appropriate for inclusion because Beck is a Mormon and Beck has been influenced by Mormonism. The second part about Evangelical opinions of Beck's Mormonism and its influence on Beck is irrelevant to the section because there are no references that establish that Beck is influenced in any way by Evangelical opinions of Mormonism or their opinions about whether he is a religious leader or a political leader. In other words, this second part is about Becks influence on a certain segment of religious believers and NOT about their influence on him, and is thus inappropriate for this section. The attempt to infer influence on Beck by including references to Beck's influence (or lack thereof) on other believers in Original Research - a synthesis to establish by inference an influence on Beck. The third part about the section about the meeting with Billy Graham, while interesting and possibly relevant to an encyclopedic article on Beck, is also inappropriate for a section on Religious or Ideological Influence on Beck because none of the sources say anything direct about how Beck was influenced by Graham or the meeting. Davidwhittle (talk) 19:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

There is a section titled "Ideology" with a "Religious" section, but no section title about "Influences." The article does not say Beck influences evangelicals, the article pretty clearly states that Evangelicals are not influenced by him on religious grounds, they are opposed on religious grounds. There is nothing in the article about Beck being influenced by evangelicals (and as the section is no longer about influence, it's not an issue). The new title opens up discussion of ideological interactions. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Changing the title from "Influences" to "Ideology," as you did, simply begs the question and makes it worse for you. Even if it's now about ideology, the burden of proof is still upon you to demonstrate that the Evangelical religious opposition is part of Beck's religious ideology. It's clearly not, as you admit. It's as if there were a section in the article on Barack Obama titled "Ideology," with a subsection titled "Religious," and a couple of paragraphs on Jeremiah Wright's church and its teachings that Obama presumably believes because he attended the church, and then with more paragraphs on what the Evangelicals (or Mormons, for that matter) think of the fact that Obama sat in Reverend Wright's church all those years. It's simply not suitable for inclusion in an article on Beck's Ideology OR Influences. In fact, by changing the title to Ideology, you just raised the bar on the burden of proof. Because if the title is Ideology, you must restrict the content of the sections under that title to Beck's ideology itself, as proven by Beck's statements and writings, and even influences on that Ideology are inappropriate for inclusion unless it's under a subsection titled "Influences." The reason the synthesis tag is appropriate is because given the titles in place, whether "Influences" or "Ideology," the inclusion of arguments making points that don't directly relate to the title of the section in which they're placed leaves the reader to infer the relationship between the points being made and the expectations of what points should be made in that section as imposed by the section titles. In other words, it appears that the article and section is trying to establish that it is part of Beck's religious ideology to be a religious leader, which is the only reason the inclusion of Evangelical resistance in a section on Beck's religious ideology (or influence) makes any sense. Hence the appropriateness of the Synthesis tag. You are relying on multiple sourced references to establish a point that is either 1) an inappropriate synthesis and original research (to establish that Beck has an ideology to be a religious leader) or 2) is irrelevant to the section. Either way, the content is inappropriate for the section. This is not rocket science, but until you understand it and address it, I'm going to ask you politely to stop reverting my SYNTHESIS tag. Would you prefer I use the UNDUE tag, since it also gives UNDUE weight to Evangelical opinion of Beck's Religious Ideology? I think I'll re-insert both until you remove the offending content from this section. 166.70.45.120 (talk) 14:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Even if it's now about ideology, the burden of proof is still upon you to demonstrate that the Evangelical religious opposition is part of Beck's religious ideology.

Except that the article never says that. Are you just making up stuff to win here?

Re red herring about Obama: Guess what, it does discuss Wright and the ensuing controversy, with due weight.

Re Undue: That's actually what the issue is here. Try reading WP:UNDUE, it says that we give different views weight according to how much reliable sources cover them. That religious difference between most of Beck and most of his audience have come up in the news repeatedly makes it notable. One might as well ask that we remove responses to Richard Dawkins's advocacy of atheism or stuff about counter protests section from the Westboro Baptist Church article: even though it is about outside difference to the subjects' beliefs, those differences are notable.

Once again, the article does not ever say that Beck is trying to become a cult leader or something. If anything, it says that he uses religion (any religion) to further his political views.

Ian.thomson (talk) 20:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

You don't have the right to reverse any concerns I've inserted without answering them. You are beating around the bush intellectually. Whatever game it is you're playing, you can't simply assert that I don't know what I'm talking about when it's clear that your arguments show that you don't have a clue what I'm saying, even though I'm speaking plain English easily understandable by anyone who makes an effort. We have a disagreement here, and until it is resolved and there is a consensus about it, you cannot just UNDO my insertion of a valid TAG. I don't have to keep repeating myself just because you come up with a lame attempt to argue away my points without even addressing them. You have to convince me. If you can't do that, you need to get anyone to support your reversal. Until either of those happen, the tag stays. Understand? 166.70.45.120 (talk) 23:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Your (non-existent) points have been addressed, you just didn't care. And you are wrong about the reversion: WP:BRD, you boldly inserted, I reverted, and now we discuss. The article maintains its status quo until you demonstrate there is a valid concern. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Your failure to understand or properly address my points does not constitute a failure on my part to make them. If you undo again, you are guilty of edit warring. Now we discuss, and until there is a consensus, the tags remain. I have demonstrated a valid concern; you have not demonstrated a valid answer. Again, the concern is that you cannot explain why Evangelical opinions of Beck's Ideology / Religious Ideology has any merit or relevance in a section ABOUT Beck's Ideology / Religious Ideology. It is patently obvious that this section is written from the perspective of an Evangelical, and thus suffers from NPOV problems as well. Thus, you should heed this, from WP:BLP: "The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material." Davidwhittle (talk) 04:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Woah, there, 166.xx. I hear your quite reasonable argument, but please tone down the rhetoric; I also hear a reasonable rebuttal from Ian.thomson. Y'all asked for a third opinion. I agree with Davidwhittle / 166.xx on two points: (1) The boxed quote seems to me to go too far in linking Beck to far-from-mainstream Mormon prophecy; and (2) I don't see the relevance of the Billy Graham paragraph. I will be bold and eliminate both of these. However, I agree with Ian.thomson that the section as written seems encyclopedic. Each paragraph is sourced as well as balanced -- that is, nowhere do I see a claim that might be used solely in an opposing candidate's attack ad. I don't see the article trumpeting Beck as attempting to be a "religious leader." Rather, I see documentation of how religion relates to Beck and his politics. And religion seems rather central to Beck's politics, so I can't see this discussion as in any way undue. 01:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)Moishe Rosenbaum (talk)

Thanks for weighing in, Moishe Rosenbaum. Perhaps what we are discussing then is the title of the sections. "Ideology" and "Religious." If Beck's ideology is Mormonism, how is Evangelical opinion of his Mormonism relevant in any way to Beck's Ideology? And IF Evangelical opinion is somehow relevant to Beck's Religious Ideology / Influences, then it is UNBALANCED anyway, because there is no mention of Jewish opinion of Beck's Mormonism (see Michael Medved's recent column on that), no mention of Catholic opinion of it, etc. etc. Don't you see the problem with including countering opinion of someone's ideology in an article on a living person? Where does it end? It's negative on its face, and thus unfair to the person. Would you include right-wing opinions of Jeremiah Wright in an Ideology section in Barack Obama's article? No, you clearly would not. We should be consistent with how this is handled with other commentators, on both sides of the political spectrum. Davidwhittle (talk) 04:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I realized that all of my concerns could be addressed simply by moving the disputed paragraphs into the Public Reception section. I think that section could use some sub:headings, but the text about the public reception to Beck's religion is clearly better suited to a Public Reception section than it is in a Religious Ideology section. Can we have a consensus that moving the text is the appropriate way to handle our disagreements? Davidwhittle (talk) 04:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

No argument here -- I see your point. I do believe that reaction to Beck's Mormonism amongst religious conservatives to whom Beck appeals is relevant to the article. But I agree that this issue could be covered under a less emotive "Public Reception" section rather than trying to pigeonhole the man's particular ideology.Moishe Rosenbaum (talk) 17:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

GBTV — Major efforts going into Texas-based Glenn Beck TV & Facilities .!.

The section on GBTV needs to be expanded as GBTV grows in size and importance. There are Major Efforts going into Texas-based Glenn Beck TV & Facilities .!. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

See WP:CRYSTALBALL... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Andy; I learn something every day. Actually, a lot has already happened, not added to Glenn_Beck#GBTV; Am I and my wife the only WP editors watching GBTV? Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, I don't watch it - but then I'm based the other side of the Atlantic... Has much been said about GBTV in the mainstream media? It will be third-party sources that we rely on to determine if something is growing in 'size and importance'. I'll maybe see if Google finds anything. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The WSJ has a recent article [7], but it doesn't really tell us much that we didn't know already: it has predictions about numbers of subscribers, revenues etc, but these are sourced to "a person close to the company" - not really much use in an article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. My wife and I woke up and turned on Glenn Beck radio show at 6:30am and I listened for five minutes before I arose to write this note: he said (1) Internet is now the mainstream for information and news; (2) for his Texas studios, they purchased the Oval Office set from the makers of the movie "JFK" and improved it, including a bust of Winston Churchill; (3) Glenn Beck will be on GBTV tonight "in the Oval Office"; (4) it will not be comedy/satire; (5) Glenn Beck will deliver a five-minute address on what current POTUS should say about (a) size of government, (b) responsibility to grandchildren and future generations; (6) this segment will be live, and another short clip will be pre-recorded. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC) PS: 5pm ET, It's not just about size, but the importance to the Tea Party and the Conservatism in America movement.

The Blaze can be used as a RS for the purposes of GB's enterprise. They're the most likely source to produce the figures and speak with authority on the inner workings of the network. Such as this piece about the Oval Office.[8] I caught a bit of the show from yesterday and he did mention large expansion - even recreating a pilgrim boat (if I recall) on a new set. Morphh ^(talk) 14:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

No. The Blaze cannot be used as RS for figures - or for anything else being cited to establish the significance of GBTV. This needs third-party sourcing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that it be used to establish significance, but such a source can be used to describe itself. They operated under Mercury Radio Arts, so it falls under the area of "this is what they say about themselves", which is important for presenting NPOV (see WP:SELFSOURCE). Morphh ^(talk) 18:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Conor Friedersdorf

loathes BeckBeck's shtick but doesn't Beck media empire's other commentators' / show creators'. (See here: Talk:Mercury_Radio_Arts#Interesting and/or useful qt?.

• Additionally, the recent Vanity Fair profile of Beck skewers the pundit.
• Whereas (for balance), this guy (financial analyst cum political commentator) at Forbes agrees w Beck's partisan critique(/fearmongery?).
  Any editors see any useful commentary for our purposes in any of these?--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 06:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

$80M earnings as of May 2012?

What does Forbes current est. of Beck's earnings at $80M mean? Gross, including what he shells out to venders/contractors/employees?--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Re: Suicide

The man who had taken her out in the boat also drowned. A Tacoma police report stated that Mary Beck "appeared to be a classic drowning victim", but a Coast Guard investigator speculated that she could have intentionally jumped overboard. Beck has described his mother's death as a suicide in interviews during television and radio broadcasts.

There are no official records indicating it was a suicide. Why does Beck's memory differ from the official story given in the documents pertaining to her death? Viriditas (talk) 00:32, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Radio show continue

"Glenn Beck renews radio deal for five more years" [9] Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 06:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

"Adulthood" section

The sentence..

"Beck enrolled in an "Early Christology" course, but soon withdrew, marking the extent of his post-secondary education."

..sounds a little condescending and mean-spirited. Would it be possible to change it to something like "ending his post-secondary education"? I think that just simply states the fact without unnecessarily highlighting a perceived failure or shortcoming. 68.238.216.146 (talk) 04:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Biased commentary at the end of the article

Under the subject heading "2011 Norway Attacks" the second to last sentence has a citation problem. It cites 5 sources, [198, 199, 200, 201, 202], only two of which actually claim (in english) that "groups affiliated with the TEA Party...sponsor politically oriented camp programs." Neither of those two articles, both of which are written by British commentators, cite sources of their own to corroborate their accusations.

The sentence should read something like this: "Two British commentators allege that groups affiliated with the TEA Party movement, and the Beck founded 9-12 project, also sponsor politically oriented camp programs for children." And then cite numbers [198] and [200].

The next sentence uses the words "in spite of his statements about it's victims" which make that sentence, incorrect and politically biased as well as using another incorrect citation. Please change to something along the lines of: "Beck condemned the attack on children while maintaining his opposition to the existence of politically based youth camps." The citation used for this sentence [203] does not state, claim, or allege that Beck's "statements [were] about [the] victims" of the shootings. His statements were an attack on the existence of "a summer [political indoctrination] camp run by Norway's ruling Labour Party."

66.87.103.69 (talk) 19:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC) Bsetliff

Firstly, we do not expect journalists to cite their sources. Secondly, the nationality of commentators is irrelevant - and the sources cited are two leading British broadsheet newspapers, of very different political persuasions. If you have a problem with the sources cited, I suggest you raise it at WP:RSN. And as for 'allegations' that the Tea Party and 9-12 project has sponsored politically oriented youth camps (or 'political indoctrination camps' to use your preferred terminology) or similar, it isn't hard to find evidence for yourself: see [10] [11] for a couple of examples that I found via Google with a minute or two's effort. A statement of the blindingly-obvious is not an 'allegation'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

This man is an entertainer and politics is simply part of his act. His actual personal views on politics are no more relevant than Abbot and Costello's views on whether 'Who' is a good Firstbaseman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.165.172.4 (talk) 16:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

"This man is an entertainer and politics is simply part of his act." That justification is such a cop-out. Does he state such a disclaimer at the beginning of his show? People listens to his show, take the information he gives as 'news' and 'facts' and repeat them all over. That is not entertainment. That is propaganda. Zzsignup (talk) 22:42, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Prior comment is a 'soapbox' comment. Glenn Beck has an honorary degree for his interest in American and world history. The motto of the show is "The Truth Lives Here." Distractors probably do not want his subscription TV show. We do. Try to give specifics if you say his news is not fact-based. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

'The motto of the show is "The Truth Lives Here."' So what? The Soviet Union's major mouthpiece to the West was the newspaper 'Pravda'. I suggest you look the word up in a Russian-English dictionary. As for honorary degrees, they are handed out to people who haven't actually studied the subject in question, more often than not. If you want to claim that Beck is a serious journalist, provide a credible third-party source for the opinion. And BTW, who are 'we'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

So? Glenn Beck is remaking how 'news' is delivered. There are (1) those that make things happen; (2) those that watch things happen; and (3) those that don't know anything happened. . . . To say Glenn Beck is "an entertainer and politics is simply part of his act" qualifies for the third category. Watch what is happening with GBTV. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 02:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

second wife

when you refer to his current wife, you put his first wife's name, Claire — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.28.229 (talk) 19:49, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

"Agenda 21" - details on ghostwriting and further background info

• I got duped by Glenn Beck The pundit bought the creative rights to the dystopian novel I edited, transforming it into right-wing propaganda salon.com. Nemissimo (talk) 00:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Ghost writing is an very common practice and we have limited information (single bias opinion piece) on how much Beck actually contributed beyond his name. At this point, it's not noteworthy and it would be bias to add commentary regarding what took place with that publication and if it was any different than most high profile celebs publishing a book. This might be used if we were to create an article specifically about the book, once it comes out and starts generating more sources to merit something noteworthy. Morphh ^(talk) 20:12, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Surely the most important information about a book is who wrote it. I agree the text should take a neutral point of view and not reflect the political bias of the article cited, but Salon is a reliable source and I see no reason to disbelieve the facts around the book's authorship reported in the article. Thus, it seems sensible to me to include a short note on the authorship here. That ghostwriting is a common practice is irrelevant: we note ghostwriting in other articles and the text added took no moral stance about the practice. If you feel the text added could be more neutral, please do suggest an alternate wording, but not reporting the book's actual authorship seems to me to be the biased practice, particularly given the text earlier trumpeting Beck's success as a writer. Bondegezou (talk) 13:47, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The article does include the "actual authorship" as reported by tons of sources and the book itself (Glenn Beck and Harriet Parke). A single source states that Beck's contribution was minor, and that may be true, but it doesn't change anything and it doesn't justify commentary on how much Beck supposedly contributed to this book vs any other book. I might be able to see putting Parke's name in bold, but that would seem bias as well. For all we know, Beck's overall contribution to the final publication was more substantial that the initial draft manuscript ascribed to Parke. It's just bias to do anything more than just report the publication at this point. Morphh ^(talk) 21:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia has clear policies around verifiability and reliable sources. So, when you say, "that may be true" or "For all we know," I say, let's do what Wikipedia policy says. We have a reliable source reference saying Beck's contribution was minimal, so we go with what that says. Speculation beyond that would constitute original research. Bondegezou (talk) 13:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

There is no speculation if you don't try to attribute who did what, which is what you're trying to include. All the sources say the authors are Glenn Beck and Harriet Parke - leave it at that. It's undue weight to insert commentary on how much is attributed to one author vs another in any book unless it becomes a controversial issue, which this has not. It's WP:UNDUE. Morphh ^(talk) 14:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

There is no speculation if we stick to what citations say. Most sources simply report what's on the book's cover and we should (and do) report that. In addition, we have one source that discusses what's behind that, who actually wrote what. I don't see half a sentence (and I'm not suggesting anything more than that) on that matter as WP:UNDUE. Bondegezou (talk) 15:49, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Virtually all books by celebrities are "ghostwritten" to some extent - this is not notable here and should not be given weight in the BLP. Collect (talk) 15:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

It is not the case that every book written by a celebrity is ghostwritten and how much a book is ghostwritten clearly varies from case to case. Having a brief reference to who actually wrote what in this case, thus, seems useful to me. I remain of the view that the most important information about a book is who wrote it. If ghostwriting is commonplace, as you suggest, then noting that this book is ghostwritten cannot constitute an inappropriate bias.

However, I note that consensus cannot be said to be with me on this matter. I have held off editing the page and will continue to do so while such disagreement remains. Where we do appear to have some agreement, if I'm not misrepresenting my fellow editors, is that this would be an appropriate topic if the book warranted its own article and if authorship of this book attracts wider attention. Bondegezou (talk) 15:49, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd be agreeable to adding it in a footnote. Morphh ^(talk) 16:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Even popular authors have ghostwriters. Just read one of Orson Scott Card's, very popular science fiction writer, latest books Earth Unaware which was ghost written by Aaron Johnston. It was good :) Morphh ^(talk) 16:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree, it doesn't matter; just leave it at that "the two wrote the book Agenda 21—a thriller. If you really want to know, Glenn Beck said she wrote 98% and he just molded it, or some words to that effect. Perhaps he spiced it up with the romantic angle (just kidding.) Anyway, the reason I know is that my wife and I are subscribers to GBTV ($99/yr) and heard him say it. FYI, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Children

The stuff on the children of Beck's second marriage is unclear. I read it three or four times and was still not sure exactly what it meant:

"Beck and his current wife Tania have had two children together, Raphe (who is adopted) and Cheyenne. Until April 2011, the couple lived in New Canaan, Connecticut, with the four children."

Does that 4 include the children from his previous marriage, or are there 2 from this marriage plus Raphe and Cheyenne, who are adopted?

Improved clarity requested Jorvikian (talk) 14:07, 9 December 2012 (UTC)