Talk:Glenn Beck/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Stop spreading falsehoods

Unless you can cite specific instances of things, I will continue to delete them. Mr. Beck never "threatened" Michael Moore. Only someone who takes quotes out of context would believe that he was "threatening" anyone. Please try to remain neutral. If you do not get his jokes or sarcasm, doesnt mean it is not there. As he doesn't speak primarily on politics, the statement that his show contains more humor than other shows (Hannity, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Shultz, etc.) is factually correct. I will continue to keep this article neutral. SkeeloBob 21:33, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Neutral? You wouldn't know "neutral" if it ran over you on the highway. This article might as well have been written by Beck's PR department. The fact is Beck said (and this is a direct quote:) "I'm thinking about killing Michael Moore." That is a threat. I get fed up with all these right-wing nutcases saying things like "Oh, he didn't really mean it" or "He's just joking." How in the f*** do you know what Beck really meant? The fact is, NONE of us really knows. But the point is Beck DID SAY that he is thinking of killing Moore. That is a threat, no matter how you Nazi nutcases try to spin it.

You're taking this out of context though. It's a joke, I heard him say it in his "I am saying crazy things" high pitched noise. Seriously now, you are preching about these damned right wing nutcases, and yet you sound like a left wing nutcase yourself. As for the Nazi comment, well, you just called every conservative (right wing nutcase) a Nazi. Next you're going to apologize and say you were kidding.

Please read WP:NPA. Thanks. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 02:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

anti-abortion vs. pro-life

There was a change stating that because Wikipedia redirects pro-life to anti-abortion that we should use anti-abortion. This is wrong for a number of reasons. Beck states that he is pro-life, and by that he means much more than anti-abortion. If Wikipedia makes the assumption that the two terms are co-terminous, that is the fault of Wikipedia, not Glenn Beck or this article. For instance, he was the most vocal defender of Terri Schiavo, which he considered to be a cause for pro-life, that had nothing to do with abortion. — Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)} 16:44, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Beck states that he is pro-life: I suppose that includes the lives of those "scumbags" in New Orleans, as he calls them?68.110.199.122 02:25, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

"Pro-Life" is a commonly used term to refer to those who oppose abortion. As such unless the person in question has made a distinctive effort to redefine that word it should be used to refer to opposition to abortion. I think wikipedia is right in refering to those who oppose abortion as being "anti-abortion" because this more accurately describes their position. Most anti-abortion people support some policies that involve the taking of life such as the death penalty, war, lack of funding for stem cell research etc. Presto-3 15:21, July 26, 2006 (UTC)

And people who define "lack of funding for stem cell research" as "taking of life" are known as liberals. Val42 04:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Presto-3, yesterday you removed the comment of mine above without comment on this talk page or in the "Edit summary". I just restored my comment. What would you call a conservative who removed your opinion from a public forum? Val42 02:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

New Orleans

Beck states that he is pro-life: I suppose that includes the lives of those "scumbags" in New Orleans, as he calls them?68.110.199.122 02:25, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I copied the above from the previous section because it was a "response" to that topic as well as starting a new topic itself. I'm glad that when this anonymous provided this similar sentiment on the main page that he at least provided a reference. That way, the anonymous' "synopsis" of the statement can be corrected. Thanks again to the Anonymous contributor. Val42 02:51, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

And, Yes, the anonymous poster would be correct. Even "scumbags" have a right to life. --Jared W 17:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Controversial Statements

Can we try and find more sources? Linking from just one site (mediamatters.org) gives the impression of bias. --Spunkz 04:58, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I removed the following comments from the article:

"This last section is biased and his comments were taken out of context his referral to Katrina scumbags had to do with those who would say they were looting to support their families but steal tvs, his comments about the 9/11 victims was actually about the families of 9/11 victims who blame President Bush for their deaths. Maybe before you add comments you should do a little more research."

--Spunkz 22:19, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't know why unfavorable statements end up on the Controversial Statements Catagory only days after the statements are made. When Glenn Beck speaks, he does not filter his statements to please those who disagree with him, and he seeks to entertain as he informs. Not taking away his anger towards Jimmy Carter, he decided to bring humor into the equation. This is not the place to discuss Carter's post-presidency record, but many believe that Carter has been detrimental to the cause of America and humanity.

At this rate, the Conrtoversial Statements will be much longer than anything else. There needs to be some discussion on which statements merit being put in the article.--The Saxon 17:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

First let me state that I actually watch Glen Beck, and when I came to this wikipedia article I was shocked that the New Orleans/9-11 victoms comments were not in here. Plus there is no mention of his decleration of World War III verses Iran. Are you seriously telling me that these comments don't rise to the level of being mentioned in the wikipedia article. Then I go into the discussion and see that the New Orleans comments were in, but then removed. Then i see comments like 'he seeks to entertain as he informs' and 'he brings humor into the equation'. These comments are blatently biased. I believe that Michael Richards could say that he was trying to be entertaining with his rant. But does that mean that story should not be a part of his wikipedia article. Certainlly not. Don't be biased with your edits. (66.173.230.50 00:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC))

Discussion

A while back, I think there was discussion about the killing Michael Moore bit. Perhaps that would be a good place to start. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 12:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

The Michael Moore thing doesn't bother me at all. Anyone who actually thinks that Glenn REALLY wants to choke Moore is just looking for a reason to hate (or continue to hate) Glenn. I think the qualifying phrase in that whole line is "In a comedy bit..." which should make it obvious that it was for humor.

Chancelot 14:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC) I think anyone reading the back and forth on this page and paying attention will get the best insight as to the nature of Glenn Beck's "controversy" than any actual comment. The mere fact that this article inspires people to begin commenting on the positions Beck has taken rather than actually discussing Beck himself shows the free speech system at work. Whether one agrees with his political positions or not is irrelevant until the first amendment is repealed. He discusses what he thinks is interesting, and enough people listen and agree with him to keep his show on the air... 208.50.126.126 23:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)Random Sick Twisted Freak

"NO FANSITES"?

It appears that Glenn's show is no longer broadcast in Vancouver, so that part has been removed. I have also re-added the "fan sites". The removal of those sites is inconsistent with Wikipedia policy - if Glenn's fan sites are to be removed, it would only be fair to do the same for those of Al Franken and other talk radio hosts. 204.112.177.140 07:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Misc. (added to External links)

Added a link to the mediamatters.org entries for Glenn Beck, to balance out the gushingly cute pro-Glenn sites above. --65.248.243.100 22:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Beckian Traits

Glenn Beck occasionally breaks the traditional rule against dead air time. His long, silent pauses contradict the common wisdom that such absence of sound will result in loss of listeners. Also, he sometimes may be unconsciously imitating Howard Stern's voice. This is most notable when he lowers his voice to a confidential whisper. Lestrade 16:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Glenn Beck Program

I've added the Glenn Beck Program as an new article. I took it from Glennpedia and based on this discussion page, it will need a lot of scrutiny. Please have at it. --Jared W 17:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

'Recent Event' Reference

There's an sentence that references 'recent events' without giving a relative timeframe: "As illegal immigration and other issues have come to the forefront in recent months..." I think perhaps this should be changed to mark an absolute date or removed entirely. A year from now, this will make no sense otherwise. --Jrb90 23:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

External links and the such..

Has anyone else noticed that ALL of the external links are pro-Beck in some way, shape or form? I think in the name of "balance," something touted on here quite a bit, other, less adoring info should be up. Try reading what Media Matters says about him (by actually linking to the site - the link on this page is bad) and his misinformation. If all you're doing is including links that take you to his list of "fake heartless corporations" and etc... then it's no more than an ad for this guy and his show.

The CNN link all the way at the bottom was not a "news article" - it was internal advertising by CNN for one of their shows. The two Media Matters links are good now but don't entirely balance out the frothing at the mouth adoration contained in the outrageous number of links above them.

I trimmed the list way down. I removed all the fan sites, and one redundant Media Matters page and one redundant Beck page. I didn't know what heading to use for the MMFA and DailyKos sites. You should think about getting an account. And please sign your posts with 4 tildes (~~~~) so it's easier to follow. Thanks. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I object to the fan sites being removed, especially Glennpedia. Neutrality is not the same as balance. If there are more pro-Glenn sites on the web, there should be more pro-Glenn sites listed here. Why shouldn't the external links be represented in their actual ratios. Listing sites that present an opposing view of Glenn is a great idea, but don't hide information from wikipedia readers in the name of artificial balance. --Jared W 23:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Beck on Radio, TV, Print, Stage

I have just added a Glenn Beck on Headline news section. Please review and enhance. I would like to trim down the Glenn Beck Program section, or rather, move much of the content to the Glenn Beck Program article. I'd also like to see the Book and Magazine section moved up with the Radio and Headline news section. If a Live events section is added then this article will feature a section for each of the mediums where Glenn appears. I will do this slowly and watch for objections. --Jared W 22:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I just condensed the Glenn Beck Program section. I was careful to preserve the old content in the Glenn Beck Program article. Since I am a Glenn Beck fan, I invite others to review my changes for NPOV. --Jared W 22:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I just added the Live Events section. I've uploaded an image to wikipedia incorrectly and it is subject to deletion. Can someone with more experience help me fix the licensing on that image before it is removed? I explained in the note that it has been provided for the public to download, but didn't know what licensing to choose. Thanks. --Jared W 16:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Career & Personal life

I separated out the Career and Early life and the Personal life sections into Career and Personal life. In doing this, there where a few gaps that needed to be filled. I think that having the personal life and professional life mixed together promoted a "touchy feely" sense in the career section. It is my hope that with them separated, a factual account of Glenn's career can now be presented. With this in mind, I intend to reintroduce a Criticism section with some of the content from the old Controversial statements section. I think that by placing it in the Career section, it will be able to be presented with a neutral point of view.

I expect to use Not Just Another Conservative as the primary resource when I create the Criticism category and encourage other editors to read it before editing this article. --Jared W 16:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Glancing though some of the Wikipedia:Featured articles I came across the Tony Blair article and I really like the way his [section] is done. I think we should model that section here. Here is some quick brain storming of ideas. --Jared W 16:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Section titled Criticism
• Subsctions for...
  • Political Correctness (lack of it)
  • Michael Moore statements
  • Katrina Survivor statements
  • Hate monger accusations
  • Racist accusations
• Should contain statements like, So and so accused Beck of _________
• May contain statements from Glenn about the criticism

Global warming

I removed the following from Political views section.

However Beck has no degree or actual range of expertise in climatology... He has also never mentioned on his TV show or his radio program the fact that the National Academy of Sciences recently conducted an investigation at the behest of the Republican chairman of the House Science Committee to find out if global warming was occurring and if in fact it was being caused by humans. The National Academy of Sciences report that followed subsequently confirmed that global warming is no doubt real and is in also indisputably the result of human activity. Many people feel that Beck's continued denial of climate change in the face of overwhelming scientific opinion is irresponsible and misleading, if not outright dangerous.

That section is about Glenn's political views, not about disproving his opinions, pointing out his lack of education, or warning the world about his irresponsibility. There is a Criticism section now, and well sourced criticism can go there. --Jared W 03:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The information about global warming presented in the above paragraph is still available through the global warming, global climate change, and scientific opinion on climate change links which are still available in the text of the article. This seems appropriate and sufficient to me. --Jared W 04:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The statement "This despite the overwhelming non-partisan scientific consensus that global warming is in fact happening and is in fact being caused by human activity." is ironic since its context seems to prove Beck's point. There are plenty of good, solid scientific sources which disagree with human caused global warming. This statement shows the writer's bias not any facts. There are tons of unanswered questions about climate, so for anyone to claim they "Know" is premature and smacks of an agenda other than proving or disproving current theories.

RamaHanuKwanzMas

RamaHanuKwanzMas redirects to this Article but it is nowhere mentioned. --Majoran 11:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It has been fixed. It is a stub article, but it is there. I want input from other Glenn Beck fans to provide citations and increase the information on said page. Val42 19:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone verify that Glenn Beck actually coined this term? The section concerning this word badly needs a citation.

Best Page in the Universe

To User:-Dense- and IP address 67.71.150.154,

The reason that I keep removing the *The Best Page In The Universe link is because it is not a site opposed to Beck. It is not even a page opposed to Beck. Glenn Beck is only mentioned in passing on that page. There is no commentary about why or what the author doesn't like about Beck. It doesn't make sense to me to link to that page from this article. --Jared W 14:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

 It is obviously just a "best page" fan trying to drum up more traffic for     
 the failing site. I've seen the in other site forums and chat rooms 
 tossing the link around for the same purpose, on a few occasions. I wish
 them luck, though it doesn't really seem to be working. Trying it on wiki
 is just inappropriate, however.

More-on Trivia

I have added a paragraph on more-on trivia, as this is an important part of beck's show. I also added an external link to the More-on trivia fansite, per the rule for fansites, found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links Color me invisible 13:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I Agree, but...

I agree with 157.201.154.219 that the whole critisms section should be redone, but I do not think that it should have been deleted. I am going to work on maybe writing a new one, providing quotes in context. I do agree that the entire section is NPOV. I personally think that the critism section should show only critism by outside sources. I will definitly try and rewrite the critism section. I do not want to delete the section! I also suggest that 157.201.154.219 should get an account ( if you read this ). Posts can be signed by just adding ~~~~ at the end of your post. Color me invisible 16:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I restored the criticism section that 157.201.154.219 half-way deleted. I assume that you mean that the section is not NPOV. Please help me understand what is wrong with it. --Jared W 21:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Changes to Criticism

I am working on changing the critism section, as I think that some of it is taken out of context, and needs to show what Beck actually said. For instance, he did not call a random poor family in New Orleans "scumbags", he was referring to those survivors who had taken to kill rescue workers, raping and pillaging. Other comments listed on the critism page are also taken out of context, and I think that they need to show the full quote in its context. Color me invisible 14:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I wanted to save a synopsis of what I wrote on your user page here.

• A criticism section is not the same as a controversial statements section.
• A criticism section should be a place that predominately presents what Glenn's critics say, not what Glenn says. (although some rebuttal is appropriate)
• A lot of full context statements will clog the article (it has been tried here before). You'd have to create a separate Glenn Beck, controversial statements article to cover it.
• I think the important points for the section are:
  • Not everyone agrees with Glenn, some people hate him ... a lot
  • There have been organized efforts by opponents to end his career
  • The opposition increased exponentially when he started his TV show
  • Many of his critics hate him just because he is a prominent conservative, not really because of anything he says.

Good luck with the rewrite, and try to avoid the tendency to fill this article with quotes from Glenn. --Jared W 15:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Ellison incident

Beck asked Ellison for a moment of political incorrectness which the Congressman-elect obliged. During the interview, Beck implied that there was a burden of proof on Muslims to "prove to me that you are not working with our enemies," and that "that's the way I feel, and I think a lot of Americans will feel that way." The interview has drawn the ire of bloggers and was featured on Jon Stewart's "The Daily Show." This is more appropriate, if at all, for the criticism section. But is this even a noteworthy episode? Liberals disapproved and commented about it, but it doesn't seem to be any more unique than any of Beck's other incidents. The whole quote of Beck actually much less significant than this entry makes it appear: "[W]hat I feel like saying is, 'Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies.'" That suggests that Beck isn't even willing to go that far himself, but that's his inclination, and he wanted to give Ellison a chance to respond. I don't know that this entry is notable, or that it's NPOV to describe the actual criticism. Zz414 03:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Beck's special "Exposed: The Extremist Agenda" on November 15, 2006, was rated the #1 show on all cable news in the 25-54 demographic.[10] The report presented clips from Middle Eastern television, interviews with former terrorists, and other media that Beck asserted had been overlooked by the Western media. I was the one who wrote the piece on the Ellison interview and I must say that if you're going to include the aforementioned quote which makes Glenn look like a hero and shows a POV from the right then the Ellison interview should certainly be there, at least to balance it out and neutralize the point of view. It's not like what I posted was rhetoric on my part that tried to distort what Beck said, it was his words. I think it may not be something that everyone remembers when he's dead and buried but it is certainly relevant today and depicts a complete image of his persona, that he opnely stated he doubts Muslim Americans and believes that Congressman-elect Ellison is infiltrating Congress. Would he be casting those shadows of doubt if Ellison was a Republican? I'm open to a debate and being inclusive of the bit of the article that is italisized above if my section is as well. Stephen 00:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to make him look like a hero--I cut down about 75% of that portion, which originally was much more pro-Beck, if you'll look at the history of edits. The only reason it's at all relevant (in my opinion) is because of the ratings it gave him. If the entire quotation from Beck is in the proper context (one of my original concerns was that it wasn't the actual context), then I'm open to including it. But I'd feel much more comfortable if a more neutral non-POV source, such as [9], were used as the basis for the episode. Thoughts? Zz414 00:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I moved it and included the news source link. Based on Ellison's "shrugging off," I'm still not sure it's newsworthy, but I'll leave it for now. Zz414 20:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Once again, someone edited to include various POV citations and expanded the entry to give it undue weight--Olberman's "Worst Person" award and Media Matters coverage are relevant, but they shouldn't be controlling for this single incident. Thoughts on reverting? Zz414 13:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe that it is a noteworthy item. It is a good demonstration of the type of criticism that Glenn receives. The mediamatters blogs where especially alight with this topic and the mention of Olberman's worst person in the world award also seems approprate. It is very difficult to present criticism of Glenn in an NPOV way that satisfies both sides. I think that incidents like this that generate several external links to news stories and blogs is one of the best ways to present criticism of Glenn to a reader. As always, listening to or watching Glenn's shows will always be the best way to put criticism of him into context. --Jared W 16:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Also in the current version it says: "the TV host's insult". Calling it an 'insult' seems to be POV. Also one should keep the noted criticism by Olberman and others - as it is a section devoted to criticism after all, not just describing interviews. IMO it's very representive of the type of criticism Glenn recieves, and the reasons he recives them. I don't see why one would object to linking media matters for this interview - it is after all used for the other topics in the criticism section. -- User:SuluG 10:20, 20 November 2006 (PST)

The current wording is highly - how to put it - one-sided. The current wording is, in fact, completely misleading. It is out of context, plain and simple, to not include any lead-up to the question.

Current revision: "In November 2006, Beck drew criticism on Jon Stewart's "The Daily Show" and Keith Olbermann's "Countdown" for asking Congressman-Elect Keith Ellison of Minnesota, the first American Muslim to be elected to Congress, to "prove to me that you are not working with our enemies".[12] Olbermann named Beck the winner of the "Worst Person in the World" award for his comments.[13] Ellison shrugged it off. "It's just shock TV," he said. "Some pundits think they have to ask the most outrageous questions."

Glenn Beck talked about this on his radio show shortly afterward, yet nothing is mentioned of his response. I find it highly misleading, being someone that listens to him regularly, to call this "shock television." The quote may be worth mentioning, but it is highly unbalanced with its only companion being an "award" from the (notoriously-biased-according-to-some) Olbermann. If this entry isn't made more balanced... well, it'll only confirm what I already knew about Wikis. But I won't get into that. (I'd do it myself but apparently some of you - very often those that won't even read the Discussion page - frown upon giving the whole truth when conservatives look bad otherwise.) And if you don't see why one would object to linking to Media Matters... may as well throw this page to the dogs. They're okay to give criticism (which means they may fit in this section), but certainly NOT okay to give authoritative nonpartisan opinions. - Glynth 11:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The current version accurately depicts what Beck was criticised for saying without getting into long tomes (and thus adding more weight to the section). If you have a link to Becks response please include it in the response to criticism section. I was unable to find any. As for Media Matters - *shrug*, its been used as a source for other incidents for criticism, so i don't see why one would object to its use for the Ellison interview. Regardless the actual criticism is only linked from MSNBC and the Star Tribune. Media Matters is only used to provide a transcript and video of what Beck said. If you can find another (more neutral) site for the transcript and/or video, please feel free to include it instead. -- User:SuluG 11:15, 30 November 2006 (PST)

I thinks this has been settled. The final result was just fine. But removing the context where he doesn't just ask outright "prove you're not working for our enemies" but does qualify it with "what I feel like saying" is important. Removing that casts Beck in a more negative light intentionally as POV. Zz414 19:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

In reviewing the recent change, a couple of points standout: First, the current version is not an accurate portrayal of what Beck said. Compare the actual quotation-

Glenn Beck: And I have to tell you, I have been nervous about this interview with you, because what I feel like saying is, Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies.

And I know you're not. I'm not accusing you of being an enemy, but that's the way I feel, and I think a lot of Americans will feel that way.

Clearly Beck is not only saying " if he understood that some Americans may feel like asking ". Nor is it the reason Beck was criticised. Refer to the linked MSNBC and Star Tribune articles. Secondly, the criticism section is to document what criticism Beck has received, not to insert 'contextual qualifiers' which might make Beck 'look' one way or the other. I thought the original version was more neutral as it didn't cast any hidden aspirations on what Beck might have 'meant'. I don't see the "what I feel like saying" portion relevant enough to include in the article as it dosn't change the meaning of what was said either way (If someone says "I question your patriotism" or "I feel like questioning your patriotism" - it's the same thing - he is questioning your patriotism). If you do feel that section is important, then please add the entire quote: what I feel like saying is, "Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies." instead. -- SuluG 16:35, 30 November 2006 (PST)

I think that instead of trying to justify or clarify what Beck was saying with an explanation from one's interpretation of the interview, it would be better to add the full quote: "And I have to tell you, I have been nervous about this interview with you, because what I feel like saying is, Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies. And I know you're not. I'm not accusing you of being an enemy, but that's the way I feel, and I think a lot of Americans will feel that way." and then point out the responses to his remarks.--Folksong 10:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that. Zz414 12:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Just a reminder, this is the entire quote:

BECK: OK. No offense, and I know Muslims. I like Muslims. I've been to mosques. I really don't believe that Islam is a religion of evil. I -- you know, I think it's being hijacked, quite frankly.

With that being said, you are a Democrat. You are saying, let's cut and run. And I have to tell you, I have been nervous about this interview with you, because what I feel like saying is, Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies.

And I know you're not. I'm not accusing you of being an enemy, but that's the way I feel, and I think a lot of Americans will feel that way.

Adding the entire quote as a comprise is not an adequate solution. The criticism section should not be a list of what Beck said, but rather what criticism he received. Maybe it would be better to remove the entire quote and simply say 'Beck was criticized for apparently questioning Ellison’s patriotism' and linking to the actual conversation. Ellison’s comments should also be removed - he was responding to a question asked by a reporter, not criticizing Beck. -- SuluG 19:00, 02 November 2006 (PST)

But the two are inextricably tied. If you're going to give some of the quotation, you've got to give the whole thing. It's unfair POV to keep a fraction of the quotation and then point out the criticism, when in fact the quotation was much more than that. It casts a negative light on Beck because the quotation is deliberately misleading out of context. He was criticized for a component of that quotation, but that shouldn't prevent this article from remaining neutral by giving the whole quotation. And Ellison's response is also relevant, because it directly addresses the quotation and the circumstance under which he was criticized. It's negative POV to Beck to slant everything as a part of a quotation and the criticism, just as it would be positive POV to exclude the whole section or to include only the quotation and Ellison's response without mention of the criticism. The context, on both sides, is important to avoid selective POV. Zz414 14:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. I have editied it to remove the entire quotation and simply said "allegedy questioning the patriotism of Kieth Ellison" instead. Since the actual quotations were not used in other incidents of criticism for Glenn Beck - 911/Katrina victims, Michael Moore, etc, maybe it's best we don't include any quotation for this incident as well. - SuluG 22:00, 03 November 2006 (PST)

I think that's a good edit. Zz414 19:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Beck OBSESSED With "The Apocalypse"

Perhaps Glenn Beck's dark, deeply personal obsession with "The Apocalypse" and/or "End Times" should be mentioned in this article. Hardly a show goes by where he doesn't mention these subjects, with every show offering a new 'prediction' as to when the "Tribulation" will begin. I know he's simply pandering to his right-wing Christian viewership in order to boost ratings on an otherwise sensationalistic, loud, and moronic show, but he personally seems very serious about the predictions of his on-air 'specialists,' so maybe this obsession of his warrants a mention. We can call the section the "Glenn Beck Apoca-Meter," charting the number of mentions/segments found in the show's history. --Pseudothyrum 04:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

if you listen to what Glen says he relly isnt "pandering to his right-wing viewership", he is makeing fun of the fact how everything is blown out of porportion. he is overexagerating like the news does. Razor romance 15:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree with Razor Romance. I've been a casual Glenn Beck listener for several years, and his apocalyptic talk is not a joke, nor is it satirical. I'm not sure it rises to the level of Wikipedia-worthy, but to characterize it as satire is **totally** inaccurate. --Skidoo 14:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

"Hate Speech"

I removed the incident and its POV-header. It seems little more than a common joke that Americans make about the French, and the "outcry" listed seems limited to a couple of non-noteworthy blogs. Zz414 22:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

"Response to Criticism"

The link does not work. I am removing the link and the quote associated to it.

Well, the link not working is not necessarily reason to immediately delete it. It's been cited there a while. Although it's good that you bring it up here so we can see if an alternate version can be found, etc. Mad Jack 18:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Why did you remove the links to audio where he talked about michael moore —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.109.156.13 (talk) 18:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC).

Ah, I did a mass revert because I didn't think this part (""No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out -- is this wrong?"") interpreted as this ("Glen Beck threatened to kill Michael Moore. He mentioned how he would look him in the eye while choking him to death. ") was fair. When it comes to something as highly contentious as that, it's probably best to just use his original quote Mad Jack 18:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Parody?

In the first paragraph, it says he's doing a Parody of Rush L. Is this so? I thought Beck really WAS a conservitive, that he's really believing the things he's saying (albeit with hyperboly). If his act is all ironey, he's got a lot of people fooled. If not, we should correct this. Steve kap (talk) 01:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, never mind, I was fooled by the vandals! Its aready been fixed!! Steve kap (talk) 01:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Nazi Party

How is it controversial to call the German Nazi party socialist? Weren't they nationalistic socialists?71.175.155.223 (talk) 14:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

No. It's a popular canard in certain quarters of the blogosphere, but not generally accepted by politologists. They tend to believe in that old-fashioned idea that words have meaning, and the meaning of "Nazi" and the meaning of "socialist" are not very similar. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 17:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd have to agree that this is a pretty un-controversial statement. Chippy87 (talk) 20:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Because they were a fascist party advocating third way economics, which is not a socialist principle. A quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany

"Hitler's views on economics, beyond his early belief that the economy was of secondary importance, are a matter of debate. On the one hand, he proclaimed in one of his speeches that "we are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system",[14] but he was clear to point out that his interpretation of socialism "has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism," saying that "Marxism is anti-property; true Socialism is not."[15] At a later time, Hitler said: "Socialism! That is an unfortunate word altogether... What does socialism really mean? If people have something to eat and their pleasures, then they have their socialism."[16] In private, Hitler also said that "I absolutely insist on protecting private property... we must encourage private initiative".[17] On yet another occasion he qualified that statement by saying that the government should have the power to regulate the use of private property for the good of the nation.[18] Hitler clearly believed that the lack of a precise economic programme was one of the Nazi Party's strengths, saying: "The basic feature of our economic theory is that we have no theory at all."[19] While not espousing a specific economic philosophy, Hitler employed anti-semitic themes to attack economic systems in other countries, associating ethnic Jews with both communism ("Jewish Bolsheviks") and capitalism, both of which he opposed.[20][21]"

By definition he isn't really a socialist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.126.119 (talk) 21:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

From Nazi_Germany#State_ideology the first two words are: "National socialism." 71.175.155.223 (talk) 23:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

From the official name of North Korea, the first thre words are "People's Democratic Republic". 166.217.68.238 (talk) 16:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The criticism should more be to the point that Beck was trying to allign communist ideology with Nazi ideology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newsreel2009 (talk • contribs) 09:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

And by extension, aligning Soviet Communism to Democratic socialism, to Social Democrats, to Labour, to labor unions, to the moderate centrist liberal US Democrats, or in short: NAZIS=COMMIES=DEMOCRATS. Beck could have just as easily had said DEATH=DISEASE=HANG-NAIL, and it would have made about as much sense. Shanoman (talk) 03:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

My problem is that even if Nazi Germany wasn't socialist there was no controversy surrounding it; I don't remember hearing about it anywhere. Besides I think enough people think that hey were socialist that it's not a great fact that he's one of them. It seems to have disappeared so this point is now moot. 76.116.227.205 (talk) 13:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem with it is that Beck is playing the demagogue here, tying current events to Nazi Germany and implying that "socialism" is part and parcel with dictatorship. We have a term for Nazi Germany's economy: a mixed economy, with some resources in the public domain, and others in the private. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.39.50.26 (talk) 18:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Other people have argued this too as seen in the book Road to Serfdom 161.185.151.150 (talk) 15:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Entrepreneur?

That term is subjective. I removed it because I don't think it belongs in an Encyclopedia article about Glenn Beck. 76.92.206.166 (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Please read the wikipedia entry for entrepreneur. I would argue that Beck, who has started his own businesses and ventures (books, stage shows) and routinely puts his own capital at risk, qualifies as an entrepreneur. I suppose that it is subjective, but so it the statement that he's conservative. E2a2j (talk) 15:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

How about "media entrepreneur"? If his enterprise is media, that would be more precise. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 18:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Hitting on Guests

Does anyone else here think that it should be mentioned how he often hits on female (attractive) guests that he has on? It is often inappropriate, especially considering that he is married. I've watched his show quite often and every time he has an attractive female guest on he will hit on her almost every time. For instance he has hit on Sarah Palin, Obama Girl, and I've seen several other YouTube clips on the internet of him flirting (in an appropriate manner, naturally) with female co-hosts.

Does anyone else think we should at least mention this in this article? I think it's noteworthy and perhaps could be mentioned in the area that talks about his show being a "cross" between educational and entertainment. Fatrb38 (talk) 22:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

No. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

There's a difference between acting in a flirtatious matter and hitting on someone. Beck sometimes does the former. Perhaps you need to learn the difference.Kornbelt888 (talk) 21:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Whether it is flirting or hitting on someone, we need reliable sources to include such controversial material. you and me watching some talk show and concluding that the host is either flirting or hitting on someone and deciding to write that in wikipedia is original research. sorry, a big no no. --Docku: What's up? 21:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

"I got some time and a camera. Why don't you stop by?" I'm sorry, but that is more than just flirting. (source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PY9IC7njYYc)

Its called sarcasm. some people however have no sense of humor 129.100.195.138 (talk) 16:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Cut a troll edit...

I cut this, as it is the work of a troll: "On February 21, 2009 what he put together at 9 P. M. is not for Americans at this difficult time. He should have a patience to wait at least a year before forecasting what the present government is capable of doing. The government is trying to workout the horrible mess created by the previous government. Such programs should be be discouraged at all time. Who is responsible for this? The foxnews or the Mr. Beck?"

Just a sidebar, I imagine what the writer means by "previous government" is the Bush administration, which is partially true. But note that President Clinton signed into law the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 which opened the door to the deregulation of all the insanely leveraged derivatives based on CDSs, CDOs, etc. There's plenty of blame to go around it seems. Kornbelt888 (talk) 21:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's keep this page clean.

what is clean with Mr. Glenn??

Localsales (talk) 20:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, he was once an alcoholic, so I guess he's clean. You seem to hate Beck. Well, I own all three of his books.PokeHomsar (talk) 21:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

It looks like you are Mr. Beck. Are you? I don't spam anyone; I respect every human. What I did not like is his program that was aired yesterday. I thought it is immature on his part (may be I'm wrong). That's it (you have already deleted my voice from there - That's okay with me - At least someone has read it). It is Mr. Beck who occasionally spams the environment. Thank you sir. You said he was an alchoholic - I donot care about what you wrote. That is not my point. My heart goes to those who are having bad time in the US. I learnt a lesson here - stop watching his program!

When you delete someone's editing from the page (May be a troll for you), write there the reason rather than writing the reasons on the discussion page or talk page. This will help others to comment.

Localsales (talk) 22:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

'm not Glenn Beck. You really think he'd have a screen name named after a Homestar Runner character mixed with Pokemon? Seriously? I'm like 19, but I love Glenn Beck's program. And if you thought it was so awful, just post it on the talk page.PokeHomsar (talk) 00:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The language sounded similar to Mr. Beck's. Thanks. Localsales (talk) 00:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC) Localsales (talk) 00:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Bias

I just have to point this out, but why does Beck have a controversial statements section while liberal pundits like Keith Olberman have none? It comes off as Bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.61.226.88 (talk) 02:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It is clearly bias, but "protectors" of Olberman's page (like Obama's and other liberals) will not allow critical comments, no matter how factual or encyclopedic, to be added. Such is Wikipedia...E2a2j (talk) 15:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

you have just made a false statement. you should really have the ability of your brain to recognize when something is factual or not checked out

So enforce the same policy on this page. You have the power! ;) --70.142.48.213 (talk) 18:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I have no interest in any kind of edit war. Life's too short! E2a2j (talk) 19:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

c'mon,it'll be funNicholas.tan (talk) 22:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Left handedness

This is obviously true, but isn't that reference an example of OR? --70.142.48.213 (talk) 18:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Controversy section

A couple of editors have deleted the "controversy" section wholesale and I have now twice reinstated it. I think we should try to avoid edit warring over this. Glenn Beck is an abnormally controversial figure, and it is simply not acceptable to purge this article of any controversy/criticism.

Our guidelines about criticism sections are a bit hazy, but in general these sections can be used, preferably as a stopgap measure. The better course, if possible, is to integrate critical views throughout the article. That may be a good way forward here. I don't think we have to keep every piece of criticism or every controversial statement, but we do need to reflect the fact that Beck has been heavily criticized (and just to be clear, this isn't a left/right issue or an issue of bias, for example we have a huge article devoted solely to criticism of Noam Chomsky).

Personally I don't have a big problem with the current controversy section except that I think it's too long, but if others do not like it they should propose ways in which it could be broken up and parts of it integrated throughout the article, or ways in which the section could be reframed (perhaps as a "reaction" or "response" section) such that it contains both critical and laudatory views. But removing all criticism/controversy is a non-starter.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

This is ridicules. If anyone went into a pundit like Olberman on the left and added a controversy section, it would be down in minutes and the user probably banned. But for Beck its ok... that's totally POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.61.226.88 (talk) 05:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Personally I have no problem with controversy surrounding Keith Olbermann being included in his article. So, no, I'm not being POV here. And your assertion that any user who added controversial material about Olbermann would be banned is quite difficult to swallow. If one added it over and over without discussion that user might get a block, yes, but that would have nothing to do with left vs. right but rather with edit warring. If you have a problem with the Olbermann article then you should take it up over there - it's really not relevant to this discussion.

As I said above there's no question Beck is controversial and that fact should be discussed here, it's just that there's probably a better way to do that than having one huge controversy section at the end. If you have suggestions about how to go about that please opine.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

because media matters is the only reliable source in reporting. how about anything written by fair and mmfa don't count as "reliable sources." glenn is just as controversial in what he says as the next person. but ever second word glenn says has to be scrutinized by liberals. shall i add what aim has to say about keith?Nicholas.tan (talk) 22:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, what the hell. Why is the controversy section gone? Glenn Beck is a controversial figure, thus should have a controversy section. If someone feels there's too much left/right political bias in the section, then let's talk about and work on making it more neutral. But just deleting a relevant section like this isn't an option. And if you feel like Olbermann deserves a controversy section, make your point for it on the Keith Olbermann talk page, not here. Or better yet, do the research and add a controversy section to the Keith Olbermann article yourself. Jesus Christ, let's stop being children. 128.192.21.125 (talk) 21:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Please see below. The crit section has been moved to the talk page so that the items may be integrated into the article. Criticism sections are a bad idea, and really have no place in quality writing. The criticisms should be interspersed throughout the article for better flow, amongst other reasons. This article needs a great deal of work, the crit section being just one of its many problems. If you feel so inclined, any help would be greatly appreciated. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 21:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

News with tears

He's cries so much on TV and he's infamous for it. Shouldn't it be a part of this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.202.50 (talk) 21:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

"manifistation of his ego?" err, What? --70.142.53.178 (talk) 03:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Barack Obama is famous for using a teleprompter, why is that not mentioned? Oh wait... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.30.75.229 (talk) 09:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Using a teleprompter is something every president does as well as most leaders of other countries. It is not noteworthy, and should be assumed (you know in the same we you don't note that Obama breathes oxygen). A political talk show host crying is never done and highly noteworthy when it happens.

Easy: because that's not what's he's famous for. He's famous for being a president of USA. He may have certain other characteristics that are worth mentioning -- such as the fact that he's married, or his foreign language skills -- but those are not what he's famous for. And using a teleprompter is probably not even in the category of "other noteworthy stuff". Well, maybe if the teleprompter had a blue dress, maybe then it might change -- but so far, it hasn't happened. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 18:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Every time I go to the Obama artilce I get confused, I cannot tell if I am looking at the article for Barack Obama or Jesus Christ.--E tac (talk) 12:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Easy. Take a look at Jesus Christ. See the lack of photos? That's how you can tell them apart. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 18:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Is it really so note-worthy that he cries? I think if no one in his professional history every once saw him brush a tear from his eyes, that would be something noteworthy. As someone who knew little about him before reading this article, I get the impression that he's simply passionate/emotional (?) about the things he takes seriously. The fact that people need to resort to using someone's core emotions against them just shows a lack of "good dirt" on Beck to me. Girasoleil (talk) 07:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Possibly. Does he cry unusually much? If he cries roughly the same amount than, say, Helen Thomas does, then it probably isn't. But if there's something unusual about his crying -- something so unusual as to be repeatedly mentioned in lasting media --, then it probably is worth mentioning. Subject to WP:UNDUE, naturally. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 18:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's not be retarded. Not crying is not noteworthy, and crying in itself is also not noteworthy. However, when a political pundit repeatedly breaks into tears on his show, it is worth noting as an aspect of his broadcast persona. Good, bad, or neutral, the overwhelming majority of talk show hosts do not cry on their programs. Therefore, we should add it to the article. We're not calling him a crybaby, we're just noting that he gets so passionate/emotional on his program that he sometimes starts crying. 128.192.21.125 (talk) 21:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

#3?

Shouldn't we add the fact that he's #3 on FNC now?PokeHomsar (talk) 21:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

and that he was #1 on CNN —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicholas.tan (talk • contribs) 22:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Semi-Protect?

Should this page be semi-protected? Not sure what the criteria for that is, but there seems to be a lot of vandalism. E2a2j (talk) 02:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, just requested. Nicholas.tan (talk) 03:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Links within quotations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Quotations

"Linking
Unless there is a good reason to do so, Wikipedia avoids linking from within quotes, which may clutter the quotation, violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged, and mislead or confuse the reader."
Anarchangel (talk)

You are correct. I'll go one further and say that almost all or probably all of the quotes should be removed from the article. Wikipedia is not the place for quotes, we have a sister project, Wikiquote, where all quotes belong. L0b0t (talk) 13:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

My impression is that the mere existence of wikiquote doesn't mean all quotes in articles get vacuumed out. --kizzle (talk) 04:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Spelling error

Marriage is spelled wrong (Marraige). Can someone with permission update this?

Fixed. --Smashville^talk 14:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Glenn Beck vs Glenn Beck on Wikipedia

Is this the same man? A couple of years ago I came here to view page and steal some (horrible) quotes for a flier to hand out at one of his shows. The bio now seems to have been written by himself. Will not come here for information anymore. When I find the printout of the page from then I will type it up and send to y'all. I'm not paranoid after all. One can't find truth anywhere anymore. RainM (talk) 02:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Peace, RainRainM (talk) 02:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

No need to retype, it looked like this two years ago. Morphh ^(talk) 2:55, 07 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you linked to the past article. Interesting that what was noteworthy about Beck then (Michael Moore, Hurricane Katrina, etc.) are long gone memories. That's why specific criticisms should not be included. Who cares if Beck was critical of Michael Moore 2 years ago, and that some left wing organization made a complaint about it. It's useless fluff. Bytebear (talk) 18:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Your argument falls horribly short given that the President of the United States is a vastly more important figure than a filmmaker like Michael Moore. Making incredibly controversial statements about the President, to the point that Fox News goes to the apparently unprecedented (for them) length of issuing a statement that Beck's statements represent only his own opinion and not the network's, is something that won't likely be forgotten. But even aside from that, the notion that no specific criticisms should be included is crazy. If we went by that standard, then this article will always look like it could've been an official bio on foxnews.com. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 07:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Why isn't this mentioned?

http://www.snopes.com/computer/internet/clunkers.asp Glenn Beck promoted an urban legend on his news show. YVNP (talk) 03:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC) WP:RS aside, because I can't be bothered, there are pages and pages of cites for this (Yahoo search for 'Glenn Beck CARS.gov'), the vast majority of which swallowed Beck's version of the story whole. Here's one that didn't, with info that could be useful. Anarchangel (talk) 04:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

because it isn't noteworthy. It's just another trivial example. If it were covered in a NPOV way, with reaction covered by Beck of his producers, I could see it covered on his show page, or perhaps on the Cash for Clunkers page. Bytebear (talk) 18:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I am an Australian and don't have any strong feelings on America's domestic politics or it's pundits. However, We've started getting Glenn Beck and Fox News recently and his on air antics i find intruiging. When I saw this article, I was shocked that it makes no mention of his at least unconventional on-air style. After reading this talk page I can see why. It is you, Bytebear, who has obviously stripped this article off all of the content that would give a layperson who has never seen Mr Becks show an accurate and reliable representation of what that person could expect. You have accused dedicated, well-meaning wikipedians who have made meaningful, important and referenced edits of 'cherry picking' when it is clearly you who has cherry picked which parts of Mr Beck's career you do not want wikipedians to know about. You have scrubbed the article of almost anything you feel casts Mr Beck in a bad light and not once have you argued to include more content in it. As I mentioned I do not care what happens with regard to American media, but I do care whether Wikipedia can maintain a NPOV. Your treatment of this article, Bytebear, is deplorable and if you had any integrity you would immediately distance yourself from it. ScottMacGregor1985 (talk) 07:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually I have done very little to the article itself. I will remind you to assume good faith. As to Mr. Becks "unconventional on-air style" his style is not particularly unconventional by politcal pundits on both the left and right (see Bill O'Reilly and Kieth Olberman). Furthermore any mention of his on-air personality would better be served on the article that talks about his show, rather than this article. As to cherry picking, if I were accused of such behavior, I would be asking for inclusion of all sorts of pro-Beck moments, of which there are just as many as negative ones. You and others are singling out specific incidents for inclusion, not me. Finally, NPOV does not mean we must include negative material. It means that the material we include is presented in a neutral way. The Time magazine article inclusion is a good example of that. It was originally included with text that included POV and a non-neutral analysis of the content of that source. I read the article, and summarized the content for inclusion in this article in a factual, neutral way. I hope you can now see the difference in the two approaches. Bytebear (talk) 16:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Also see WP:DUE. Just becasue there is a source for some "material" does not mean it has to be included in the article. How widely has the "material" been covered by RSs? If it has been widely "covered", then present the citations in here and let the community decide if it rises to the level worthy of inclusion. This ends this PSA :) Cheers :) --Tom (talk) 19:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Barak comment

His "barak hates white culture" is the most significant thing he has ever done I had never heard of him before these comments on national television.

I doubt many people had.

If most people know of him from these comments, how can they be insignificant?

I will bet visits to this wiki page have double since he made the statements, as such they are probably the most significant thing about him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.102.94.130 (talk) 00:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC) — 70.102.94.130 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Such traffic or apparent interest in Beck is not usable as a measure for notability. Today much interest can be easily created by bloggers, e-mail lists, twitter, and other methods, which are unusable sources for wikipedia. The measure for wikipedia is third party reliable sources. We measure those sources with the weight of other events in Beck's life and consider if it is part of his notability and worthy of inclusion in a persons biography. As far as it being his most notable thing he has ever done, that's ridiculous. He's a NYT bestselling author, has a highly watched TV show on Fox News, and he's a nationally syndicated talk-radio show. It wouldn't even have been news unless he was already a notable person. Morphh ^(talk) 13:17, 08 August 2009 (UTC)

Morphh ?? Are you being serious ? Calling the president a racist on National Television is not Notable ? If you think so then you shouldn't be in charge of deciding what's notable and what's not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.233.94.31 (talk) 10:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC) — 41.233.94.31 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I didn't say that it wasn't notable, please reread my statement. It is notable, but just because it is notable news does not make it part of Beck's notability - there is a difference. Wikipedia is not tabloid journalism. Beck has many many comments that are notable, both good and bad, and each statement has context, requiring a representation of both points of view if included. We have rules on the weight given to any particular event, comment, or content in relation to other content. What I'm saying is that it doesn't matter what you or I think is part of his notability (or even notable news). We have to show it by sufficient reliable third party sources covering the news. These are Wikipedia's requirements, which are strict for the biography of a living person. If you read the discussion above, you'll see that I'm fine with the inclusion of this particular statement, but we're still discussing the best presentation as it relates to Beck's notability and what examples to include. Morphh ^(talk) 12:47, 09 August 2009 (UTC)

• The IP editor was way off base from the start. He said "I had never heard of him before these comments on national television. I doubt many people had." Just because you hadn't heard of him, you think most people hadn't. The fact that his show on FNC alone garners more viewers than anything MSNBC or CNN (his former employer) alone puts on should disprove that. The books and the #3 ranked syndicated radio show just make that statement more laughable. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Glenn Beck's Yale History

Please remove the reference to an unnamed Yale professor saying "Beck, you belong here." There is no further substantiation for this suggestion that Glenn Beck would have been successful as a Yale undergraduate. Timcorn (talk) 11:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Well it could certainly be improved by adding some context from the article in which it is quoted, where it says, "it was an experience that gave the high school grad a new sense of intellectual worth." Bytebear (talk) 18:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of anecdotal incidents

I have removed several paragraphs of cherry picked anecdotal incidents that present a leading POV. There is nothing noteworthy about these events, and they are all written to make Beck look like conspiracy theorist wacko. I have removed them for their lack of notability and their leading nature, not to mention the issues with the more strict issues dealing with biographies of living persons. If you think one or more of these paragraphs should remain, please give specific reason why the incident is noteworthy and how it relates to the overall biography of Glen Beck. Bytebear (talk) 17:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The items I have included in this article are not POV or unnoteworthy. There is nothing "cherry picked" about them. They are properly sourced. That Beck has repeated on a major mainstream cable newschannel a conspiracy theory that is largely relegated to the hard, ultra-right in America (i.e. FEMA facilities turning into concentration camps) is certainly noteworthy. That Beck has written a foreward for, emphatically endorsed and handed out a book by a notorious conspiracist and John Birch Society supporter is certainly noteworthy, as is other conservatives' criticism of him doing so. I have no idea whether Beck is a "conspiracy theorist wacko" (your words), since I don't know whether he believes the things he says. I don't seen how Wikipedia:BLP applies to what I've added. You need to explain to me why these items are not noteworthy before you take it upon yourself unilaterally sanitize this article. --Hardindr (talk) 19:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course it's cherry picking. Beck has done hundreds if not thousands of shows on a wide range of topics, and you have chosen topics that in your own words, "a conspiracy theory that is largely relegated to the hard, ultra-right in America." That is cherry picking a topic. And your obsession with labeling Scousen a "Conspiracy theorist" is also cherry picking those descriptors, which other editors have already agreed. The burden of proof does not lie with me. And if you know the BLP policy, you should know that that burden is far more strict than with other articles. Now, if you want to discuss each paragraph, then by all means, but I see nothing of value in them. Bytebear (talk) 21:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Not commenting on all aspects, but certainly some of that material has been here for awhile. Beck is a very controversial figure (abnormally so, even for a pundit), and it's inevitable that we will discuss some of the more notable controversies here. "More notable" is determined by those which have received the most coverage. The thing with Keith Ellison was widely discussed and I think therefore worth including, as was his 9/12 Project show and the on-air tears (mocked not only by Colbert, but also a fellow Fox News anchor). One can debate about what belongs and does not belong, but it would not be in keeping with WP:NPOV if we didn't cover some of the most noteworthy controversies with respect to Beck. I would make the same argument over at an article like Michael Moore, incidentally.

Of course, we also need to cover the basics about Beck's life, popularity of his shows and books, etc. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

So you think 1) a comedy bit mocking his emotion, 2) a FEMA comment in one show, 3) a comment from a press secretary about a book endorsement and 4) a disagreement with Whoopie Goldburg on the View are all noteworthy controversies? Seriously? Bytebear (talk) 21:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

David Frum is a former speech writer for GWB and a prominent and incluential conservative. His criticism of Beck is definetely noteworthy, even more so because of its harshness. --Hardindr (talk) 22:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Obviously I did not say that, and anyway it's not about what you think or I think, it's about attention received in secondary sources. Being mocked on The Colbert Report can be notable, especially when Shepard Smith also mocks you, and especially when the incident is reported all over the place (surely you know this—the crying bit was widely, widely covered and it seems utterly appropriate to mention it here, indeed a huge number of people probably know him only for this incident). The FEMA comment got some attention but inclusion of that is certainly debatable, as is inclusion of criticism from David Frum (though he's a prominent conservative, obviously, which is worth considering, and by the way he was a speechwriter, not a press secretary). I had not heard of the thing with The View until I came here and have no idea how I feel about that.

If you're willing to discuss the specifics of these here then that is good. Again, what matters in terms of evaluating this is the amount of discussion of various incidents in secondary sources and the overall neutrality of the article. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

So you think that a mocking video or comedy skit about Obama would be fitting as well? I know that, "Barack the Magic Negro" got a lot of play on Rush Limbaugh and other conservative circles. Why is no mention of that on Obama's bio? The simple answer is, it isn't noteworthy. And neither is the material in question here. Bytebear (talk) 22:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It's better to structure this as a conversation, rather than a series of "what about this?" questions. No, I don't think that that video should be mentioned in Obama's article. You'll notice that I did not say that the Colbert video should necessarily be mentioned in this article—I said "being mocked on The Colbert Report can be notable," and pointed out that I think the whole "crying" incident should be mentioned in some fashion. Maybe Colbert's response should not be included, I'm certainly open to that. I'm willing to work with you here. No need to reply to this (unless you want to) as I'll engage with the conversation continuing below. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't have an "obsession" with labeling Skousen a conspiracy theorist, beacuse that is what he is known for, besides being a major supporter of the John Birch Society. I'm working on pulling together the necessary cites to have the article on him reflect this, particularly in the lead. It is irrelevent that Beck has done thousands of shows on a wide range of topic. It isn't irrelevent or unnoteworthy when a major figure on popular mainstream cable news televeision show repeats fringe conspiracy theories, or promotes the book of a notorious conspiracist. If Keith Olbermann or Rachael Maddow got up on their show one day and said, "You know what? I can't debunk these theories out their that 'Bush did 9/11'! Isn't that funny? Oh, and by the way, this book by David Icke, its "divinely inspired!" that would be noteworthy and definitely worthy of inclusion in their respective wikipedia entries. I think what I have posted about Beck is well within the BLP policy, though you are free to disagree. Do you want to move this to an RFC? --Hardindr (talk) 22:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

and you don't see that as being a wee bit POV? Pushing an agenda that Beck is wrapped up in conspiracy theories. I doubt you will get too far in the Skousen article either, since his theories were well regarded at the time. In fact, other than the category on his article "conspiracy theorists" (which I think is misplaced POV), there is no mention of him being such in the entire article (at least last time I checked- I am sure that will change soon). I am sure there are left wing sources to the contrary, and I am sure you will try to change the article to slant it's POV toward your own impression of him. Fortunately Wikipedia has rules and guidelines to thwart such behavior. Consensus has already proven that your pet name for Skousen has been shot down. But I cannot stop you from perusing your agenda. Good luck. Bytebear (talk) 22:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

"POV" is not an excuse for removing legitimate and well-sourced items from an article. Skousen's ideas about David Rockefeller and other "insiders" running both the US and the USSR were not "well regarded" by anyone, now or in the past, except by members of the John Birch Society. Your "left wing" remark reveals your own POV issues. I find this tiring. Do you want to start an RFC or should I? --Hardindr (talk) 22:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not removing them because they are POV, but because they are not noteworthy and by cherry picking only certain events, they present a POV. You putting up non-noteworthy items is just an attempt at pushing your POV. We have already established consensus on the use of "conspiracy theorist" to describe Skousen, but if you want to bring more people to the discussion, by all means, just don't cherry pick them like you do your facts. Bytebear (talk) 22:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I will add that if and when you find references to Skousen's supposed conspiracy theories (meaning you need a third party reliable source calling them as such), they should be presented on that page, not this one. Bytebear (talk) 22:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, let me get this straight. You do not regard the fact that a widely watched host of an opinion show on a major, mainstream cable news channel promoted a conspiracy theory that is believed by only those in the U.S. militia movement and other sectors of the hard right in America noteworthy? If Ed Shultz looked straight into the camera on his television program one day and said, "You know, I think Barrack Obama is controled by a Zionist cabal from the South Side of Chicago, and this book by Eustace Mullins is really great!" you wouldn't think it would be worthy of inclusion in his wikipedia article? As for Skousen, who is this royal "we" on Wikipedia that you speak of? I've put some cites into the lead of the Skousen article to accurately reflect his views, and we'll see what other editors think. I'll go to a local academic library in the next week or two to get some more. But Skousen really isn't the issue here. What will it take for you to stop sanitizing this article? --Hardindr (talk) 23:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Starting over

Essentially nothing above was very helpful, so let's try to start fresh. Bytebear you disagree with some of the things that are currently in the article. Why don't you specify what those are below, what you propose to do about them, and then we can discuss that. I know nothing about this fellow Skousen, but this is not his article, and therefore not the place to discuss him. Let's leave that one (fairly small) issue to the side for now.

Both of you have edit warred over this article. If that continues you'll likely both end up blocked. Instead, let's try calmly discussing the matter here. That requires remaining open to compromise, assuming good faith of other editors (please note that phrases like "unilaterally sanitize" and "slant it's POV toward your own impression of him"—each used by one of you above—very much fail to assume good faith), and working toward consensus. It might be easier to come to agreement than both of you think, so why not give it a shot? Bytebear perhaps you can lead off by stating your problems with the article as it currently exists. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok. let's start with something simple. Why is a debate with Whoopie Goldberg noteworthy? From what I see of the sources, it was some "rock jocks" in the UK that reported on this? How are they notable? They certainly are not mainstream. Bytebear (talk) 23:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I actually agree with you on this. I don't care if the View paragraph is in the article or not. --Hardindr (talk) 23:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

ok, done. How about the issues unrelated to Skousen? Let's start with the spoof on Beck's emotional outbursts? Is it noteworthy to mention them at all, let alone a spoof about them? Bytebear (talk) 23:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't put this into the article, but I think it is noteworthy. It was widely mentioned in the media, and Beck even received criticism from fellow employees at the Fox network. I have no opinion as to whether Beck's outburst was spontaneous or acting. --Hardindr (talk) 23:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Good call on the View removal, I agree. I'm going offline for awhile now but will check back in on this later. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, I do not like your threat made here [10], User:Bytebear. You are the person the one violating the 3RR rule, not me. Are you an administrator? Do you have the power to ban people? --Hardindr (talk) 23:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Would you prefer a formal warning on your talk page? Bytebear (talk) 01:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you an administrator? What powers do you have? Should I warn you on your talk page for your disruptive editing? --Hardindr (talk) 01:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I haven't looked at this to closely, but I usually like to see this kind of "stuff" added MAYBE to the article covering the subject's book/show/radioprogram/wahtever. Is this "stuff" really that relevant to the bio? How noteworthy is it really? How widely covered by the main stream media was it? Just because you have a citation from some taking head or biased web site does not impress me or mean that it must be included. Also, please save "you want to scrub and whitewash the article" whinning, because that also will not impress me. Anyways, just a first thought, cheers, --Tom (talk) 00:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Your comments are not helpful. If you look at the article history, you can see the cites I have provided. Do you have some specific suggestions for this matter? --Hardindr (talk) 01:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I have specific suggestions for you, but don't need extra drama right now, beer guzzling and golf call, maybe later. --Tom (talk) 15:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I am at work until July 6th, and then on away from my computer on vacation until July 14th. However, I will be back. --Hardindr (talk) 06:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Starting over again

Agreement over the bit involving The View was easy. What is the next specific content issue we need to address? --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 10:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I see Bytebear has presented his initial thoughts on this controversy below. I will respond when I get back from vacation on July 16th. I beg everyone's patience in the meantime. --Hardindr (talk) 15:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I am back from vacation, but more issues have come up in the real world. I will respond next week, no latter than July 23. My apologies for the delay. --Hardindr (talk) 18:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I want to thank everyone for their patience. My initial responses are below. --Hardindr (talk) 02:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

An editor added a bit about the Obama/Gates issue. This is the problem with adding non-Noteworthy sections in to the article. It leads to more non-Noteworthy items to be added. If we add a section on every little thing Beck says or does because we want to push a POV against him, it will be bloated. There are articles dealing with these issues already. We don't need to repeat them here. If the issue isn't noteworthy enough to mention in the Gates article or incident article, it does not deserve mention here. and that goes for the other two issues mentioned below. Not noteworthy. Bytebear (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, anybody want to comment on the text in the section below? --Hardindr (talk) 15:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I would think that videos are primary sources. It would be nice to get secondary sources for criticism. I'd avoid media matters if possible. If it's controversial enough to be in the article, I would think we shouldn't have to stretch to such partisan sources for the basis of inclusion, but they could be useful as a supporting reference. I think too much weight is given to the crying bit. I would give it one sentence (two at most) in the "Media persona and commentary" section. No need to quote all these people, just describe that he sometimes chokes up on air and that he's been mocked by fellow commentators for his emotional style. In the second paragraph, I don't understand how this is controversial or why it is important. Why is it part of his notability and what makes it a unique example. Morphh ^(talk) 15:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, the media matters columns just help to establish what the reactions of fellow Fox News employees was to Beck's crying incident. They aren't being used to present the columnist's opinion of Beck. The second paragraph is controversial because Beck promoted a conspiracy theory that is the sole providence of the Christian Patriot movement and other elements of the ultra-right on a major mainstream cable television news network. This is unheard of in the mainstream media. --Hardindr (talk) 19:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

From reading the sources, it looks to me like the second paragraph is WP:SYN. Morphh ^(talk) 19:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

How so? --Hardindr (talk) 20:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Each source only goes to support a part of the sentence referenced. Like sources to a book, or that he had a book on his website, or that he looked at the theory. But I don't see that the sources tie this all together as written and as you describe. It looks like a synthesis of published material. Morphh ^(talk) 21:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Do I need to go through and copy edit so that each source only refers to a single sentence? I'm not following you here. Would the portion about Skousen be more appropriate down in the book section, where it is mentioned that Beck wrote the Forward to The 5,000 Year Leap? --Hardindr (talk) 23:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, ok.. source #11 I think is what is tying this together. I must have missed that one. It is not written in a way that expresses how this relates to Beck's notability or even what it is trying to get at. The first two sentences discuss how he is dismissing it, yet it is intended to say he is promoting them? Beck says he brought them up to debunk them. How is this controversial? In any case, I don't see this as having enough attention to give it any place in the article. Morphh ^(talk) 0:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The first sentence of the second paragraph does not say that he is dismissing the conspiracy theory about FEMA camps; it states that he tried to do so and was unable (I have changed the sentence to be more clear). The second sentence states that denounced the conspiracy theory later. It is notable that a major television figure on a mainstream cable network said that he had attempted to debunk a ridiculous and outlandish conspiracy theory that is only believed on the hard-right in America (and has been debunked by others years before) and failed is certainly notable. --Hardindr (talk) 00:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

"It is notable that a major television figure on a mainstream cable network said that he had attempted to debunk a ridiculous and outlandish conspiracy theory that is only believed on the hard-right in America (and has been debunked by others years before) and failed is certainly notable." You need some reliable sources that make this connection, otherwise it's OR. Also, even if we have several sources, we need to show that it is part of his notability (not that it is notable). I'm ok with first paragraph of information, but would not support inclusion of the second. Morphh ^(talk) 0:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Many conspiracists (on their blogs and message boards) found it notable, including this one [11]. I think the Krugman column counts towards notability. But, I must admit, that frankly I'm surprised that I'm having this conversation about a major news figure pushing an absurd conspiracy theory into the mainstream news and whether it is notable or not. --Hardindr (talk) 01:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Just seems weird. Beck says he brought it to mainstream news to debunk it, not push or promote it. So it seems the criticism is that he didn't debunk it fast enough? Is this really about Glen Beck? His research team likely did the investigating, so it's certainly more a Program thing, not a bibliography thing. I apologize, I'm not trying to be difficult, I just don't quite understand the overall controversy. Of course blogs and message boards are not acceptable sources, particularly from those that promote conspiracy theories. Morphh ^(talk) 2:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

(Undent) Beck stated that he (I don't know if that includes a research team, if he has one, or his staff or whatever) looked into the alleged FEMA concentration camp rumors and could not disprove them. This gives the impression that he was giving his support to this long standing, fringe conspiracy theory, although Beck now claims otherwise. People in the mainstream news media, as almost an unbreakable rule, do not give these easily disprovable theories any credance. If that is not notable, I don't know what is. --Hardindr (talk) 17:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Disputed parts of TV section

After a March 2009 taping of Beck's FOX News show on which he appeared to choke up on air, wiping tears from his eyes and explaining, "I'm sorry. I just love my country, and I fear for it," Beck was mocked by fellow FOX personality Shepard Smith and Comedy Central satirist Stephen Colbert, the latter going as far as to imitate Beck, saying "I'm sorry. I just love Glenn Beck's sanity. And I fear for it." Regular Fox News political commentator Dennis Miller remarked that Beck was "a shaky cat." The New York Times ran a feature piece on Beck later in the month, quoting an interview with Beck in which he identified himself with Peter Finch's "mad prophet of the airwaves" from the 1976 film Network, Howard Beale, and continually noting Beck's reputation as a performer rather than as a journalist.

On the March 2, 2009 Fox & Friends program, Beck claimed that he had tried and was unable to debunk rumors that FEMA facilities were to be converted into concentration camps, a longstanding conspiracy theory that has circulated in the U.S. militia movement since the 1990s. Later, on the April 6, 2009 Glenn Beck Program, Beck denounced the rumor. After the airing of Beck's March 13, 2009 Glenn Beck Program Special "We Surround Them," Beck was criticized by former George W. Bush speech writer and conservative commentator David Frum for distributing copies of conspiracist and John Birch Society supporter Cleon Skousen's book The 5,000 Thousand Year Leap, in which Beck wrote the foreward for the 2008 edition.

Beck had previously promoted an excerpt from Skousen's 1958 book, The Naked Communist on his website.

Crying

Ok, the crying thing. Yes, he has been mocked for his tearful commentary, both by comedians and commentaries, but unless there is any third party commentary on the comedy bit, I would remove it. As for the NYTimes article, I think I would rather have a general overview summary of the article, with author acknowledgment. The current statements are POV, and could be better fleshed out. I am ok with that source, but we cannot cherry pick comments to present a conclusion. I would rather focus on the Howard Beale stuff and not the crying stuff, particularly when it is a self description. Bytebear (talk) 18:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the paragraph as it is currently written, although we could note that the breakdown isn't known to have been genuine or acting. These are possible third party cites for Beck's alleged breakdown [12] [13], if only to substantiate other members in the media's reaction to it (including fellow Fox News employees Dennis Miller and Shephard Smith), not the columnist's opinion of Beck. --Hardindr (talk) 02:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I have a problem with only sourcing Media Matters. I would say find better sources before continuing. Bytebear (talk) 20:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I think using Media Matters is appropriate here. Media Matters offers reliable reporting regarding what people in the media say, including video/audio recordings and relevent transcripts, and they also run corrections. I am not saying that the opinion of the columnist should be included in the article, just the underlying facts in the column detailing other people in the medias reaction to Becks dramatics (real or staged). Other media watchdog groups, like MEMRI are used on wikipedia as sources. --Hardindr (talk) 20:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Transcripts violate WP:RS since it is a first party source. You need third party sources. If Media Matters is presenting an opinion on the issue, or a conclusion, then we need to look at that, but just saying "Beck cries a lot" in and of itself is not notable. And re-reading the section, it is just reiterating one instance, and some people who have made fun of his crying. It really falls under trivial.Bytebear (talk) 03:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, the two columns I proposed aren't transcripts, so they aren't first party sources. The column notes various media figures, including fellow Fox News employees, reactions to Beck's alleged breakdown on TV. --Hardindr (talk) 09:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

And you know my opinion on Media Matters, so I will leave it on that. Let's just say, the articles move themselves into a first party source as they are known to be hostile to conservatives, and the articles add themseleves to the list of reactions. Bytebear (talk) 16:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think your wrong. By your logic, any article published on a conservative or liberal website/magazine could not be used in a wikipedia article. Anyone else want to offer an opinion? --Hardindr (talk) 20:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Hardindr; Glenn Beck's crying on air is absolutely notable for his personal article. It was widely discussed in the media, and is probably literally what he's most famous for. Much more so than some of the other material in the article. It's not POV to say that he cried on air; to say it is POV is to assume that crying on air is bad, and I'm sure some of his audience would disagree with that. aubrey (talk) 06:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Beck crying on the air should be included. If it is not included, perhaps something general about his repeated emotional outbursts while on TV or the radio should take its place (i.e., the "Get off my phone!" incident on his radio show, which was covered by several reputable newspapers across the world). The fact that Glenn Beck cries/screams/is very emotional on the air certainly differentiates him from other political commentators, and is a primary issue discussed by his critics. MichaelLNorth (talk) 16:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

FEMA

I think this whole section is just a fluff of POV to try to connect him to conspiracy theories and needs to be dropped. Bytebear (talk) 18:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if you would call it "POV", but I think it is at least a little biased that someone whose uploaded pictures are all of Mormon temples is continually deleting the controversy section from an outspoken Mormon. Just because an outspoken member of your religion is controversial does not mean you should be able to remove his notably controversial statements and views from the public. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mto880 (talk • contribs) 05:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Please review the section WP:AGF. Your comments are unproductive and inappropriate. Bytebear (talk) 18:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with you. This section is not POV, and has citations from reliable sources. I don't know whether Glenn Beck believes in conspiracy theories and the paragraph as written doesn't allege that he does. However, when hosts of highly rated shows on mainstream cable news networks repeat conspiracy theories from the hard right, it is worthy of inclusion in their wikipedia article. --Hardindr (talk) 02:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Not really. It goes more to cherry picking an incident to present a conclusion. I goes more to notability than reliability. Bytebear (talk) 20:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I guess we have different opinions as to what notable means. When a person repeats fringe conspiracy theories from the Christian Patriot movement on a popular television program on a major cable news network, it is notable. It a person on the left (like Rachel Maddow) looked into the camera and said, "I can't debunk these rumors about Bush/Cheney being behind 9/11, and enjoy this book from David Icke compliments of me," I think it would be notable. I feel like we are going in circles here. --Hardindr (talk) 19:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I would consider Rachel Maddow's statements not notable either. Glenn Beck comments on a lot of things, and those things change every day. To pick this above all others in a plethora of opinion and commentary is POV. Bytebear (talk) 03:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Do any other editors have an opinion on this issue? We aren't making any progress here. --Hardindr (talk) 09:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that Bytebear has no argument, and will never change his mind, regardless of what is presented to him. I say it's time to ignore Bytebear, he's completely POV, his POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.213.215 (talk) 07:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I think this also [14] counts towards notabillity. --Hardindr (talk) 20:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

A controversy section or separate article MUST be created.

There are simply way too many notable, archived controversies coming from Glenn Beck. This article LIES by omitting massive amounts of information. All major political pundits on Wikipedia have controversy sections or separate articles, or at least mention controversies. A NPOV controversy section or separate article MUST be created.

I've read this talk page, which suggests that controversies be spread out over the article, but there is NO mention of any controversy whatsoever.

Since all other articles on pundits recognize controversy, I only conclude that this article has slipped under the radar and has been controlled by partisan hacks for an obscene amount of time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Novalord2 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds very close to a personal attack on article editors. Take this as a polite warning and assume good faith. Morphh ^(talk) 0:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a proposal for a WP:POVFORK to me. Bytebear (talk) 00:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

How about one compromise; I added back the Keith Ellison question. Of all of Beck's notorious on-air moments, this one appears to be the most notable. It was called incendiary by the New York Times, was singled out by Muslim groups in protesting Beck's inclusion on GMA, it is featured on Ellison's own wiki page and Beck admitted it was one of the most "poorly-worded questions ever."--The lorax (talk) 01:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Not really a compromise to try to slip in one non-Noteworthy incident. It also is more related to his show and not to him. Do you have more references than that? Was the incident covered by several analysts? Was it just spread around by a single AP source? This particular link violates WP:EL#Sites_requiring_registration. The particular incident isn't the focus of the article, which also shows it to be less than noteworthy. The other source you cite is just a transcript of the show, which is not a third party source, making your conclusion WP:OR. Do you have a reference that explicitly talks about this incident, or states your conclusion that this is somehow controversial? Why do you think this incident is noteworthy? Why is it more controversial than, say, his commentary toward Michael Moore? Bytebear (talk) 02:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Bytebear can claim that any of the numerous controversial statements he has made are not noteworthy, but together they are the single largest reason why Beck himself is noteworthy. Whether you think that Beck's statements are "what nobody else has the guts to say" or that they're crazy and offensive, these statements are why he is known. Having no mention of these statements in general, if not the statements themselves with appropriate references (i.e., organizations that act as "watchdogs" for Fox News controversies and inaccuracies, i.e., Media Matters, The Huffington Post, Daily Kos) leaves out the single most relevant characteristic of the person whom this article is about. Perhaps including individual controversies is seen by Bytebear as WP:POV, but certainly omitting or downplaying the entire topic of controversies and controversial statements by Beck is an even greater instance of WP:POV. Obviously these general statements need to be supported with references, so Congressman Bob Inglis telling his constituents that Beck is "trading on fear" would be a good start. MichaelLNorth (talk) 17:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The Washington Post had a pretty thorough analysis of the incident: "Until he starts trading bons mots with Diane Sawyer, Beck remains best known for what surely is his most embarrassing moment. It happened in mid-November, when Beck invited the country's first Muslim congressman, newly elected Democrat Keith Ellison of Minnesota, on the show"

[...]

"Three groups have written to ABC urging the network to keep Beck off "GMA," the Associated Press reported yesterday. "That blatant anti-Arab, anti-Muslim bias has been given credibility on a larger news show is something that concerns us," Arab American Institute spokeswoman Jennifer Kauffman told the AP."

"When "The Daily Show" re-aired the clip of Beck's question to Ellison, host Jon Stewart followed up with this thought: "Finally, a guy who says what people who aren't thinking are thinking."--The lorax (talk) 03:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The article might be good to pull some general information from, but it is hardly focusing on this incident, again proving my point that this is not notable. Bytebear (talk) 03:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

There's a lot of good information from that WaPo piece. Here's another article mentioning the Ellison incident: "Mr. Beck has often roused protests from the left, and never more so than when he interviewed Representative Keith Ellison of Minnesota after he was newly elected as the first Muslim congressman."--The lorax (talk) 04:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I already discussed the NYTimes article. It fails WP:EL because it requires log in. It also does not focus on the event as the sole subject of the article. Don't you see the problem. You are picking examples from various articles and creating focus on an incident which none of your sources focus. You are researching and picking and choosing what parts of the articles to focus on. It takes more than just pulling out quotes and putting them together. In fact, that is not allowed under Wikipedia rules on WP:OR. I will be more specific. You start your paragraph with the statement, "Beck's penchant for speaking his opinions candidly has sometimes spurred controversy." But, none of your sources make that assertion directly. They are not articles about his "controversial" nature. That is your assessment of the sources. In other words, original research. Bytebear (talk) 04:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Without commenting on the specific info and whether it belongs in the article or not...failing WP:EL in no way prevents an otherwise reliable source from being used as a source. --Onorem♠Dil 04:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, but one issue is notability, which means that reliable sources should be prevalent. That it is difficult to find reliable sources that meet the standards of WP:EL goes to show the lack of notability in this case. If the incident is notable, there should be a plethora of acceptable sources to choose from. Bytebear (talk) 04:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

This incident has been documented many times though in numerous reliable sources: In Time, at least two NYT articles, the Washington Post article, The Daily Show et al. Nobody would argue its place in Keith Ellison's article, why can't we say the same for Beck's article? Also, as opposed to the "sometimes spurring controversy" line, how about verbatim the NYT's line: "Mr. Beck has often roused protests from the left." I'm not trying to cherry pick, I'm just trying to include obvious missing parts of Beck's career that are absent from the article.--The lorax (talk) 05:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The incident is covered in the Ellison article because it is about Ellison and his political views as explored through Beck's interview. It is not about Beck or his views. Beck interviews hundreds if not thousands of people. The articles you cite are not specifically about the incident, but use it as examples. We can discuss the overall concepts of the articles in question (as I did with the Time article- which by the way does not mention Ellison by name, another whack at your notability claim), but we do not need to give undue weight to this or any other specific incident. It is being used as a POV wedge to make Beck look bad, (which none of the articles are doing by the way). That is where the original research comes in. You want to conclude an aspect of Beck from this incident that no article concludes. BTW, I cannot read the NYTimes article, so I have no way to verify your quote, but when is it noteworthy that a conservative commentator garners criticism from the left? But that is not what you asserted. Your claim said nothing about who criticized him, showing your own (not so) subtle POV that he is controversial, but really, he isn't, except to the left (which is to be expected and a given). Bytebear (talk) 06:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

1) Glenn Beck specifically says in the interview that he is uncomfortable with having a Muslim congressman, this does reflect on his views: "Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies. And I know you`re not. I`m not accusing you of being an enemy, BUT THATS THE WAY I FEEL (emphasis mine), and I think a lot of Americans will feel that way." Transcript here: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0611/14/gb.01.html 2) From the notability guide: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material" 3) Ellison is the only Muslim congressman, he does not need to be refereed to by name if his unique title is used. 4) The articles for Micheal Moore and Don Imus both have coverage of controversy. Micheal Moore's article mentions his comments regarding the RNC being moved because of Hurricane Gustav, which attracted attention primarily from conservatives. The Don Imus article has a giant controversy section that catalogs numerous racial slurs and offensive statements. Why is Glenn Beck different from this? The inclusion of a controversy article isn't destined to be POV. 5) Why is the statement from the Arab Institute not a reliable source? I've seen statements from the Anti-Defamation League used in Wikipedia articles all the time. novalord2 07:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

First of all, you cannot use a transcript as a source. Your commentary is WP:OR. Just by putting your emphasis on the quote, you are revealing youe own POV. Second, you are giving undue weight to a single issue. Beck has said a lot of things to a lot of people. What makes this particular incident more prominent than anything else he has said or done? It does not have more citations, or news covering it. Third, not mentioning the congressman by name does show that the article in question is not specifically about the incident. Fourth, "because they do it" is not a valid argument. If the Don Imus article has a criticism section, then maybe it needs to be changed. The Criticism of Bill O'Reilly article is already slated for deletion. Criticism sections are discouraged on Wikipedia. They create [[WP:{POVFORK]]s. They introduce WP:Trivia and cause bloat. Fifth, the issue is covered in the appropriate article, where it is pertinent. It is not noteworthy to Beck and we don't need to repeat it, and I am not really sure it even needs to be in that article. Bytebear (talk) 16:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't have citations or news covering it? Really? And explain to me how condemnation from the Arab Institute isn't noteworthy, unless you believe the opinion of the largest Arab advocacy group aren't significant enough this article. I emphasized the quote to show exactly where he reveals his opinion. Also, the criticism of Reilly is proposed to be MERGED into the main article by Aug 20, not deleted. The undue weight guidelines say this: "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents" and we do have several prominent publications.novalord2 21:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you absolutely can use a transcript as a source, and I quote Primary sources are sources very close to an event. For example, an account of a traffic accident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the accident. Other examples include archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews, the source cannot however, be the sole source, which in this case it is not.

Notability does not govern the content of articles in any way, shape, or form, it can never be used as a defense because no policy regarding said content exists, it is explicitly stated Notability is meant only for the decision regarding the creation of the article's topic, I reiterate, it cannot be used for the content of the article. WP:NOTE

Wikipedia does not discourage Criticism WP:CRIT, in fact, it has a policy dedicated solely to it, thus your statement is false.

Noteworthiness in no way dictates the inclusion of the content, if educated Criticism exists, it should be included under an appropriately named section and cited, not necessarily "Controversy", Wikipedia suggests the term "Reception" so as to include both negative and positive third party points of view, though it is correct for articles dedicated solely to the topic of Criticism to be considered non-notable and POV content. Trivia restricts mentioning a bevy of specific incidents as does Recentism, it is best that both positive and negative opinions be summarized intelligently without pedantic emphasis placed on an array of specific incidents, as is the case with most "Criticism" sections of articles. Revrant (talk) 22:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you are forgetting two issues. One is Undue Weight where we have todecide what should and should not be mentioned. No citation is specifically about this event, other than to comment generally about Beck's style as a commentator. And I believe that style is already mentioned in the article to a fair extent. To focus on this incident adds undue weight and POV to the character of Beck. Add to that that the congressman mentioned has stated that he didn't find the issue offensive at all. Add to that the issue of longevity. Someone complained that the criticisms of a year ago are not in the article, but it is clear that those criticisms are long forgotten. This issue will also be long forgotten in a year or two. It does not define Beck as a person. It is not noteworthy to his life. This article is not about his on-air persona, or about his interviews. It is about him. There is a big difference. I have said before that I am fine with mention of specifics in the show article, assuming sources are appropriately focused on his on-air personality and his show (example being the Time Magazine article). Oh, and although the compromise on the deletion of the O'Reilly criticism article was to merge some material, there are several comments about deleting the article outright. The compromise is about not trowing the baby out with the bathwater, but the majority of editors feel that most of the criticism items mentioned are not noteworthy, and should be deleted. Bytebear (talk) 22:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe the incidents do reflect him as a person. The current wikipedia article explains his political views in some detail. It is irrelevant and honestly questionable that Ellison wasn't offended (he says defensively that he does not deserve to be painted as an enemy in the interview). The publication of this in several newspaper, and the Arab Institutes efforts to prevent ABC from hiring Beck solely because of this incident make it notable to his life and career. I think also that you are being dismissive; the comments are obviously not forgotten if so many people have come here to argue for its inclusion. There a thousands of hits, although not certifiable enough for Wikipedia, who reacted to this comment. I would be willing to support moving this controversy section to the Show's article, but I do think there is substantial basis for its inclusion here. It is Glenn Beck who said these things, not his show. novalord2 01:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Right now the article suffers from undue weight, it shows a very favorable view of the subject, it should be balanced. I made no mention of including the incident specifically, and it is obvious you did not read what I said or read the policies I linked to. After perusing the history, it is not that the incidents were forgotten, editors zealously prevented them from staying in the article, unfortunately this is a theme with many media personalities, specific trivia need not be outlined in detail unless the incident was given heavy coverage and created sufficient controversy to warrant separate mention. I will repeat to you, notability governs nothing in regard to content, please read the Wikipedia policy I linked, if you will not acknowledge the policy then there can be no consensus on the issue. Revrant (talk) 19:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

From WP:BLP "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." Bytebear (talk) 19:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with this, by quoting that you are insinuating that every criticism is a lie, sensationalist, and a "claim" instead of what it is, fact, you cannot continue on simply telling everyone no, you must quote policy to maintain your position, otherwise, if you were to keep reverting an article without quoting policy, it could potentially lead to a block from the editing of the site. WP:CRIT, you can get away from that possibility by reading the policy and finding a good sense case against the inclusion of a reception section with neutral, due weight to both sides, although I don't believe there has ever been a case against that given it is a golden standard for many FA nominations, to summarize since you didn't read my large post, a path without proper policy leads to blocking from Wikipedia, use policy to disagree, don't disagree and cite unrelated policy or incorrect beliefs as to the policy(Notability). Revrant (talk) 22:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Revrant, I think you may be misunderstanding the argument. I don't think we're talking about the Notability policy for article creation. We're talking about BLP policy that states "Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources..." Something that is notable news (tabloid paper) may not be relevant to the subject's notability (a historical encyclopedic perspective of a persons biography). Also, undue weight policy does not mean balance between positive and negative perspectives in a persons biography. It means that after it complies with BLP above, the policy "requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." Morphh ^(talk) 1:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I understood just fine, I was merely pointing out the emphasis placed on notability in regard to the inclusion of any criticism is incorrect, and you are incorrect about undue weight, and I quote Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources., the article is not written in an entirely neutral point of view and shows an obvious skew, it is the duty of the editors to represent these points of view fairly as policy states, not push their points of view, please state policy correctly in the future. Revrant (talk) 10:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Who said that notability policy was being used to remove any criticism? As for undue weight, I don't see where I contradict what what the policy states. I actually quoted the undue weight policy. I said that it does not mean balance between positive and negative, as you stated above. As quoted by yourself, it is to fairly represent all significant views. This may or may not mean "balance" between positive and negative. You need to show that it is not a tiny minority view and that it meets standards for including criticism in a BLP, which is that it is relevant to the persons notability. Morphh ^(talk) 12:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Bytebear, that was one of the reasons Bytebear continued to cite, noteworthiness and notability, you are outlining a facet of the policy where the entire policy falls under NPOV, therefore it is part of that policy's goal and not a goal unto itself regardless of that policy, it is a tenet of the policy and should be represented as such lest it violate the spirit of the policy. I need only look to the truly stunning amount of criticism removed and reverted from the page to show it is not a tiny minority, and I don't really know how the line of logic persists that what a commentator decides to say is not relevant to their notability, but I'm not arguing for that, at the moment I'm arguing for the compromise between editors that wish for no criticism at all and those that wish for an entire section devoted to it, a reception section. Revrant (talk) 18:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

You are wrong. Should we include the recent tirade by Hillary Clinton in her article? People will comment on it, and it is making news, but it isn't really noteworthy to Clinton, and I would fight to keep it out of Wikipedia, although I am sure I would be shot down by the right wing as much as I am being shot down here by the left. Bytebear (talk) 22:36, 11 August 2009

You are wrong is not an argument, assume good faith, and you are insinuating something that could be misconstrued as a personal attack, do not insinuate that attempting a consensus automatically means the users involved, myself included, are of the "left", it is derogatory to make that assumption, and while I have a very high tolerance for personal attacks against me, I will report the behavior if it gets out of hand. Your use of language in choosing tirade 1. a prolonged outburst of bitter, outspoken denunciation, is not appropriate when referencing one spoken sentence in which the subject demanded they be asked questions directly regarding their policies. I will not comment on your use of Fox News as a source, needless to say, it would not be considered reliable as a primary source on the issue given the obvious political bias, the same is true of The Huffington Post on Wikipedia in regard to articles of a political nature and regarding political figures. You have yet to make a case regarding policy, telling me I'm wrong and a mild exaggeration of an unrelated hypothesis is not the correct means to argue against the inclusion of a Reception section in the article, please cite policy directly to support your argument. Revrant (talk) 10:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

It is very difficult to assume good faith with someone who looks at FOX News as being an unreliable source. That is such a POV statement, that I don't even know how to respond. Bytebear (talk) 16:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I really don't care how difficult it is, it's a policy when dealing with other editors, and if you can't do it at the onset then you might have to remove yourself from the proceedings. There's no POV in that statement, there's a definitive reason why I don't think Fox News is a reliable source when addressing a political subject, and it isn't my own feelings, it stems from their amount of political controversy and bias allegations. Revrant (talk) 18:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I recommend you read up on WP:POVFORK.

(outdent) According to the Ellison article:

Asked about the incident later, Ellison dismissed it, "It's just shock TV. Some pundits think they have to ask the most outrageous questions."[97] On January 2, 2007, Beck said on his radio program that Ellison did not take offense at the comments and the two had a friendly chat off the air.

This is hardly indicative of your assertion that he was offended. Yes, some people were offended, and they voiced their opinions, but that doesn't make the incident noteworthy. Was Beck fired? Was he chastised by his employers? Was anything covered other than secondary mentions of the incident in articled that aren't specific about the incident? As someone pointed out, the popularity of a search is no indication of noteworthiness. If anything, it shows a lack of it, since those hits dramatically diminish over time. Wikipedia is not a news source. Bytebear (talk) 18:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Bytebear, I need a good lawyer. You available? E2a2j (talk) 19:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

What about the active efforts of the Arab Institute to block his hiring by ABC because of this incident? These are more than "secondary mentions", are these utterly insignificant in your eyes?

http://www.aaiusa.org/aai-bulletin/2743/glenn-beck-update-pelosi-appoints-arab-american http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/features/20070126-0548-tv-beck-arabs.html (the Union Tribune, a newspaper published in San Deigo) http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/1/25/212919.shtml?s=rss (Article copyrighted by the AP)

Reverant, I really don't understand; you say that the notability of an incident is irrelevant in its inclusion, but also say "specific trivia need not be outlined in detail unless the incident was given heavy coverage and created sufficient controversy to warrant separate mention." novalord2 04:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Revrant, sir, and notability does not govern the content of an article was my meaning, notability of sources or coverage is a different issue that is largely decided by peer review, it is the reliability of the sources that decides their inclusion however, not their notability. Revrant (talk) 10:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The argument against a "Criticism" section (or against any mention of Beck and his "Obama is a racist" comment), as I understand it, is that controversies about living persons should only be presented if they're "relevant to the subject's notability." I would argue that nearly all of Beck's present notability is related to the fact that he called the President a racist on national television. If this isn't "notable," then neither is it notable that Glenn Beck exists or has a television show.

Talking heads make outrageous and controversial statements on a regular basis — it's part of the job description. The arguments made against such statements' inclusion on this page could just as easily be made on the talk page for Rush Limbaugh. Andrewdupont (talk) 13:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

So your saying that the NYT Bestselling author, nationally syndicated radio host, and TV host on a self titled show on Fox News was not notable until a few weeks ago? The statement is only news because Beck was already notable. If controversial statements are made on a regular basis, how do we determine what to include and what not to include? Wikipedia is not an collection of statements, we need to apply it to his notability and pick the most relevant examples. The Obama comment may be one that should be included, but people need to stop complaining about it and provide the sources to better justify the argument for inclusion based on policy. Morphh ^(talk) 13:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

In the past week, Lawyers.com, Procter & Gamble, Progressive, S.C. Johnson, GEICO, Men's Wearhouse and Sargento have all pulled advertising as a result of his comments. How is this not worthy of being mentioned? Patriot Missile33 (talk) 13:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Ellison and Obama

I think that both of these things belong in the show page, because that is why they received coverage. Glenn Beck's hiring by Fox was protested because of the backlash by his question on his show. The same with the Obama comment, it didn't make it b/c of the comment for itself, but for the backlash against his show (boycotts). Soxwon (talk) 02:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Moving forward

Ok, we have a lot of complains on the talk about including criticism of Beck and I agree that it is lacking. There appears to be some consensus on several issues for inclusion (Obama is a racist, Keith Ellison comment, crying on air). However, we still need to make sure we follow policy for each controversy. I believe the best way to include this material is to make it part of his notability relevant to his media persona. The issue is centered around making sure that these comments are significant enough to merit inclusion in a encyclopedic biography. What we need is more reliable sources presenting the view that this is significant for Beck. If it is as controversial and one of the most notable things for Beck as many suggest here, it should be easy to find many reliable sources for it. We need to put up or shut up. Let's get the sources and make it happen, or put the issue to rest - we have better things to do. Morphh ^(talk) 13:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

That is fine, but I've been trying to move forward on the two issues here [15] for over a month and I've gotten very few editors to offer comments or suggestions. I'm going to modify some of the wording in the proposed section. Helpful and constructive comments are welcome. Thank you. --Hardindr (talk) 14:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed "Obama is a racist" comment addition

On Tuesday, August 4, GEICO instructed its ad buying service to redistribute its inventory of rotational spots on FOX-TV to their other network programs, exclusive of the Glenn Beck program,” said a spokesperson for GEICO Corporate Communications in an email to ColorOfChange.org. “As of August 4, GEICO no longer runs any paid advertising spots during Mr. Beck’s program.^[16]

Okay, this doesn't seem to be just some random controversial comment anymore with major advertisers like GEICO pulling out of his show. Bytebear has voiced concern that notability has been an issue in adding content -- with GEICO's recent move, I think we can agree that this has reached enough of a tipping point for inclusion. As such, this is what I propose for inclusion somehow weaved into the persona/commentary section:

Beck's sometimes incendiary comments have sparked advertiser boycotts. On the July 28, 2009 Fox & Friends in response to President Obama's criticism of the arrest of Henry Louis Gates, Beck said that Obama had "a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture." When rebutted by Brian Kilmeade, who said many of Obama's staffers were white, Beck replied, "I'm not saying he doesn't like white people, he has a problem. This guy is, I believe, a racist." Fox News SVP of Programming Bill Shine said in response to the comments, "Glenn Beck expressed a personal opinion which represented his own views, not those of the Fox News Channel. And as with all commentators in the cable news arena, he is given the freedom to express his opinions." In late July 2009, Beck argued that reparations and social justice were driving President Obama's agenda, discussing issues of diversity and institutional racism. That week in response to the Henry Gates controversy, Beck stated that Obama has repeatedly exposed himself as having "a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture" and concluded that "This guy is, I believe, a racist." These remarks drew criticism from MSNBC commentators, the NAACP, and others. Advertisers including LexisNexis-owned Lawyers.com, Procter & Gamble, Progressive Insurance and GEICO have requested their ads be removed from his programming.

Please strike out or add changes and then see if we can reach consensus for inclusion.--The lorax (talk) 16:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Made some changes... Morphh ^(talk) 16:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

GEICO pulling from the show, may be noteworthy to the show article, but it isn't to this article. I have proposed this before, falling on deaf ears. Controversies dealing with the Beck show should be presented on that article, not this one. Bytebear (talk) 16:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

why I am reminded of the essay WP:Wikilawyering. --L I C 16:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Why am I reminded of the guideline Assume Good Faith? You must have forgotten to read this part of the essay WP:Wikilawyering#Misuse_of_the_term. I am also reminded of the policy WP:BLP which says, "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." Bytebear (talk) 16:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The TV section, Radio section, and media persona and commentary section are in part a summary style of the TV and Radio articles (different aspects). So if we place this in the TV article, is there a briefer summary that would be acceptable for this article in referencing the larger content in the TV article. Morphh ^(talk) 16:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we can describe Becks style without going into polemic examples which are there just to introduce POV. The only reason I think these issues are being brought up are specifically to "be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims." The sources themselves only bring up those issues as examples, and are not direct news about the incidents. Other than self published criticism of Beck, I can find no reliable secondary source that specifically reports directly on one of these issues. Bytebear (talk) 16:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

First, this isn't a "titillating claim" by any stretch of the imagination. That's for tabloid rumours about relationships etc. This is about a statement that Beck made as part of his public professional life. Second, there are plenty of news stories specifically about him calling Obama a racist in the mainstream press, including outside America and in sources not considered left-wing. And third, it is impossible to entirely separate what Beck says on his show from him as a person. If you want to do that, then all content about his show should be excised from his biog, which would be ridiculous. Bytebear, you're making a valiant effort, but your insistence that there is no mention of controversies involving Beck is wearing thin. I'd advise you to compromise. Fences&Windows 18:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I am trying to compromise. This issue belongs on the Fox News article or the Glenn Beck show article, but not here. The so-called boycotts were against the show, not Beck personally. Second, the term "incendiary" is blatant POV. Who decided they were incendiary? That is a subjective call, and without a reference and attributed to a source, it is WP:OR. The NPOV way to say it would be, "Specific critic felt Beck's comments were incendiary..." with a specific third party source. Do you have such a source in mind? Bytebear (talk) 00:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The action that caused this whole chain of events occurred on Fox and Friends, the morning talk show. If you insist on separating Glenn Beck from the Glenn Beck TV Show, his comments on other shows have everything to do with Beck as a person, and nothing to do with Beck's TV show (other than the fact that advertisers are distancing themselves from Beck, via pulling advertisements off his TV show). Furthermore, the page for his TV show is even less complete than this article, and is frequently purged of any information that potentially could reflect poorly on Beck. There are only three or four sentences that apply to his controversial Fox TV show, and I am the one who wrote them. This issue is notable, and it belongs on his page. MichaelLNorth (talk) 20:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Any reason you struck out FOX's statement on the matter? No need to quote the whole thing, but I think it's worth mentioning that they issued a statement that disclaimed responsibility for his opinion. Andrewdupont (talk) 19:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it adds anything about Beck. It's about Fox News absolving responsibility (using a canned statement... that's Beck's opinion, not Fox News - no big surprise). It adds nothing in regard to Beck's media persona, context for the remarks, or criticism. If he was reprimanded for it, then that would be worth including. As presented, it was just unnecessary fluff. Morphh ^(talk) 20:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I added the source for the Fox News statement as a footnote after the sentence stating Beck was criticized for the remarks. Morphh ^(talk) 20:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

In the past week, Lawyers.com, Procter & Gamble, Progressive, S.C. Johnson, GEICO, Men's Wearhouse and Sargento have all pulled advertising as a result of his comments. How is this not worthy of being mentioned on Beck's page? I would put this incident on par with Don Imus' "nappy headed hos" comment which is certainly discussed in detail on his page. Patriot Missile33 (talk) 14:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Your assertion that this is "on par" with Dom Imas' incident is WP:OR. Do you have any evidence to back up this claim? Bytebear (talk) 15:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Bytebear, my comment on the controvery was my opinion. You want evidence to back up my opinion? This is the talkpage so I'm fairly certain I can express my opinion here. Lawyers.com, Procter & Gamble, Progressive, S.C. Johnson, GEICO, Men's Wearhouse, Sargento and State Farm (just added to the list) dropping Glenn Beck is not my opinion, it's fact, and should obviously be noted on the Glenn Beck article. Here's the article: http://rawstory.com/blog/2009/08/more-advertisers-pull-support-for-glenn-beck/ Patriot Missile33 (talk) 17:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Blogs are not reliable sources. Also, could you please summarize your thoughts in one area rather than responding with the same argument in several places, it is too hard to follow, and I don't like repeating myself. Bytebear (talk) 17:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Reliable news source on Glen Beck show losing advertisers for controversial remarks: Fox News' "Glenn Beck" loses advertisers: http://www.reuters.com/article/peopleNews/idUSTRE57C07920090813 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.12.114.226 (talk) 17:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)