Talk:Glenn Beck/Archive 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

Contents

Cleon Skousen and Beck

This was discussed before once (it's somewhere in the archives) but I did not participate and don't know what came of it. Bytebear and another editor were debating about Beck and Skousen endlessly here and on the Skousen article.

There's a major piece in Salon about Beck in his affinity for the writing of Cleon Skousen. The article is here and, while obviously not a pro-Beck piece in the slightest, it's well worth reading for anyone interested in him. We currently mention Skousen briefly in the article since Beck wrote the forward to his (re-published) book, but the article makes clear that this Skousen fellow is arguably the primary intellectual influence on Beck, and certainly the main influence on the 9/12 project. We need to discuss this influence more than we do, and probably the section on the 9/12 project is the place to do it. Our wiki bio on Beck, like any other bio of an influential figure, needs to detail his influences and beliefs, and we don't do a good enough job of that. Skousen is, to say the least, a bit extreme, but Beck is an unabashed admirer, and Skousen clearly influenced Beck's thinking and the formation of the 9/12 project (again, by Beck's own admission—he's not ashamed of it in the slightest).

We have a reliable source (Salon is a reliable source—the fact that it is liberal is quite irrelevant) discussing the Beck-Skousen connection in great detail. It's definitely worth a couple of sentences in our article, and I encourage other editors to read through the Salon piece and offer thoughts about how we might go into a bit more depth regarding this major influence on Beck. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Can we start a new discussion on that below? I think infuences ar eimportant but that will clutter this one up even more.Cptnono (talk) 02:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry but I don't at all understand your reply. This is a new discussion, and it's currently at the bottom of the talk page, so I don't know what you mean by "below." Also I don't know what you mean by "clutter up." This is exactly the place to be discussing this. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
"I" "must" "have" "been" "editing" "in" "full" "page" "mode" instead" "of" "section" "when" "I" "replied". "You" "can" "go" "ahead" "and" "disregard" "it".Cptnono (talk) 16:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, if you are saying the comment belonged in another section (I have no idea if you are) then perhaps you should just move it there. And why in god's name did you put a quote around every word in your previous comment? --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I figured if you spent so much time formulating an argument while disregarding that I was agreeing with you that the least I could do was atone for my since by putting in as much effort. A simple, "I don't understand your comment" would have sufficed. Instead of reading too far into it and trying to argue about something that wasn't an argument.Cptnono (talk) 00:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
The fact that the source is highly biased is relevant, as that inherently means that it could misinterpret or slant its presentation of Beck's thinking. After all, if I was trying to understand what in Obama's early life made him hold his political views today- wouldn't I treat an article from NPR different from one from National Review?
But, still, this seems to be a small thing in Beck's life and his thinking in the big scheme of things. I believe that it comes close to violating WP:POINT. The Squicks (talk) 23:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
To Cptnono, we simply seem to not be communicating well, which I'm sure is partially my fault. I genuinely did not understand your initial reply (read it from my perspective as not the person who wrote it—what you first wrote is just a bit confusing) and was trying to explain the parts which I did not understand in my reply. I was certainly not trying to start an argument. I was equally confused by your second reply, particularly the extra quote marks (I still don't understand those) and said so again. Perhaps we can just start over, and you can respond to the substance of my initial comment if you so choose? I'm quite seriously trying to start a discussion, not an argument.
And to The Squicks, I don't at all believe that Salon is "highly biased" as you suggest—though liberal it's a rather mainstream publication whose articles are cited all over the place. There are many publications that lean liberal or conservative on this or that issue and we use them routinely (and carefully) as we should, particularly when one of their articles is quite fact (as oppose to editorializing) heavy as the Salon article is. The Salon piece is an in-depth look at Beck and his self-admitted appreciation for Skousen, and if you read it it's actually rather well done. The only parts I would want to use would likely be those which quote or otherwise cite Beck directly—as I said he is an unabashed fan of Skousen's work, and has said so repeatedly. I don't think this is a "small thing in Beck's life and his thinking." As our Wiki article already notes, he wrote the forward for the Skousen book (at which point it became a #1 bestseller) which rather says something I think. Furthermore, as part of the 9/12 project (which is absolutely his biggest "thing"), Beck said that the ""The first thing you could do, is get 'The 5,000 Year Leap.'" (this is Salon directly quoting his television broadcast). This is not trivial or a small thing, it's obvious he puts a great deal of philosophical emphasis on this book as it relates to (at the least) his overall 912 project, and we should mention that in a sentence or two. That's all I'm suggesting, and I think it's quite reasonable.
As to violating WP:POINT, I'm afraid I do not understand what you mean by that. I genuinely think we need to include more on this topic in our article to give an understanding of Glenn Beck's thinking, and in no way, shape, or form am I trying to make a point. I happened across the Salon article, read it, and thought it would help improve our coverage of Beck's influences, which is exactly the kind of thing this article should discuss. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't Beck endorse Skousen's tome Leap moreso than he endorses Skousen's entire philosophical career? (And it should be mentioned that Leap is said to be more akin to inspirational lit than skilled historical analysis -- but is ne'ertheless devoid of Skousen's tendency elsewhere to hatch grand conspiracy theories. See Rod Dreher's take here.)

Actually this whole controversy is sooo ironic. Beck and others said Obama was a radical because Obama published an endorsingly favorable review of a recent book on education by Ayers, saying this is proof that Obama's generally leftiness is waaaaay far left. What is good for the goose is good for the gander so, since Beck loves the Leap book, it's being said that he loves the other books by Skousen that are conspiratorial in nature. (Since after all, Beck has a bit of a paranoid style in any case.)

(Hey, BTW..... when Ayers was a revolutionary back in the early 70s, each group of Reds believed the other groups weren't ideolocally pure enough ----- and, sure enough, today the various factions of the paranoid wing of quasi-libertarianism believe each other insufficiently legit. See Alex Jones's "Open Letter to Glenn Beck" (here).) ↜Just M E here , now 21:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's an old, Mormon community, in-house journal article (Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought) wherein a Brigham Young University scholar (Louis C. Midgley) debunks the modus operandi of Skousen's anti-capitalist conspiracy theories (in a pdf file here).

Cleon Skousen was a fan of a theorist Carroll Quigley (who is also beloved by Bill Clinton) -- but Midgley believes Skousen's use of Quigley bogus. ↜Just M E here , now 21:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

To Big Time Peace: I don't at all believe that Salon is "highly biased" as you suggest, though liberal it's a rather mainstream publication No offense meant, but I laughed when I read your statement. I believe that you are falling into the "But I don't know anybody who voted for Nixon! How could he have won?" trap. It is heavily slanted one way towards center-left/left-libertarian positions which, to both you and me seem completely "mainstream"/"middle of the road" because we support them (such as gay marriage, global warming regulation, ending the death penalty, etc.) but are not in the mainstream of the media at large.

if you read it it's actually rather well done Yes, in one of its first sentences it slanders anyone who dares to criticize Obama as a 'tea-bagger'. It goes on to say that Skousen's writing contains "echoes of the original Nazi 25-point plan." Come on, now. The article is a blood-boiling ideological attack on Beck and on American conservatives in general. You would not find anything like this on the pages of the LAT or the NYT. Only on an opinion page, maybe.

The point here is that Beck supported a book written by the author at a point in the author's career, and then the writers use that as a platform to smear Beck by implying that he must therefore agree with everything that the author wrote (and they go on to paint the author in the most negative light as humanly possible).

As Justmeherenow pointed out, there's not a dime's worth of difference between this and what the right-wing publications tried to do when Obama lied about endorsing Bill Ayers' book. That latter issue is not mentioned in the page 'Barack Obama'- and for good reason. The Squicks (talk) 22:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome to engage in conjecture of course, but you could not be more wrong about me falling into a "But I don't know anybody who voted for Nixon!" trap. I'm not Pauline Kael, and that story is actually apocryphal anyway.
Of course Salon is certainly liberal—I said that. But it is also "mainstream" in that it is a regularly cited source and one of the most widely read publications on the web (basically since the beginning of the web). Other "mainstream" publications would include The Wall Street Journal, Human Events, Commentary, and National Review. These are all (particularly the latter three) considered rather conservative, but they are firmly within the realm of mainstream discourse in the United States, and absolutely can be (and are) used as sources in our articles in certain circumstances. We do not disqualify sources because they have a political bent, but rather go by their reliability. You've ignored my key point about how I want to use the source—i.e. just as a way to cite Beck's own views on Skousen. I'm not interested in using the spin of the author in our article and never said I was. Incidentally, the article does not say that Beck agrees with everything Skousen every wrote. You are making that up out of whole cloth. Anyhow this thread has gotten far afield so I'm going to try to reboot the discussion. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
The notion of bias is entirely subjective, and you seem to be combining the ideas of an "unreliable" source and a "balanced" source. Salon is a reliable source (and my personal opinion is that it's left-leaning), just like the Wall Street Journal is a reliable source (and my personal opinion is that it's right-leaning). I expect any facts reported in both to be true. Lobbying to have Salon as an unreliable source sounds more like a discussion for WP:RS/N. Doing so now, in the context of a specific article in a specific issue might come across as an ad hominem attack on the source because you don't like what the article in question says. I'm certainly not accusing you of doing this, but discussing the appropriateness of the source in WP:RS/N instead of here, and stating your case more generally instead of referring to a single article on a single issue, would not be subject to these concerns. — Mike :  tlk  23:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
There is not concern with the facts, and those facts are in the article. But the subjective opinion of the author needs to be weighed as to whether it is important to the article. I think it has no place here. Bytebear (talk) 00:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
What does WP:RS say about opinion pieces? (Which, by the way, are POV/"biased," after a fashion, by definition.) It says that when the opinion becomes notable, then they are cited -- as opionions. I think there is notability to the associations of Beck with Skousen. People should be able to come to Wikipedia to find an unbiased accounting of the facts, as well as a brief mention of what is being made of them by various commentators. ↜Just M E here , now 01:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Beck is a political commentator and the fact that Beck doesn't address the critiques of Skousen's entire body of work leaves Beck open to attack and ridicule; that is just how things work. Ne'ertheless, opinion pieces such as Alexander Zaitchik's in Salon are working overtime to sway public thinking, just the same as Beck's commentary does. Here Zaitshik is busily implying how much Skousen is and was universally reviled even among his co-religionists and political co-travelers. Really? Not. (LDS readers continue to find many of his religious works mainstream and many groups continue to find value in a number of Skousen's less overtly religious writings. Eg one can order a number of Skousen tomes from the LDS book publisher Deseret Book today: not the Naked Communist or Naked Capitalist but one can order:
  1. The Five Thousand Year Leap, Revised 30th Anniversary Edition
  2. Personal Search for the Meaning of the Atonement
  3. So You Want To Raise a Boy?
  4. Prophecy and Modern Times
  5. The Works of W. Cleon Skousen, Version 3.0 (CD-ROM)
  6. Brother Joseph: Seer of a New Dispensation, Vol. 1
  7. Brother Joseph: Seer of a New Dispensation, Vol. 2
  8. The Five Thousand Year Leap
  9. The Making of America: The Substance and Meaning of the Constitution
  10. The Third Thousand Years: From Abraham to David; and
  11. The Fourth Thousand Years: From David to Christ
-- See here..) Also see Mark Hemingway's commentary in the National Review online, where he wrote:

"[...T]o be fair Skousen wrote on numerous topics with wildly varying degrees of intellectual sobriety. In fact, as the radio host in the YouTube video notes, Skousen’s writings on original intent and the U.S. Constitution in The Making of America are compellingly argued, and to this day are often cited by conservatives unaware of Skousen’s more checkered writings. Further, Skousen’s scriptural commentaries are still very popular well-regarded within the relatively unradical world of mainstream Mormonism, insofar as Mormon theology can be considered unradical."

Just before/around 1980, the LDS began discouraging congregations from lending sanction to Skousen's polical group, the Freeman Institute; but this disavowal was the church's not wanting to be drawn into politics not of its own initiative; it wasn't necessarily some outright rebuke of Skousen's take on politics as something entirely antithetical to Mormonism. (Cf the Pope's sanction of the somewhat controversial Opus Dei while simultaneously requiring those ordained as priests to refrain from politics.)
I really do see a parallel between the demonization by the Left of Skousen's writings and the demonization by the Right of William Ayers's writings. Ayers is, I think, some kind of believer in "radical instruction and education reform" -- which beliefs he himself no doubt holds as being a philosophical outgrowth/development from his days as a former anarcho-communist revolutionary. Yet, the fact that many on the Left would disavow Ayers's books from the mid-70s (Prairie Fire, &c) does not mean that every progressive would disavow Ayers' current writings about education, nor that everything Ayers has written must forever be considered of the fringe. ↜Just M E here , now 01:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Salon.com, like other blogs, represents a fringe viewpoint. It's good for factchecking, but not necessarily notable by itself. You need a MSM source in support first. Soxwon (talk) 02:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Incidentally, Mitt Romney once quoted Skousen as an expert on Mormon End Times beliefs: this in a supposedly off-the-record, and off-the-air, portion of a 2007 interview with Des Moines conservative talk radio host Jan Mickelson (wherein, entirely religiously speaking, of course, Romney referenced Skousen's [The Fourth] Thousand Years: [From David to Christ] to establish that Christ's 2nd coming would be to Jerusalem and not Missouri in Mormon eschatology. BTW, Romney could just as easily have referenced Prophecy: Key to the Future, I think. Also, see contemporary NYT blog about Mickelson's Romney interview here.) ↜Just M E here , now 13:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Orrin Hatch's eulogy of his political patron Skousen, read into the Congressional Record.
    Many people in Utah must be shocked today to find out that Zaitchik believes that mere association with Skousen is a sure marker of one's being on some way-out-there fringe. Here are excerpts from the eulogy "Tribute to W. Cleon Skousen" read into the Congressional Record (see here) by one of the political "patronees" of Skousen's, Utah's senior senator, Orrin Hatch (which even includes a rhymed, metric poem Hatch composed for the occasion):

    [... ...] When I first met Cleon, I was a young, enthusiastic, go-getter who wanted to make a difference in our Nation's Capitol. Shortly before I announced that I would be running for the U.S. Senate in 1976 as a political novice and virtually unknown candidate -- Cleon was one of the first people of political significance and substance who agreed to meet with me and discuss my candidacy. ¶ A few short years before this time, Cleon had organized a nonprofit educational foundation named "The Freemen Institute," to foster "constitutionalist" principles including a drastic reduction in the size and scope of the Federal Government, and a reverence for the true, unchanging nature of our Constitution. I knew that he had strongly held beliefs and I was very interested in what he had to say. ¶ We found in each other at that first meeting many areas of common ground and a shared love for the principles that make America the strongest bastion of freedom on Earth. Cleon quickly agreed to help, and throughout the coming months he became a true champion of my candidacy. He sent a letter to 8,000 of his "friends" stating that I was running for the Senate "for the express purpose of waging a fight to restore constitutional principles in this country." I was humbled by his support, and I felt a true need to fulfill his expectations of me and to never let him down. ¶ From that first campaign, to every day I have served in the U.S. Senate -- Cleon has been there for me, through highs and lows -- buoying me up, giving suggestions, discussing principles and issues, and above all else being a true, supportive friend. I can never overstate what his support has meant to me throughout my years of service. [... ...] As we all know, Cleon was a prolific author and writer. His books, "The First 2000 Years, The Making of America," and "The Five Thousand Year Leap" have been used by foundations, and in forums across America for many years. ¶ I loved an account I recently read in the Deseret News from the Rev. Donald Sills, a Baptist minister who became close friends over many years with Cleon. He spoke of his knowledge and study and recalled a time when he found Cleon sitting on the steps of the Jefferson Memorial in Washington, DC. When he asked Cleon what he was doing just sitting there, Cleon’s fitting response was, "I’m talking to Tom Jefferson." ¶ Cleon had a strong desire for good government, and a true love for our Savior Jesus Christ and our Heavenly Father. He believed that our country was founded on pure principles and that our Heavenly Father had a hand in guiding our historic and profound beginnings. ¶ [... ...]I would like to close with a poem that I wrote for him:

    W. Cleon Skousen.
    His life seemed like 2000 years / By those who feared the truth,
    / To us who’ve loved him through our tears / And even from our youth,
    This quiet, simple, gentle man, / Who taught us sacred things,
    He helped us all to understand / The memories of a thousand springs.
    Within this caring, pleasant soul / God’s glory was refined,
    Experiences had made him whole / For he had peace of mind,
    So many lives he touched each day / Explaining holy things,
    In writings left along the way / A treasure fit for kings.
    He loved the prophets of the Lord, / The Founding Fathers too,
    And Israel’s most sacred word, / God’s children whom he knew,
    His precious Jewell, of greatest worth, / He’ll love eternally,
    He loved his family here on earth / In loving majesty.
    So many others one by one, / This giant among men,
    He leaves us now, his work now done, / We know we’ll meet him once again.

    ↜Just M E here , now 01:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

(Hatch does some things that are a bit ideosyncratic, eg he's said to wear a mezuzah on a chain around his neck -- a, perhaps, silver capsule with, of course, the Schema written on it in Hebrew, , appropriate to be affixed to an Orthodox Jew's doorpost to touch upon entry. Hey! Maybe Hatch utilizes Skousen's format for compiling his autobiographical writing, too. (See Skousen YouTube "Keeping a Personal Journal". <cue ominous music!>) ↜Just M E here , now 18:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Justmeherenow, but why on earth are you posting all this stuff about Skousen? This is so far away from the original point, which (incidentally) is being discussed in the "reboot" subsection right below this. I don't care what Orrin Hatch, Alexander Zaitchik, you, me, or the man on the moon think about Skousen. He himself has nothing to do with what I'm proposing, and I'm not suggesting saying anything about Skousen as a person or thinker in this article. I just want to say that part of the 9-12 Project for Beck is reading Skousen's book, of which he is a huge fan. We can use Beck's own words to do that. If you look in the section below, you'll see that there are three proposed sources including the Salon piece (which would only be used for things Beck said or other basic, non-contentious matters of fact) as well as articles in Mormon Times and Human Events. This is not about Skousen, it's about the fact that Beck likes him and thinks all 9-12ers need to read him. Please don't keep posting here in what appears to be an effort to demonstrate that some LDS folks and no doubt others think Skousen is great and mainstream. I grant you that, but it's completely beside the point. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Bigtimepeace, your proposal, as continued below, is great, of course!
It should be expanded, IMO, to include a brief summary of notable opinion about the Beck-Skousen connection, however. Cf WP:NPOV: "To fairly represent all the leading views in a dispute it is sometimes necessary to qualify the description of an opinion, or to present several formulations of this opinion and attribute them to specific groups." -- So, let's do so. And, so as not to muddle up your more modest objectives, I've been continuing to discuss some possible sources to use toward these ends up in this section, is all.
(Hey, So far we have thinkers/commentators, many of them on the right, who think, at least according to my offhand characterization here, that Skousen's forays into paranoia are so whacky and his covertly Mormonism-themed political stuff so shallow as to render his ideas nearly useless; along with some conservative folks who appreciate Skousen's theorizing, however this should be labeled.
(But, no doubt, eventually nuanced characterizations of "Beck-Skousen" will be profiled in, say, the New Yorker, or the Weekly Standard, on Beck's own show, in some mainstream news media source or another, so we can simply credit whatever the analyses to there.) ↜Just M E here , now 02:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying and apologies if I was a bit snippy, but I think for now we should probably keep the objectives "modest" as you say (just the basic facts about Beck's appreciation for Skousen in the context of the 9-12 project) and then if this becomes a more widely discussed issue in the future we could think about getting into more depth—that's my view at least. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable. (Maybe such further commentary will show up soon? IAC eventually I may get around to compiling what references exist now, of various levels of notability.) ↜Just M E here , now 17:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Reboot

I'm going to try to start this over, because for some reason half of the discussion above is about Barack Obama and Bill Ayers. I'm most certainly not interested in discussing that here, and the two situations are not at all analogous. When Barack Obama gets a TV show, goes on the air and starts a new "7/4/1776" project and says the first thing you have to do is read Bill Ayers book, and the proceeds to write a foreword to that book which then becomes a number one bestseller, then come talk to me. Otherwise let's stick to the topic at hand.

Several people don't care for the Salon article by Alexander Zaitchik (who, incidentally, is apparently writing a biography of Beck—which suggests he's probably a fairly reliable source, even though his bio will undoubtedly be negative). However it's been fairly heavily discussed (and lauded) all over the place. The piece is recommended by the LA Times, by Michael Tomasky [1], Andrew Sullivan [2], and Rod Dreher [3]. It's been mentioned by notorious left-wing outlets such as Little Green Footballs [4], Portfolio.com [5], and The Salt Lake Tribune [6]. Even prior to Zaitchik's article the Beck/Skousen connection has been discussed by David Frum [7], the Mormon Times [8], and Human Events (in an article by Cleon Skousen's nephew). Tomasky is the only "liberal" out of the whole bunch cited there, but those who comment on the article do so positively. I think it easily passes the WP:RS bar if used how I suggested using it—to basically quote Beck himself on Skousen. Forget the rest of the article—I just want to include Beck's views.

And to supplement, we can use the Mormon Times and Human Events articles from back in March which discussed Beck's affinity for Skousen's book right after the 912 project was announced.

Again, what I'm proposing here is one or maybe two sentences in the 912 project section which would explain that Beck told his audience to buy Skousen's book and also include some brief praise of the book and/or Skousen from Beck's own mouth. We could also maybe move up the detail (currently in the article) that Beck wrote the foreword to the new edition, or that could stay where it is in the section on "books" (it makes no difference to me).

For anyone seriously arguing we should not include a bit more detail on this just bear in mind the following: 1) In introducing the 9/12 project, Beck said "The first thing you could do, is get 'The 5,000 Year Leap.'" (we could source this both to the Salon article and to a Beck show transcript if necessary); 2) He told Skousen's nephew Mark Skousen that the book "changed his life"; 3) He said of Skousen and the book "(Skousen) was years ahead of his time...And our founders were thousands of years ahead of their time. My hope is that all Americans young and old will spend time with this book to understand why we are who we are."

Sorry, but if we want to discuss Beck's influences and get into more detail about the philosophical underpinnings of the 912 project (and we want to do both of those things, obviously), we absolutely have to discuss this. Anyone who thinks this is an attempt to make Beck look bad should consider the fact that Beck loudly proclaims his affection for Skousen's book, and that we can basically source an entire sentence or two about it to Beck's own words as covered in secondary sources. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I would theoretically support this if=
1)Skousen's name is mentioned without left-wing ideological commentary tagged to it. Something like Beck advocated the book by Skousen, a controversial Mormon fundamentalist suspected of fascism is right out and won't fly.
2)We don't indulge in commentary about the book, but we stick to Beck's own words about it and the objective facts (that he wrote the forward).
3)We stick to the best sources. Less biased, less slanted, and more mainstream articles- such as Mormon Times. The Squicks (talk) 04:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
That's been the proposal from the beginning. I think we should use three sources: the Salon piece, the article in Mormon Times, and the piece by Skousen's nephew in Human Events. There might be a quote or two from Beck in the Salon article that is not in the other two, and since it is by far the most detailed article on this topic, we would be remiss not to footnote it. I have no interest in quoting anything Alexander Zaitchik said or letting his view trickle into our article, but his article does provide non-controversial, basic factual information (which is useful even to someone who hates the editorializing there) and should be cited. There is absolutely no prohibition against putting a Salon article (which this list shows we cite all the time) in the footnotes when we are not even including its views in the article. By citing Mormon Times and Human Events at the same time we have a good balance of sources to which a reader can turn for more information, but we would keep it bare bones and in Beck's words in the article. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I would also like to note that the situation as described as your sources are pretty critical of the Salon.com article at times. For example, Rod Dreher wrote a follow up statement called I was wrong about "5,000 Year Leap". He stated=
If all you knew about Skousen was "Leap," you would be completely oblivious to the bad stuff about him. "Leap" is a work of interpretive history, one that treats the American founding as a "miracle," and renders the Founders as having an air of semi-divinity about them. In its worshipful tone and substance, it blurs the line between religion and nationalism -- not in a frightening way, but rather in a hokey, 1950s civic-religion way. This is the kind of book you'd expect Opie's civics teacher in Mayberry to assign to him.
Which is exactly the point made before. Zaitchik, a hard-line partisan ideologue, took the material from Skousen's other, controversial works and then committed a classic 'guilt by association' smear against Beck. Disclosing that Beck likes this book is possibly relevant but the rest of the issue is different. The Squicks (talk) 04:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Alexander Zaitchik is a reporter, and you'll have to provide evidence that he is "a hard-line partisan ideologue" before I'll accept that view. Being highly critical of Glenn Beck does not = "hard line partisan ideologue", it = "much of the population of the United States."
And Dreher says absolutely nothing critical of the Zaitchik piece (nor do any of the other sources, incidentally). His original post said "if you read nothing else today, make sure it's Alexander Zaitchik's exploration of the late W. Cleon Skousen..." and he did not take that back, and indeed even linked to Zaitchik's article in the second post. His point there was that the 5,000 Year Leap was not, in his mind, that crazy, thus "Skousen himself may have been an extremist in his convictions, but you have to look to his other material for evidence of that; it's not in "The 5,000 Year Leap." He also says he is "still troubled by Skousen on the whole."
But whatever, this is a side point, since I'm not interested in arguing whether we should like or dislike what Zaitchik wrote. If you are arguing that the most in depth work about Beck's views on Skousen should not even be in the footnotes because you think Salon is not a reliable source and Zaitchik is not a real reporter, then say so directly and make an argument, but I think including it in a footnote is hardly a radical proposal. This is not about ideology or politics, it's about providing readers with access to a variety of sources which discuss an important influence on Beck, while just giving the basic facts about it in our article. Pretty standard stuff. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
__ I . __
Bigtimepeace wrote, "Alexander Zaitchik is a reporter, and you'll have to provide evidence that he is "a hard-line partisan ideologue" before I'll accept that view. Being highly critical of Glenn Beck does not = 'hard line partisan ideologue', it = 'much of the population of the United States.'"
I would take this as a curious and illuminating formulation if I didn't believe that Bigtimepeace merely misspoke and meant "much of the population of professional journalists and of English-language Wikipedians" -- which statement, tho I've no hard survey numbers, I'd be inclined to believe. But with regard the US population at large we need to take into account salient points: No. 1, even such an influential mag -- among the population of Wikipedians and journalists -- as Time enjoys but a circulation of 3 mill or so; No. 2, Beck's weekly broadcasts reach several multiples of that. In fact, actual survey data -- such as a recent NBC/WSJ poll -- sez,

"24 percent of Americans have a favorable view of him [Beck] (13 percent strongly so), only 19 percent have an unfavorable one (14 percent strongly)."

__ II . __
The following I thot so obvious I was sincerely surprised I'm having to go to the effort to present my bit here. But here goes. Such things as the not-so-subtle anti-Mormon bigotry within Zeitchik's Beck-Skousen "expose" is not only ironic...it is a marker that Zeitchik of course has ideological objectives in addition to mere straightforward reporting, IMO.
Also notice, for example, that Zeitchik's likewise brilliant three parter about Beck in Salon is chock full of minimally supported broadsides, as well. For example, his intro makes the completely offhand claim that Beck is uncomfortable around minorities including Jews.

To this day, the face-to-face community of Mount Vernon and the watercolor backdrop of Skagit Valley remains the soft-focus template for Beck's evocations of idealized small-town "real" America. He has also pointed to the area's white demographic -- made up of descendants of Swedish, German and Dutch settlers -- as the source of his lingering discomfort around Jews and other ethnic minorities. "I'm the whitest guy you will ever meet," Beck never tires of saying. --(See here.)

(Huh? My own observations of the milieu of LDS from the small-town Intermountain West is that they tend to think themselves as adopted tribal Hebrews and in turn have a rather mystical reverence for Jews as a fellow religious minority. Ne'ertheless, were I a reporter attemting to shade a biographical piece with this observation/inkling, I'd offer it as opinion or supposition or provide an anecdote to support it. Zeitchik just names his "hit" as a basic assumption that he imagines unnecessary to couch as his opinion or support even with so much as an anecdote, since he apparently believes it impossible to be challenged. What we get instead within Zeitchik's serialized bio of Beck are mindlessly repeated taunts regarding Beck's "white-breadedness," with inference to be drawn that he is a bigot.
However, as I read Zeitchik, I'm saying to him through my computer screen, "Show me! If you don't provide something more concrete than innuendo to support this theme, then it is your judgementalism that smacks of bigotry."
There certainly could have been nuanced questions raised -- along the lines of: "(1) Beck likes Skousen's stuff about limited government. (2) Skousen also at times tended to be a bigoted critic of black culture. (3) Does Beck harbor bigoted tendencies, due to Skousen's influence?"; ne'ertheless, IMO, Zeitchik's broad-brush shadings of "Beck-as-bigot" are as simplistic and bigoted in Zeitchik approach as would be any of Beck's tendencies that Zeitchik would hope to demonize. ↜Just M E here , now 03:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I fully agree with the rationale put forth by Bigtimepeace. Glenn Beck himself has unequivocally stated how reading Skousen “changed his life”, and according to Beck’s own statements, Skousen is the preeminent intellectual and theoretical influence on Beck’s overall political and philosophical ethos. There is a way to display this irrefutable fact with respect to WP:NPOV and without the use of personal hyperbole – as long as all statements are attributed, referenced, and garnered from WP:Reliable sources. To ignore the clear Skousen connection to Beck’s personal ideology does a disservice not only to the reader, but to anyone attempting to understand why Beck might reach the conclusions and interpretations that he does. The fact that many of these “conspiratorial” conclusions are controversial does not disqualify their mention or inclusion. In fact, Beck seems not only to embrace many Skousen-esque suppositions, but revel in the “main stream press” controversy that he inspires with such pronouncements (finding such derision as further self-fulfilling confirmation of his original premise).   Redthoreau (talk)RT 08:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I also agree with Bigtimepeace's conclusion with regard our bio of Beck, I just think that labeling Zeitchik a neutral-POV reporter is a bit much.
(Adopting my patented "bigotry detection test" of switching Orthodox Judaism with Mormonism, say that as a part of a theoretical Kate Capshaw one-woman-show full of political commentary, Capshaw advocates for the US to provide strong military support for Israel.
(I myself believe that the right wing in Israel are nuts; and, in any case, I come along and write a bio of Capshaw, in which I call Dreamworks a "Jewish movie production company" -- which causes an enlightened subset of my readers who are attuned to anti-Jewish bigotry to spit beverage through their noses as they think to themselves, "Wha---?!"
(My Capshaw bio includes an expose about a late talmudic scholar who Capshaw reveres, some of whose works had included the controversial premise that Israel's borders with Lebanon should be expanded due to biblical references to the ancient Children of Israel's G-d-given inheritance. Capshaw had advocated that people read a book by this scholar that has nothing to do with the ideal borders of Israel but instead advocates that people of whatever religious faith set up communal kibbutzes; so, in my expose I make hay about Capshaw's association with this scholar. Meanwhile, upon this scholar's death, a theoretical political "patronee" of his, Joe Lieberman, had offered a eulogy in the Congressional Record in which Lieberman had acclaimed the influence of this scholar's tome about communalism. ........ ) ↜Just M E here , now 16:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be some support then for adding a bit more about Skousen, so I'll try to work on that soon. In partial reply to Justmeherenow, just to be clear I did not say Zeitchik was "a neutral-POV reporter." I said he was not "a hard-line partisan ideologue" as another editor had described him. I don't think there is a such a thing as a neutral-POV reporter, though some press stories obviously have more of an air of "objectivity" than the Salon piece does. But, and this is a key point that multiple people seem to be missing here, Wikipedia is not disallowed from using secondary sources that actually make a strong argument or take a strong point of view—quite the contrary. Our history articles can cite historians who are Marxist or conservative, so long as their work is well regarded. If Zeitchik publishes a bio on Beck and it is well-received, we absolutely can quote his views as an expert on the subject. We're not remotely to that point yet, but I reject the notion that "having a POV" means "doesn't belong in our articles" as some seem to suggest.
And I stand by my assertion that "much of the population" (of the country) is highly critical of Glenn Beck. "Much" is a pretty vague word so I'm on pretty safe ground here, but the NBC/WSJ poll cited by Justmeherenow reveals that 57% don't know Beck or have no opinion. Of the 43% that do have an opinion, about 30% have a strong unfavorable view, and about 45% have an at least somewhat unfavorable view (with the rest being favorable). My only point with my initial statement was that one does not have to be a "hard-line partisan ideologue" to be highly critical of Beck, and the poll numbers certainly don't prove otherwise. But really none of this is germane to the topic of this thread. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, Bigtimepeace. I had thought you had known that a lesser portion/number of Americans with an opinion of Beck were "highly critical" of him than not -- which is why, incidentally, Beck is termed by commentators and detractors a populist (someone who is a professed "supporter of the rights and power of the people") demogogue ("leader who obtains power by means of impassioned appeals to the emotions and prejudices of the populace") in the first place -- and that you had merely misspoken. But, now you have explained that you had, in fact, meant that 45 out of 100 of those with an opinion equates to most of those with an opinion; and I'll accept this last assertion at face value. ↜Just M E here , now 07:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
This is really silly, but I'll just point out, as I did above, the obvious fact that "much" and "most" are very different words and that I have always used the former, and never the latter, when referring to the fact that a significant number of Americans are critical of Glenn Beck, hence being critical of him does not automatically make one a "hard-line partisan ideologue". But, again, all of this is beside the point and I think it's been discussed more than sufficiently. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
In my defense, although I'd tested very high mathematically back in the day, it was only reasonably above-average verbally.....lol..... But, in any case, I now see you'd sed much ("Great in quantity, degree, or extent") and not most and so I finally get wht ur saying here, Bigtimepeace. Again my apologies. -- JustMe ↜Just M E here , now 16:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Op-eds and feature articles

  1. Mark Skousen in Current Events (link)↜ (‘Just M E here , now) 05:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  2. Skousen HQ'd his teaching/Mormon-themed writing/political advocacy careers, um, in, of all places, Utah and Idaho. So it is in Utah that newspapers have broached the Skousen-Beck connex: a current editorial opinion piece in Ogden Utah's Standard-Examiner is here -- which editorial is accompanied by a political cartoon in which Skousen is portrayed as a spectral(?) emperor, a la Star Wars, with Beck as Darth Vader. ↜Just M E here , now 18:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
  3. Pat Bagley's report/opinion piece in the Salt Lake Tribune is here.
  4. TNR (link) ↜Just M E here , now 06:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
  5. Dreher's op-ed (see here!) is fantastic, every paragraph of it. Brilliant. I'm not a political conservative, for the most part anyway, but Dreher -- who himself has just started researching this topic -- repeats my independent observations over decades. ((P.S. Dreher's concluding little bit about Buckley's having worked, back in the day, to marginalize the cranks from intellectual Conservatism is a possible parallel I'd thought of, too. It will be interesting to see how this tension plays out, IMO. My prediction? Under an onslaught from the Right (such as from Dreher), Beck backpedals more and more from Skousen's "secret combinations" conspiracisms and more-and-more concentrates on an (also-Skousenishly-tinged) hyper-Constitutionalism similar in some respects to Ron Paul's.)) ↜Just M E here , now 16:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  6. (I'd been throwing "bigoted against black culture" out there cos although I figured Skousen wasn't racist, per se, maybe he was some kind of -- I dunno, WASPishly "religious nationalist" or something? (Removing the P in waspish, replacing it with an M, for "wasmish.") But, instead of my wrong guess (sorry), apparently what Skousen was "guilty" of, in actuality, was a too sanguine of tone about conditions of slavery -- about which Media Matters has posted a broadside --> here. ↜Just M E here , now 02:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
  7. Joel Campbell in Salt Lake City's The Deseret News's LDS-themed insert (link) ↜Just M E here , now 07:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  8. Louisville, Kentucky's Courier-Journal (link) ↜Just M E here , now 01:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
  9. James Carville, as interviewed on the CNN Sunday Morning show "State of the Union with John King": "Go look at his [Beck's] reading habits. Try The 5,000 Year Leap. And, I --- That guy, just exposed himself just like a lot of these other people there. So, yeah. He gets a lot of viewers. But, I --- Just look at his reading habits try The 5,000 Year Leap. And, I, I, I . . . [Note: speech slurred, for a phrase; unsure of my transcription: "just have got to --- "[?]] That guy just exposed himself for what he was." (YouTube, excerpt of transcript) ↜Just M E here , now 19:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
  10. Christopher Ruddy's interview of Beck featured in Newsmax magazine (a new periodical that, according to Andrew Sullivan's critique, is sort of "America-first"ist/neo-isolationistic/theo-conish) (vid, some excerpts)
  11. Joanna Brooks (Religion Dispatches):

    "[Glenn Beck...]developed the content of his current conservative messaging (an amalgation of anti-communism, United States-founder worship, and connect-the-dots conspiracy theorizing) after his entree into the deeply insular world of Mormon thought and culture. A significant figure in this world is the late Cleon Skousen[...]." ((link)

    ↜ (‘Just M E here , now) 01:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
  12. Adam Reilly's insighful analysis(/jeremiad?) in the Boston Phoenix (link)↜ (‘Just M E here , now) 22:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
  13. John Reynolds in the Ogden Standard-Examiner

    Glenn Beck was inspired by W. Cleon Skousen, who died in 2006, and whose life story is a patchwork of ups and downs. He wrote books that have inspired many. The attacks on Skousen and Beck seek to defame and diminish their credibility. ¶ . . . ¶ . . . ¶ It seems to me that Beck and Skousen are challenging us to decide whether or not the Constitution is a living or obsolete document. Some authorities would have you believe the Constitution is no longer viable. Skousen wrote about how our form of government came to be and how it should work. ¶ His explanation is too rooted in religion for some but you would be hard-pressed to find any of the Founding Fathers who did not have strong religious beliefs. Those beliefs are evident in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America. (link)

    ↜ (‘Just M E here , now) 15:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
  14. Media Matters's Simon Maloy throws down the glove on Skousen's The Naked Capitalist (link, link, & link)↜ (‘Just M E here , now) 02:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
  15. Blog hosted on the SF Chrony (link)↜ (‘Just M E here , now) 00:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Reading through these so-called sources, I am wondering if I can attribute all of Bill Ayers wacky ideas to Obama. It seems the connections are just as attributable. Does the Obama article even mention Ayers? I just checked. Nope. Hmmm.... Bytebear (talk) 22:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Connex of Skousen with author of Soul on Ice

It may be of some interest to note with regard to Skousen's anti-"black culture" bigotry the curious case of Eldridge Cleaver. After the Panther co-founder came back from Cuba and renounced Communism, he went through a Christian [sic?] religious sampling period in which he hung with both the Unification Church and the Latter-day Saints. From a Mormon-themed blog:

Cleaver’s first "Mormon contact," interestingly, was with Carl Loeber, an activist with the Peace and Freedom party that sponsered Cleaver’s presidential run who had joined the Church in 1970 as he renunciated the Black Power movement. Cleaver met with Elder Paul H. Dunn (then administrator for California) and would be later introduced by Loeber to Cleon Skousen during a Know Your Religion class in San Jose. [...]

↜Just M E here , now 18:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Justmeherenow I have a request here—can you please stop placing this kind of material on this talk page? This page is too long and confusing as it is. It's great you've taken an interest in Skousen, but something like the above (which isn't actually as interesting as it seems—Eldridge Cleaver, who I actually know quite a lot about, turned hard to the right in his last couple of decades, so the fact that he met Skousen is not overly surprising to me) is simply never going to be relevant to the Glenn Beck article. There's no need for us to debate Skousen's reputation or views on "black culture" here since we are not going to be discussing those things in the article. If you have not already, you might want to start discussing some of these issues over at Talk:Cleon Skousen. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Point taken. A bit peripheral. (Full disclosure/"in the 'small world' dept.": I know someone who dated a Calif. pol (later a US Congressman) who had got involved in controversy in '87 for endorsing Skousen's The Making of America due its use of the word pickaninnies (also see Alexander Zaitchik's reference to this in Salon)......... ↜Just M E here , now 23:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

New Skousen section

Per above discussions, I have decided to be WP:Bold and include a new section in the article on Skousen's influence ---> found here. I have done my best to be weary of WP:NPOV and WP:Undue and figured I would make a notation of my addition here on the talk page, in case editors had concerns over the new material.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 07:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

You have made some good edits but I do feel that it needs to be tightened up.Cptnono (talk) 07:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Cptnono, I am open to suggestions.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 07:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


Cleon Skousen and The 5,000 Year LeapInfluences (expand with more if available)

One of the self-acknowledged (not necessary) preeminent philosophical influences on Beck's post-2007 political ideology is the late anti-communist[23] and conservative author Cleon Skousen.[24] Beck has praised Skousen's "words of wisdom" as "divinely inspired", and made repeated reference to his two works The Naked Communist [25] and The 5,000 Year Leap.[24] Skousen, was a controversial author of more than a dozen books and pamphlets on subjects such as "the Red Menace", New World Order conspiracy, Christian child rearing, Mormon end-times prophecy, and World government conspiracies involving the Rockefeller and Rothchild families.[24] (not about him but about Beck so this may need modification but it comes across as a good summary) It is one of Skousen's texts, The 5,000 Year Leap, which has been particularly influential on shaping Beck's world view (add and changed his life). First published in 1981, as an attempt to explain American history "through a lens of Mormon theology", "Leap" has been touted by Beck as "required reading" in order to understand the current American political landscape (add: and the role of God?).[24] Impressed with the text, Beck authored a laudatory new foreword to the 2008 edition, which then spent months as number one in the government category on Amazon after Beck's repeated on-air recommendations.[24][26] The 5,000 Year Leap argues that the United States is a Christian nation whose Founding Fathers were guided by the Bible, and that the U.S. Constitution is thus above all else "a godly document."[24] The book then lists 28 fundamental beliefs based on the words of Moses, Jesus, Cicero, John Locke, Montesquieu and Adam Smith, which Skousen asserts have resulted in more "God-directed progress" than was achieved in the previous 5,000 years of every other civilization combined.[24] On his December 18, 2008, radio show, Beck, who remarked that reading "Leap" in 2007 "changed his life", introduced his audience to the idea of a "September twelfth person", remarking: (wikilink available ?) "The first thing you could do, is get The 5,000 Year Leap. Over my book or anything else, get The 5,000 Year Leap. [...] It is the principle. Please, No. 1 thing: Inform yourself about who we are and what the other systems are all about. The 5,000 Year Leap is the first part of that. Because it will help you understand American free enterprise. Make that dedication of becoming a September 12 person and I will help you do it next year."[24] (It is already asserted that he says it should be read to his audience.)

Would read:

Influences

One of the self-acknowledged (not necessary) preeminent philosophical influences on Beck's post-2007 political ideology is the late anti-communist[23] and [Edited: limited-government] conservative, author Cleon Skousen [Edited: (1913–2006)].[[24] Beck has praised Skousen's "words of wisdom" as "divinely inspired", and made repeated reference to his two works [Edited: often referencing Skousen's] The Naked Communist [25] and The 5,000 Year Leap.[24] Skousen, was a controversial author of more than a dozen books and pamphlets on [Edited: Skousen's works involve a diverse range of] subjects such as "the Red Menace", New World Order conspiracy, Christian child rearing, Mormon end-times prophecy [eschalogy], and World government conspiracies [Edited: theorizing] involving the Rockefeller and Rothchild families.[24] It is one of Skousen's texts, The 5,000 Year Leap [Edited: (published 1981)], which has been particularly influential on shaping [particularly influences] Beck's world view and he. [Beck] says [in 2007] it "changed his life" upon reading it in 2007. First published in 1981, as an attempt to explain [Leap explains] American history "through a [Edited: Skousen's "]lens of Mormon theology", "Leap" has been [and is] touted by Beck as "required reading" in order to understand the current American political landscape and become a "September twelfth person".[24] Impressed with the text, Beck authored a laudatory new foreword to [for] the 2008 edition, which then spent [Edited: and Beck's on-air recommmmendations in 2009 helped the title to spend] months as number one in the government category on Amazon after Beck's repeated on-air recommendations.[24][26]

Cptnono (talk) 08:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Note: I made some edits in an attempt to tightent the text some (see stricken text with emendations above).↜ (‘Just M E here , now) 17:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Cptnono, I have made the revisions per your suggestions. Hopefully through collaboration we have reached something that all (or most) editors will be happy with.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 10:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
If we would have had a much longer article it wouldn't have been a concern at all.Cptnono (talk) 12:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Cleon Skousen

There is way too much weight given to Skousen and his ideas, very few of which relate directly to Beck. The section is also implying strong synth, that Beck agrees with everything Skousen said, and that the section describes the opinions of Beck, when it is all about Skousen and his beliefs. Bytebear (talk) 18:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Note: I've moved the following here from User:Bytebear's talkpage.↜ (‘Just M E here , now) 22:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

    ---------------
    I've tried to address your concerns wrt Skousenin my last few edits. What do you think?↜ (‘Just M E here , now) 19:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
          I didn't specifically look at your edits. but the entire section should be removed. The first reference doesn't even mention Beck, and yet is the crux of the entire paragraph. The ones that do mention Beck are editorial pieces but are presented as fact or the footnote refers directly to Beck interviews and is original research and probably missing context and is POV. The article implies explicit states that Beck's main influence is Skousen, but this has been disputed by Beck and others directly. He did forward one book, but the connection ends there. The article makes it seem like Skousen is his mentor. It's so out of balance. The fact is, Beck wrote the forward to one book. Everything else is left wing opinion trying to tie Beck to extreme views. Bytebear (talk) 19:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
                I do think Skousen greatly influences Beck's political philosophy quite a bit, so my belief in this regard shades my interest in including the material, I'm sure. In any case, IMO the Alexander Zaichik stuff is important, if problematic in dealing with Z's axe grinding/general tone. But did you see the more balanced tone within scholar Joana Brooks's reference to Skousen's influence? And, Bytebear, if you think even Brooks buys into more influence than justified, please check out Beck's extremely recent interview with Chris Ruddy here.↜ (‘Just M E here , now) 20:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
          Brooks's works:
                - American Lazarus: Religion and the Rise of African-American and Native American Literatures (2003)
                - Face Zion Forward: First Writers of the Black Atlantic (2002)
                - [Her] edition of the Interesting Narrative of Olaudah Equiano (2004)
                - The Collected Writings of Samson Occom: Literature and Leadership in Eighteenth-Century Native America (2006) -- from her blog (link)↜ (‘Just M E here , now) 20:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
            The reference to Beck's conversion to Mormonism is a bit skewed. The source puts way to much emphasis on Skousen in Mormon circles. He was prominent in the 1960s when the US was very anti-Communist, but just like the rest of the country, Mormons have let the rhetoric of the past fade. I think you need sources about Mormonism and Communism to back up this source in order to validate statements like "A significant figure in this world [Mormon thought and culture] is the late Cleon Skousen." That statement is simply false. Or at best, very out of date. I think the influence of Mormonism is a big part of Beck's life, but to over emphasize Skousen as a core Mormon cultural influence is absolutely off base. They are separate issues. Also, Beck was impressed by one concept from Skousen, but not by all of Skousen's work, and to overstate the latter and to basically put a mini-bio of Skousen is way too much weight on the issue. I also think you need to find more neutral and more mainstream sources to consider this worthy of the amount of space being used to cover it. This is also clearly an opinion piece, as the comment, "It is likely that Beck owes his brand of Founding Father-worship to Mormonism" clearly says. If you include this source, it must be presented as this author's opinion of where Beck gets his ideals. So I would have the Beck article say something simple, like "Joanna Brooks believes that many of Beck's political views grew from his conversion to the LDS Church." That's basically what the source says. But to cherry pick the details to synth a connection to Skousen is far reaching.

          As to the second link, it is a primary source, not applicable to Wikipedia. Find a reliable secondary source that covers this as important, and then we can include it. It's also very long, and Beck covers a lot of ground. I see it being cherry picked to further a POV. I also hate tv interviews or show snippets because they are off the cuff, and easy to modify context. I would rather have his books cited because more thought is put in them, and they are sorely missing as sources for what Beck believes.Bytebear (talk) 22:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
    ---------------

    ↜ (‘Just M E here , now) 22:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Bytebear's concerns

I cleaned up the section quite a bit. I removed some original research, and a lot of unnecessary commentary on Skousen and his books. Bytebear (talk) 01:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Zaitchik's opinion (which most objective observers would agree is spot on, I think) that The 5 Thousand Year Leap views history through a Mormon lens should be restored IMO. As the section reads now, there is no mention of religion at all. (Well, that is, other than the description of Skousen as a theoconservative, which I've just added.)↜ (‘Just M E here , now) 01:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. It is an opinion about a book, not about Beck. Put it in that article. If people want to do further research they have the links, but as is stands we are already giving far too much weight on a book Beck didn't even write. We have no sections on any of the books he actually did write. Don't you find that just a little bit lopsided? Bytebear (talk) 01:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Per WP:PRESERVE (BTW, also compare WP:Other stuff exists), lack of balance in an article's coverage of things -- in this case, books -- would be remedied through expanding coverage of items that are missing -- in this case, Beck's best-selling books -- not by removing coverage which would be thought to belong in some "ideal article" (that's fully fleshed out).↜ (‘Just M E here , now) 01:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, expanding the details in the appropriate article. This is not that place to expand opinions and commentary on Skousen or his books. Even calling him a "theorepublican" in this article when his own article makes no specific claim is disingenuous. As I have said, this section is already too weighty on an issue that is very minor to Beck the person, and we do not need to expand into details not even covered in articled dealing with those topics specifically. Bytebear (talk) 02:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I'm in agreement that the Skousen section is now to large and should be pared down considerably.. For instance, it's not necessary to list so many of the books skousen authored - that is covered in the Wikipedia Skousen article. Also, so many details about Skousen are addressed in the Skousen article and including it in the Beck article is, IMO, (a) redundant and (b) not directly related to Beck himself - the subject of the article. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 02:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I have restored an earlier version of the entry, as it seems Bytebear unilaterally took it upon himself to override the collaboration Cptnono and I were working on. Bytebear, the entry is clearly relevant and notable - if you have concerns, lets discuss them on the TP before chopping the entry down to nothing so as to eliminate it (i.e. the desired result you have said you'd like to see).   Redthoreau (talk)RT 02:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't recall consensus in this matter? and in fact, the discussion was about removing more than adding. If you feel a specific edit was out of line, please discuss them individually. What I removed were spurious descriptions of issues that don't belong in this article, descriptions of Skousen and his politics which have little if any bearing on Beck, and certainly are covered too weighty. The other stuff I edited were original research, cherry picking specific primary sources (interviews) to present a false conclusion of what Beck finds important politically.
for clarity, here is what I "chopped down to nothing":
According to Joanna Brooks, a scholar of American religion, one preeminent philosophical influence on Beck's political ideology has been W. Cleon Skousen (1913–2006).[1] Skousen was an anti-communist[2] and limited-government conservatism[3]. Beck praises some of Skousen's ideas as "divinely inspired", specifically his book The 5,000 Year Leap,[3] a book on the U.S. Constitution and American history, published in 1981, which Beck said in 2007 had "changed his life"[3] and has been described as "required reading" to understand the current American political landscape. Beck authored a foreword for the 2008 edition of Leap and Beck's on-air recommendations in 2009 propelled the book to number one in the government category on Amazon for several months.[3][4]
Bytebear (talk) 02:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Bytebear, Cptnono and I used collaboration; you however just decided to scrub the parts you didn't like without discussing them or providing rationale. I wrote the first entry, Cptnono proposed adjustments, and we adopted all of his suggestions. The next step by you should have been to point out your concerns over what was there so we could use the TP here to go over an additional proposed version. However, that is not what you did and you now have been reverted not only by me, but by User:Justmeherenow. None of the entry is WP:OR and all of it is cited. Per this "false" conclusion of what Beck finds important politically, we are relying on the words of Beck himself ...

"I went back and I read The Naked Communist and at the end of that Skousen predicted someday soon you won't be able to find the truth in schools or in libraries or anywhere else because it won't be in print anymore. So you must collect those books. It's an idea I read from Cleon Skousen from his book in the 1950s, The Naked Communist, and where he talked about someday the history of this country's going to be lost because it's going to be hijacked by intellectuals and communists and everything else. And I think we're there."

— Glenn Beck to Bill Bennett on his show, November 21, 2007

"The first thing you could do, is get The 5,000 Year Leap. Over my book or anything else, get The 5,000 Year Leap. [...] It is the principle. Please, No. 1 thing: Inform yourself about who we are and what the other systems are all about. The 5,000 Year Leap is the first part of that. Because it will help you understand American free enterprise. Make that dedication of becoming a September 12 person and I will help you do it next year."

— Glenn Beck on his December 18, 2008, radio show introducing his audience to the idea of a September twelfth person

So according to Beck, the US is on the brink of being "hijacked by intellectuals and communists" (per Skousen's analysis in The Naked Communist) and the No 1 principle for his 9/12 project is to read The 5,000 Year Leap (where he wrote the foreword) over even his own books. Yet, you don't believe there should be any mention of this in Beck's article because it is possibly unflattering. Well, Wikipedia does not WP:Censor material based off of it being controversial, conspiratorial or discredited. I believe that Cptnono and I were doing an adequate job of describing this matter with regards to WP:NPOV and WP:Undue, yet because you want the entire section removed - you began chopping it down to the point where eventually someone could then claim "it's not really notable, see there's little info on the issue".   Redthoreau (talk)RT 02:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the essay but it is all (cherry picked) original research. It is also undue weight, which is why it was removed. Verifiability is not the only criteria for inclusion, you know. As I said in my comments, there is not a single opinion or quote pulled from Beck's books, but there is all sorts of descriptions of Skousen and his books. That is a serious problem. It needed addressing. I am also disturbed at the lack of good faith assumed on your part and accusations of censorship. Removing qualifying material or requesting it go into a more appropriate article is not censorship, and I resent the accusation, particularly from someone who claims to be a proponent of civility. Finally, I will point you to wp:bold. Cheers.Bytebear (talk) 02:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Bytebear, WP:OR would be if I claimed Beck told me this personally, however these remarks were made on national tv/radio and are thus included in the show's transcripts (which can be cited and would qualify as WP:RS. WP:OR for instance would be if I noted how Skousen believed the Rockefeller family had a secret communist plot to create a one world government through the U.N., and then noted how Beck --> clip used a segment on his show to "diagnose" potential sinister "communist"/"fascist" symbolism in Rockefeller plaza and at the U.N. (i.e. place of "World government"). That would be me personally connecting the dots, and thus WP:OR, however our entry does not do that, and relies on Beck's words himself and the published analysis of others. Anyone familiar with Skousen's ideas, can see them on display very transparently with Beck, although Beck is far more talented and entertaining in his presentation with them, and has thus has achieved a great deal of personal success (unlike Skousen, who was widely discredited even amongst the political right). Fact: Beck touts “The 5,000 Year Leap” as a life changing and “divinely inspired” text to millions of his viewers, and then the book arose out of dormant obscurity to sell 250,000 copies and go number 1 on Amazon. I am not sure why you feel this is an insignificant fact – and attempts to continually argue against its inclusion will only cause this matter to arise every few days as new editors arrive here wondering why there is no mention of the issue.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 03:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, the sheer number of sources for the section that are "liberal" bespeak lack of balance -- which I'll try, at least, to rectify by maybe finding a useful quote from Mark Skousen's piece on Beck and his uncle in Human Events magazine.↜ (‘Just M E here , now) 03:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
    OK, I'll quote here a section from it.

    "912 is a play on “9-11” and refers to “nine values” and “12 principles” based on the Constitution, and in particular, his favorite book called The 5,000 Year Leap: The Miracle that Changed the World. ¶ Who is the author of The 5,000 Year Leap? My late uncle, W. Cleon Skousen! Cleon Skousen was a constitutional scholar, an FBI agent (and special assistant to J. Edgar Hoover), author of The Naked Communist and the thousand year books about the Bible, and a devoted family man. ¶ In politics, my uncle was passionate about the U. S. Constitution, which he felt was inspired by God and the reason behind America’s success as a nation. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, he ran hundreds of Constitutional seminars around the country. ¶ His book The 5,000 Year Leap outlines 28 [JustMe notes: since 9 + 12 = 21, apparently Beck has refigured Cleon's material somewhat] reasons why the U. S. Constitution created the miracle we call America, and led the world out of agrarian poverty and into a new modern age of prosperity -- a 5,000 year leap from men plowing fields to walking in space."

    Any suggestions on any useful quote, bit of shading or turn of phrase to be gleaned from it from any editors out there?↜ (‘Just M E here , now) 03:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
But my changes did not remove the connections you assert. They simply removed commentary and original research as well as removed superfluous information about Skousen. For example what does "[Skousen], whose works involve a diverse range of subjects (including, for example, "the Red Menace", proposed divine inspiration of the United States Constitution, Christian child rearing, Mormon eschatology, history, and New World Order conspiracies)." have to do with Beck at all? Who cares what other books Skousen wrote, and has Beck ever EVER commented on "Christian child rearing?" This is fluff to add synth to Beck implying he also has similar views. Bytebear (talk) 03:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Bytebear, again you mention "Original research" without any specifics. What do you contend specifically was WP:OR in the version you amended?   Redthoreau (talk)RT 03:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up, Bytebear. As it turns out, these three reveiws of So You Want to Raise a Boy? I see on Amazon don't talk about any inspirational content to this book so for now I'll remove Christian from child-raising.↜ (‘Just M E here , now) 03:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Byteebear is correct. I like the "essay" as he called it but it might be too SYNTHY for Wikipeida. Are there any sources we can find to connect some of the writer's specific believes with Beck? If not, it is not a big deal. He has been an influence and that is shown even if the text is reduced further. Notability guidelines also don't apply here, Redthoreau (notability does not limit content but is for articles as a whole). Lets clean it up a bit and find some other influences to make this a good summary of his influences. Cptnono (talk) 03:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Cptnono, I believe "the essay" was a snarky remark towards the length of my reply to Bytebear, not the entry per se (although I could be wrong). As for Skousen's ideas, many of them can be connected to Beck, as post-2007 when he claims Skousen's book "changed his life" he has been espousing "Skousian" ideas very frequently - although more reliable sources would have to be found. As for additional influences on Beck, that would be great. I would imagine that Thomas Paine, could be an additional entry worthy of inclusion. I have also seen Beck speak several times on how much he was influenced by Robert Gellately's book Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler: The Age of Social Catastrophe and by the works of Thomas Sowell and Ayn Rand (whose Objectivist Center spokesman he frequently hosts as a guest on his show).   Redthoreau (talk)RT 03:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Original research is taking interviews of Beck and deciding which of his comments are important enough to add to the article. It violates WP:EL and it is poor scholarship. Find a third party reliable source that makes the connections you feel are so strong and we can discuss them. As it is, the quotes above don't fit the bill. Shall we enter the entire content of every interview Beck has done? I can certainly add a lot about how he feels on any number of topics. I am sure I would be shot down for grandstanding on a specific issue. The same is being done here. There is far to much emphasis on this issue. For example, Beck named one of his books "Common Sense" but there is not a word about his admiration for Thomas Paine. As to the mini-biography of Skousen. Who cares what Skousen wrote about child rearing. It isn't relevant to this article. None of the details in that list are. Why are we bothering telling the reader of the Beck article about the extensive biographical details of Skousen? Bytebear (talk) 03:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
THe last comments were made before the reply by Red, so I will respond and elaborate. There are two issues. 1) you are presenting original research in your assertion that "many of them can be connected to Beck." They should be sourced by third party reliable sources, and they should be presented in context (i.e. "So and so believes that many of them can be connected to Beck"). Beck was influenced by many sources and it appears to me that the one book (Leap) was his only real inspiration from Skousen. To imply the inspiration goes beyond that is POV and OR. 2) the inclusion of the extraneous Skousen information is there simply to add synth and imply that Beck is also in agreement with the other many activities of Skousen. My changes removed both issues, and tightened up the content to be inclusive but not overly specific. I like the idea of adding other influences (Paine), but I think we cannot say Skousen was an influence but rather some of his ideas (specifically in "Leap") were an influence. Bytebear (talk) 03:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Bytebear, as for the "third party sources" who made the connection, Alexander Zaitchik in Salon Magazine did in his article "Meet the Man who Changed Glenn Beck's Life". Per Thomas Paine, I mentioned him in the above post, and would welcome his addition as well. As for why we were briefly "telling the reader" about Skousen's usual book content, it was because most people are probably not familiar with the sort of issues Skousen wrote about, and the description utilized was taken from the Salon article above which made the connection. Additionally, these aforementioned matters are ones which Beck frequently discusses (i.e. the fear of World government --> clip, communist takeover --> clip, end times --> clip, and conspiracy theories --> clip. (forgive the youtube sourcing, as I wouldn't utilize them as ref's in an article, they are merely used here as a quick way to demonstrate the veracity of the claim).   Redthoreau (talk)RT 04:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
And if you look at the changes I proposed I didn't remove the "influenced by" information, did I? If people want to do further reading on Skousen, they can click on the link to his article. Adding a mini-bio of him is overkill and I suspect used to add synth to the article. I also find Salon to be less reliable than say the NYTimes, or NBC. after all the article subtitle is "Cleon Skousen was a right-wing crank whom even conservatives despised." Hardly a neutral opinion of Skousen. If we do use the Salon ref, we must present it as an opinion of the author (and probably mention that the author thinks Skousen is a "right-wing crank") and not as a fact. In short, find a better source than this hack. Bytebear (talk) 04:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Bytebear there again. Nice catch by Redthoreau there. Make sure we are using RS or are at least presenting not opinion pieces appropriately. I haven't even tried goggle newsing or scholaring it. Has anyone else? I assume this should be easy to source but haven't tried myself.Cptnono (talk) 05:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

"New World Order" issue

I should also point out that although the "new world order" conspiracy has nothing whatsoever to do with Beck, it is also misleading to call Skousen's opinions of the topic a conspiracy. There is the New World Order (conspiracy theory) which is a specific belief in an underground organization (NWO) taking over the world governments, and there is a new world order which is a international relations theory dealing with nations working toward world goals and losing their sovereignty in the meantime, that is no way related to any conspiracies. They should not be confused and the former should not be attributed to Skousen. And none of this is relevant to Beck other than he believes in sovereignty of the US, one of many issues Beck comments on. Bytebear (talk) 04:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Except for the fact that Skousen began to connect his "New World Order" theories around a "conspiracy" involving David Rockefeller (amongst many things) --> clip. Skousen's (NWO) theory was one where powerful capitalists like the Rockefeller & Rothschild’s family aligned themselves with communists like Mao Zedong to create a new global order around what he deemed "socialist subjugation". This is far different, from those who advocate for mundane global issues like unified environmental standards etc. For instance, wanting everyone in the world to adopt the metric system for continuity, is a far cry from believing that a small cabal is trying to enslave us all through manipulation.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 04:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Nothing matters without sources linking the primary subject(Beck) to it. Lets just stick to that and there should be no worries.Cptnono (talk) 04:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
So you agree that the "new world order" mini-bio info on Skousen is inappropriate to this article? Bytebear (talk) 04:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
The opinion that Skousen has a strong connection to Beckian thought ([sic]/feeling?) and what some of these connections are have been covered in the legacy media, so by Wikipedia's definitions, WP's coverage being extended to an explanation of this perceived connection is important. Yet, of course, what we need to be sure of is that our presentation of these opinions are balanced per WP:NPOV -- yet, remember, per WP:PRESERVE, for the most part such balance is not to be achieved only by way of the deletion or the purposely leaving out of notable opinions with the rationale that yet other opinions and info have not yet been contributed to the article.↜ (‘Just M E here , now) 04:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Bytebear, I wouldn't deem the referenced few words on Skousen having written about "New World Order conspiracies" a "mino bio". Skousen believed that there was a small group of people trying to secretly behind the scenes create a new global structure around "leftist" political ideals - Glenn Beck has also stated that he believes this several times (including for instance the mention above where Beck cites Skousen's The Naked Communist as reinforcing this belief). That's why those couple of words are relevant.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 04:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Of course it's a mini-bio. It's a fluff piece of synth to guide the reader into an implication that Beck also believes in the various ideas of Skousen. By the way, the Skousen article doesn't even have a source to Rockafeller, so I would work on that article before introducing "facts" here. As to what Beck has said on his show, it's all primary in source which is in violation of WP:EL. Find third party sources that say more that "Beck has loony ideas" and we can work with something. But even then, prove to me that those YouTube snippets are really more relevant than the books he has written. Clearly you want to add as much polemic material as you can, and as long as Beck has said X, and you think X is outrageous, you must include it. But the fact is, until several news sources cover a specific comment or ideology, it is undue weight. I have yet to be convinced that any of the examples you cite rise to such a standard. Bytebear (talk) 04:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
"By the way, the Skousen article doesn't even have a source to Rockafeller" ... Bytebear, I count 4 mentions of "Rockefeller" in Cleon Skousen's article. It is important to spell his name right though, and then just push Ctrl + F.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 05:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I also saw that, but each had a little [Citation Needed] next to them. Perhaps you misunderstand the difference between content a sources.Bytebear (talk) 05:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Bytebear, only 1 of the 4, not "each" have a [Citation Needed] tag next to them. Perhaps you misunderstood the difference between 25 % and 100 % :o)   Redthoreau (talk)RT 05:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
And the other three point to a YouTube video. Enough said. Bytebear (talk) 05:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
It becomes difficult if you are going to continue to change your argument when the previous one shows to be false. But this issue really isn't that important anyway - althogh accuracy is.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 05:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
The original comment was that "the Skousen article doesn't even have a source" which is technically correct considering YouTube videos are not considered reliable, and it should be removed. But if you want to pick nits, be my guest. It doesn't change the fact that the information on Rockefeller and Skousen as covered in Wikipedia is pathetic. Clearly you have a different criteria for what constitutes a reliable source. Bytebear (talk) 05:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I believe anything that has a source that doesn't mention Beck should go. That would prevent any confusion. Doesn't mean we can't find the sources but this way there will be double standard and all of the standards will for sure be followed. Beck has been influenced by the writer per the sources. This is sourced (cite episode alone is good enough here). What portions of his philosophy I don't know but hopefully the sources do.Cptnono (talk) 04:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
"I believe anything that has a source that doesn't mention Beck should go." = I agree. Which one's currently do not?   Redthoreau (talk)RT 04:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I am very troubled by the Salon article. It is clearly biased, and it is being used for much of the Skousen material. For example the list of Skousen's works is opined thus: "It is a body of work that does much to explain Glenn Beck's bizarre conspiratorial mash-up of recent months" If we want to list Skousen's works from this source (which I think we should not), then we should add that the author believes that it generated "bizarre conspiratorial mash-ups" but you see, now that this is clearly a very POV statement, yet we keep one part out of context because the context is POV. Bytebear (talk) 05:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
This recent LATimes piece (not YouTube) includes reference to Beck, Skousen, Rockerfeller, and the New World Order, I think.↜ (‘Just M E here , now) 05:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
interesting that the Times article references the Salon article. Bias upon bias. Fascinating. In fact, reading further, there could be a claim of plagiarism since much of the content is very similar: "[Skousen] authored more than a dozen books and pamphlets on Christian child-rearing, the communist threat to the United States, the global conspiracy of a New World Order and Mormon end-times prophecy." Sound familiar? Oh, now I get it. This is an anonymous blog. Can you say "unreliable?" Bytebear (talk) 05:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
The LAT's liberal bias notwithstanding, Zaitchik's being pointed to by its art critic shows Z's opinion w/re Quigley-Skousen-Beck-Rockerfeller is notable.↜ (‘Just M E here , now) 05:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
It's not a reliable source. It is a plagiarized anonymous blog. Can you find a worse source to reference? Seriously. Bytebear (talk) 05:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
The writer is the art critic for the LA Times. His opinion could be used per WP:SPS in some circumstances. I think Salon and this source are perfect examples of when to use caution, though. We don't want to apply to much synth or assume what beliefs had an influence on Beck. This isn't really a problem though "Dude(wikilink) was a controversial author" summarizes it enough if we are going to be super cautious. It shouldn't be this hard to find sources. Has anyone tried googling to see if the forward to book is available online? That would be a great resource.Cptnono (talk) 05:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, I wouldn't be surprised if Fox News does a plagiarism story about this guy. It is so blatant, that it's a bit scary for such a reputable newspaper. If the opinion of an art critic on political ideology is the best we can do, we are doomed. Bytebear (talk) 06:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I'll go a step farther. If we have to rely on those we suck.Cptnono (talk) 06:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
The dude, Christopher Knight, was critiquing Beck's art criticism. A New York group even offered for Beck to design a show of art he approved, however Beck apparently ignored em, since I've never read anything about their offer since. (You think Beck approves of this work by Jon McNaughton?)↜ (‘Just M E here , now) 06:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh, by the way, in this painting by Jon McNaughton, in its foreground somewhere within the crowd of people is a figure representing a student; and in his is shown a copy of The 5,000 Year Leap.↜ (‘Just M E here , now) 05:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you missed what I was trying to say. Since this is controversial and someone has brought up SYNTH we need to be super cautious. BLP and all. For now "Skousen was a controversial author" with a wikilink would work fine. We could also go something like this (slacker way out with still a little bit of synth). If we want to do what is unquestionably appropriate we find sources that say "I Beck was influenced by x, y, and z." Since he is on the radio (cite episode) and did a froward to a book by the guy this shouldn't be hard. I am not coming up with the forward in a google book or scholar but I'll keep on looking. Let me know if you find it.Cptnono (talk) 06:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

[Beck] noted that a key to this awakening is the kind of education that happens at GWU [George Wythe University] -- studying original sources so that students “learn how to find the answers,” said Beck, and to think for themselves rather than rely solely upon textbooks and professors. ¶ “Quite honestly, the first thing that attracted me was that to graduate you have to know all of the principles behind The Five Thousand Year Leap,” Beck said in a separate interview. “It is the book to read for this period in our country’s history.” ¶ The first of three dozen books read during the freshman year, W. Cleon Skousen’s The Five Thousand Year Leap identifies 28 principles the American Founders relied upon to establish a free society. “By Winter Semester, freshmen are citing all 28 principles during debates, simulations, and oral exams,” said Andrew Groft, University President. (link)

Glenn Beck, dressed up in Colonial garb, in his native Washington State as a youth a quarter-century ago.↜ (‘Just M E here , now) 07:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
It is already established that he thinks people should read it.Cptnono (talk) 08:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Glenn   &   James
[ --> YouTube ]

Beck's recent defense of Leap. [Edited: Response to comment above]: Well, I guess so, but just in case we haven't ;^) here's Beck's defense of The 5,000 Year Leap on his radio show against Carville's "diss" against the book when James and Mary guested on the Sunday-morning current events show hosted by John King on CNN this week. (See thumnail caption for link.) ↜ (‘Just M E here , now) 08:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are getting at. Oops, get it after rereading your comment. Carville dissed Beck. The Beck dissed him and said "I like it is because it is an easy gateway to the founders." and "It is the best book out there on the founding of the country that is digestible". He then mentions that books mention how a couple of presidents ruined the country but he would rather read Leap. He also makes fun of the left alot but that has nothing to do with the book. By the way, if you have the date of the show we can cite episode without a URL to the video (transcript would be nice, though).Cptnono (talk) 09:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Its vid says October fifth.↜ (‘Just M E here , now) 10:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Do you know if that is the broadcast date or the upload date? Not sure if it is a copyright vio or not but ignoring that parameter: Template:Cite episode Cptnono (talk) 10:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
-- It is the date of the program: which was this-last Monday. Carville was on John King, Sunday-the-fourth, so Glenn's response would have to have been no earlier than the fifth, next day (since his radio show airs Mondays-through-Fridays but not Weekends).↜ (‘Just M E here , now) 10:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Well if the template is followed [9] might be a good source. We cannot link to it, though.Cptnono (talk) 10:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
why are we relying on primary sources. That implies the notability of the issue is low, and that concerns me. Second, the George Wythe source is about Beck's donations to a cause. I find it amazing that we ignore the actual noteworthy topic (donating money) and don't even consider adding it to the article, while finding the needle in the haystack so we can push this agenda of ensuring that Beck is unequivocally linked to Skousen. Does anyone out there understand my point? Bytebear (talk) 15:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
*****
Bytebear said, "[...]finding the needle in the haystack so we can push this agenda of ensuring that Beck is unequivocally linked to Skousen. Does anyone out there understand my point?"
In part. About which more, later.
<begin rant>But first, this. Your points, Bytebear, in their various shadings, confuse me some. Why must it be assumed that being associated with this former BYU associate professor should be thought only some necessarily bad thing, huh? Geez, pundit Glenn Beck himself has extolled Skousen a lot, Mitt Romney expressed pride in having been taught by him, Orrin Hatch wrote metered poesy in the man's honor, he is soon to be feted* with an op-ed and/or positive-spin feature article in the Ogden Standard-Examiner (the biggest city-city, as Whoopi Goldberg would say, close to the Idaho home of Skousen's National Center for Constitutional Studies).

---------------

*We [The Standard-Examiner] plan on running a local column soon defending Skousen and Beck; the latter’s popularity no one contests. Here, by the way, is a USA Today column from Jonah Goldberg defending Beck from recent attacks from some moderate conservative pundits: Read.

=========
-- Ahem. Anyway, so what's this deal with all this denial? (Which ain't no river in Egypt, you know.) Hey: "Socialism" is what Sweden proudly practices and Democrats might aspire to. Why not admit the same? Why deny? **I** am a socialist. Social Security and Unemployment Insurance are socialist programs. As are student loans. And a whole long list! So freakin what? Why deny that a socialist -- and a particularly Red one -- was a friend of Obama's in the person of Professor Bill Ayers? That Van Jones's flirtation with Communism is or was but a philosophical thing, really -- a phase not unlike Ronald Reagan's once socialistic leanings back in the early 1950s -- before the Red Scare? Why all this pussy footing around with the truth? Man up, people. Skousen was a very bright, very devout in his faith, seemingly very devoted family man whose writings inspired and also provided a framework for thought for very many people from various religious backgrounds and there should not necessarily be any real shame in one's having been or currently being a student and/or apostle of at least some of Skousen's ideas: something it would appear that Beck himself does not seem to shy away from saying. Indeed, I've certainly never read any kind of equivocation from Beck with regard to his admiration for Skousen or Skousen's various threads of ideas, and this anywhere, ever. I actually think Beck likely gives Skousen's writings the benefit of the doubt. I believe he considers himself a Skousen follower of sorts. And I think Beck's own statements tend to reveal the same.

Nonetheless, the fact is, Beck himself is somewhat of a McCarthy-type figure. (I said sort of.) And that's just a fact. (I'm talking Joseph, duh, not Eugene.) This implies no condemnation of McCarthy, either. McCarthy's most basic premise about the danger of Communism isn't denied by the U.S. mainstream, really. (People like Ayers notwithstanding.)

Yet, why must Wikipedia be so afraid of admissions of fact? When there are ample secondary sources outlining that Bill Ayers was an associate of Obama's, why not delineate whatever were the known parameters of their relationship, a bit, within Obama's BLP?

Instead, we get these mamby-pamby arguments about how some fact will make it seem like some relationship existed that didn't. Can't we respect our readers' intelligence? Or at least allow them to draw their own conclusions, based on the available, known information? The same goes for discussion of an association with a writer who was controversial at times. So what? Why be afraid to grant some coverage, as found in the reliable, secondary sources?<end of rant>

And now to speak to your question, Bytebear. Yes, primary sources are problematic. But they show what the writers of the secondary sources are reading, before they came to hold anew or else re-apply whatever their pre-existing slants. So, comparing these primary sources with the secondary ones based on them provides a measure of background to Wikipedia editors to assist in counteracting whatever slants as may well be found within these secondary sources. {sorry, too long. I'm not usually an essayist here on Wikipedia, so cut me a break this time, I beg. please?}
*****↜ (‘Just M E here , now) 16:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok, you are clearly missing my point. Yes, Beck has promoted the 2000 Year Leap. He feels that specific book is vital to teaching people about the purpose and founding of the United States. He feels that people have lost touch with what the Founding Fathers taught, and that the country has moved away from the original ideals of them. I never said the information should be removed. If you look at my suggested copy, it discussed both Skousen and the book. What I do object to are poor sources that add commentary to the facts. This is POV, plain and simple. Especially when we present these opinions as facts. The sources suck. And even when you find a decent source, you ignore the main thesis in favor of finding the one line in the source that mentions something about Skousen. For crying out loud, an art critic's blog was proposed as a source! Are you F-ing kidding me? As to primary sources, if Beck says X, and the only people that comment on it is the left-wing blogoshere, rhen we can safely assume the issue is not noteworthy, and if it is noteworthy, someone of some credibility will comment on it. Now, imagine if we actually used the more strict rules of Wikipedia that said we should rely on peer reviewed academic sources, notability really is put into perspective. Bytebear (talk) 17:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Art Review "Power 100"

ArtReview ranked Glenn Beck at No. 100 in its "Power 100" for 2009.

Mention of God/theoconservatism

This is how it works. Zaitchik says,

"'Leap'[...is an] attempt to explain American history through an unspoken lens of Mormon theology. As such, it is an early entry in the ongoing attempt by the religious right to rewrite history. Fundamentalists want to define the United States as a Christian nation rather than a secular republic, and recasting the Founding Fathers as devout Christians guided by the Bible rather than deists inspired by the French and English philosophers. 'Leap' argues that the U.S. Constitution is a godly document above all else, based on natural law, and owes more to the Old and New Testaments than to the secular and radical spirit of the Enlightenment [...] The book reads exactly like what it was until Glenn Beck dragged it out of Mormon obscurity: a textbook full of aggressively selective quotations intended for conservative religious schools like Utah's George Wythe University, where it has been part of the core freshman curriculum for decades (and where Beck spoke at this year's annual fundraiser).

Then Andrew Sullivan comes along and decribes Skousenian-Beckian thought (per Zaitchik) as "[...]a combination of theoconservatism, American exceptionalism and populism[...]." (link).↜ (‘Just M E here , now) 02:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

This means, according to these two quotes (not to mention others by the Boston Phoenix/Religious Dispatches/Ogden Standard-Examiner/Salt Lake Trubune/and on and on), Beck's and Skousen's political worldviews are partly theoconservative.

And how about the primary sources? Well, let's look at Leap.

Its 28 Principles, somewhat paraphrased
  1. Natural or God's Law
  2. Virtue and morals
  3. Elect virtuous leaders
  4. Without religion public morals cannot be maintained.
  5. Equality of humankind
  6. Equal rights
  7. But not equal things
  8. Role of government is to provide rights to life and liberty.
  9. Scriptural divine law
  10. Rights to govern reside in the whole people.
  11. A majority can overthrow a tyranny.
  12. U.S. is to be a republic.
  13. With "Constitutional" protections
  14. Property rights
  15. Maximal, free enterprise (quote): "1.The Freedom to try. (2.) The Freedom to buy. (3.) The Freedom to sell. (4.) The Freedom to fail."
  16. Three branches of federal gov't
  17. Checks and balances
  18. A written Constitution
  19. Limited government with many rights retained by the people
  20. Operate via majority rule with Constitutional rights maintaining rights of those in the minority
  21. Strong local gov't
  22. Rule of law, not an authority's whims
  23. Educated populace
  24. Maintain peace through staying strong.
  25. Be on friendly terms with other nations.
  26. (Quote): "The core unit which determines the strength of any society is the family; therefore the government should foster and protect its integrity."
  27. Avoid debt.
  28. (Quote): "The United Stateshas a manifest destiny to eventually become a glorious example of God's law under a restored Constitution that will inspire the entire human race."

Then, do the same thing with Beck's 9-plus-12 principles and values.

Yes, these are theoconservatism, per its dictionary definition. Bytebear, why would we want to delete this designation of theoconservatism, as had been credited to Zaitchik, in Beck's BLP as it pertains to this analysis or description of the framework of Skousenian and Beckian Conservatism, as credited to a valid 2ndary source and even the primary ones?↜ (‘Just M E here , now) 02:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

This is all original research. You are essentially taking the sources and creating your own conclusions. Bytebear (talk) 02:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
What is going on? This isn't a place for us to chit chat about it. I'm alright with some within reason but we are clearly getting away from improving the article. Before going for the inclusion of material, editors need to think if a "no comment" on TV, mention of a flu vaccine, and information about a writer that should be in another article really belong to this article.Cptnono (talk) 02:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Nay, Bytebear, virtually all of the sources without exception who've examined Skousen have noticed the theological aspects to his political thought.↜ (‘Just M E here , now) 02:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Cptnono, if Bytebear gives up his desire to remove the theological aspects of the Skousen section, then I will stop discussing this issue here. Otherwise, I hope this information proves its pertinence.↜ (‘Just M E here , now) 02:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
First of all, even if I thought the information was sound, it has no place in this article. Maybe in the Skousen article, but not here. Second, you are adding synth. Third, that synth is coming from original research. Finally, you are misunderstanding the actual term Theodemocracy. Read that article, study up some on LDS theology, and you will see that Skousen would never approve of such a thing. You have some research outside of Wikipedia to do. Bytebear (talk) 02:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
JMHN: If you come across disruptive you won't be improving the article if blocked or the page is locked. You are proving your point just fine but not doing anything that will help get information included. Find some sources (again, has anyone found the forward he wrote?) that are OK and there shouldn't be any worries. Cptnono (talk) 02:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Do you have me confused with another editor? (After all, Cptnono, I generally keep to 1RR thus absolutely have never been blocked so far in my not unlengthy Wikicareer.)↜ (‘Just M E here , now) 03:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Bytebear, you are speed reading. I wrote theoconservatism (a la the Natural Law, say, of Judge Bork). I never did, nor would I, suggest that Skousen advocated theodemocracy (a la LDS United Orders).
You are being careless whereas I am being careful with the sources. All of this information is simply to acknowledge the religious conservatism of Skousen-Beck, per virtually every source in the "Op-eds and feature articles" section of the talkpage above.↜ (‘Just M E here , now) 02:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Cptnono, I sincerely tell you that you've lost me with your comment. Could you be specific? If you are disinterested in this topic, please contribute to discussions elsewhere on the page.↜ (‘Just M E here , now) 02:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
I.e., I don't edit war but discuss the edits on the talkpage. This is what I'm supposed to do, alas.↜ (‘Just M E here , now) 02:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
I think the point is, you have some very interesting ideas, but without a reliable third party source to take those ideas from, you cannot use them in the article. We can't take source 1 and source 2 and come to conclusion 3. We can only state source 1 and source 2 (assuming they are reliable and relevant). We are hoping you can find those sources so we can discuss how to use them, but for now, your sources and conclusions are lacking. I think the other issue is that these ideas really don't relate directly to Beck. They may be more useful in another artcle nore specific to the topic. Maybe The 5,000 Year Leap article. Bytebear (talk) 02:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
I know you don't. There is kind of one going on right now between two other editors that is aggravating. It comes also crossing the line from discussing page content to just discussing since youa aren't provding the needed sources. I already mentioned up above and here how to make it work. We need to find sources that say "Beck was influenced by x, y, and z". We cannot assume. Also keep in ind that some commentators and bloggers assume all the time. we have to be careful with how we use the sources. The best source I can think of would be the forward to Leap. Cptnono (talk) 02:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
-------
Note: (I later figured out apparently why Cptnono had thought I had been edit warring in article space; Jimintheatl was, in the "External links" section and hi/r username starts with J just like mine, with with 11 letters in hi/r name to 13 in mine.)↜ (‘Just M E here , now) 16:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Bytebear, the religious content that you had removed is now currently in the article in the Skousen section -- currently in a version of which *I* put it there. You wrote on one of our talkpages that you were disappointed in this content's restoration, thus my showing you that it is contained in Zaitchik. But the Zaitchik source already sources this info in the article, per a consensus of editors. ( -- Supplemented by a ref to Mark Skousen.)↜ (‘Just M E here , now) 03:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't see anything in the article other than "[Skousen] felt [the US Constitution] was inspired by God and the reason behind America’s success as a nation." Even this sentence, good for the book article, or the Skousen Article, but has no reliance to Beck whatsoever. It should be removed from the article. If this is not what you are referring to, please be more specific. What "religious content" do you mean? Bytebear (talk) 03:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that's it. Of course, we'd had more but you'd removed it. So I put this quote from Mark Skousen in, in its place, which, while not perfect, nonetheless acts as a reasonable placeholder for this important aspect. (Until something better comes along such as perhaps from Beck's forward to Leap?)↜ (‘Just M E here , now) 03:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with the sentence. There is a problem with it being in this article. It has no connection to Beck at all. It should be removed. It's a great little quote for the Skousen page or the book page. I would have no problem adding it to either of those articles. But why do you want it here? And why are you trying to link it to theoconservatism? Bytebear (talk) 03:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Here's a problem. The theoconservatism article is relying on one reference [[10]]. It is weak. And it has nothing whatsoever to do with Mormonism. I think you are going to have an uphill battle trying to link the two. In fact, I would argue for deltion of that article, as the term really seems to be fringe. Bytebear (talk) 04:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
(<sighs> I find it frustrating to try to engage in a productive discussion with someone who would write that theoconservatism has nothing to do with Mormonism.) Forget the multisyllable word, if that is your stalling tactic. (If you had ever lived in Utah and believed there was no religiously based conservatism there, I'd be hard pressed to believe you, however. Also, Bytebear, are you reading my comments? Above, I say how I would never dream of linking anything to theodemocracy so why do you bring up this concept which has zero place in this discussion as far as I can tell?)
Beck's and Skousen's religiously tinged political thought of limited government {as opposed to "liberal" religiously tinged, "social gospel" activism labeled as being on the left} is sourced via this entire section of primary Skousen material as well as the dozen links above in the "Op-eds and feature articles" sections.↜ (‘Just M E here , now) 04:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
I understand that you have a very strong opinion, and I am sure living in Utah has molded this thought, but you are not providing enough to warrant inclusion of these conclusions. Also, to my knowledge Beck does not, nor has he lived in Utah, so clearly you are attributing a culture to a man without any validity other than your POV. Utah is clearly culturally influenced by Mormonism, but politically, there are liberals, conservatives, democrats and republicans, so I still can't justify your theo-conservative accusations. You are simply pulling too many unrelated concepts into this theory, and into the article. And the superfluous information about Skousen still needs to be removed. Bytebear (talk) 04:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

We're going to need several ironclad reliable sources if we are going to stick a pejorative spike such as "theo-conservative" into Beck's article and label him as that. So far, I have seen nothing to merit this. The Squicks (talk) 04:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Bytebear, you claim you don't understand how Beck could be classed a religiously-tinged political conservative, but how could you have read many of our article's various sources about him and class him as anything but? (This is a real question. Please answer without going off on all these distracting tangents such as the fact that when Beck lived in Salt Lake City in his late teens he was not yet Mormon.)↜ (‘Just M E here , now) 04:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Bytebear said, "Beck does not, nor has he lived in Utah."
Bytebear <shakes head> ---- I'm speechless. (Why are you even here editing this article?)↜ (‘Just M E here , now) 04:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
First of all, you are bordering incivility. Second, the vast majority of criticism and classification of Beck's views come from biased left-wing sources. Third, no one has suggested that Beck's political views aren't influenced by his religious conversion. I don't think Beck even denies that. But you are carrying it to the extreme. You essentially take a whole bunch of opinions, figure out how they work with your own pet theories, and conclude that you must be correct. After all, how could I be so blind as to not see the obvious. But the bigger problem is that Wikipedia doesn't care about any of that. It only reports from reliable third party sources as to what has been said or opined about Beck. Wikipedia doesn't care about truth. It cares about verifiability and notability. Neither of which your ideas qualify as. Bytebear (talk) 04:58, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Beck did live in Utah -- but, whether he did or not is a distraction having little to do with the matter at hand, I'm afraid (nor does your guess that I myself had once lived there for a year or two... )
Wrt your "strawman": What precisely is this "pet theory" of mine that you profess to believe I am pushing? (Which you say that you disagree with?)
Actual material presented in accordacne with editing guidelines (which, to my knowledge, you seem to be acccepting the veracity of?): According to (a) Mark Skousen's cheering piece (b) Beck's own works (c) the "active-Mormon" scholar who wrote the fairly-well balanced piece in Religion Dispatches, and (d) Zaitchik's polemic, Beck was influenced by his religious sensibility which also greatly informed his political conservatism. This is universally observed by those who look into the influences -- in particular that of Cleon Skousen -- and the particular characteristics of Beck's political thought.↜ (‘Just M E here , now) 05:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
You just summarized the theory you are presenting. "Beck was influenced by his religious sensibility which also greatly informed his political conservatism." But you extend it beyond that simple statement. You present this opinion as fact. You do not wish to assert it as an opinion, and give no reference to those who present it, and you extend it well beyond the basic statement and label it "theoconservatism" And you bring in superfluous information about Skousen in an effort to reflect those unrelated items to Beck (in an effort, I believe to discredit and defame Beck). That, for a start is what is wrong with what you propose. Bytebear (talk) 05:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Bytebear, it is interesting that you reference non-exitent proposed texts in order to claim I am trying to place un-credited polemics in the article. The record will show that my edits to this article have consistently attempted balance in their wording and sourcing. Sourcing contrubutions of this nature is a collaborative process and I welcome the insistence that claims, even ones that have received quite of bit of coverage in the legacy media, be couched in terms identifying them as opinions. That is important.↜ (‘Just M E here , now) 15:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
You had quoted the section on the inspiration of the US Consitution. The merits of including this is what we are discussing here. This material is important because of the widely acknowledged theoconservative nature of Beck's political thought.
Again, the sources I've provided in this talkpage section are posted here to support what is currently in the article -- and, meanwhile, the article's mention of Skousen's influence on Beck is credited to the piece in Religion Dispatches.↜ (‘Just M E here , now) 05:58, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
And round and round we go. The source(s) you provided are not detailed enough, nor reliable enough, nor direct enough, nor neutral enough to warrant the conclusions you propose. The statement "widely acknowledged theoconservative nature of Beck's political" is an opinion. Not all people share that, and in fact, I would bet very few outside the critical left would even consider it. It is polemic and defamatory. And if you want to add it, you better find a really good source from a really reliable person who can be used as an example of this opinion. Bytebear (talk) 16:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Think about this. It took months of long analysis to determine the way we present whether Beck is a conservative or a libertarian. And even then we had to back it up by his words defining himself. And you want to present him as a theoconservative as fact, with outside opinions of left wing bloggers? Bytebear (talk) 16:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Bytebear, you don't think Skousen is an influence, but the consensus so far is against you. Please don't pretend that I'm proposing text that I never have proposed. In fact, in general, I'd really appreciate it that if you're gonna post stuff on the talkpage that you'd make the effort to please try to keep up with what's been said. For example, just above in this thread I'd said not once but twice (this is now the third time) that the text under dispute is the quote from Mark Skousen you'd said (on my talkpage and now in this thread) that you would like to remove. I've given arguments here why I believe it should stay, nonetheless some turn of phrase or multisyllable word I happen to use here on the talkpage is NOT TEXT I AM PROPOSING FOR CONTRIBUTION to the article. (I've also said this twice, just above.) Don't take this the wrong way, but I'd really prefer it if you'd acknowledge this to yourself before responding here again. (BTW, when I'd contributed both the Mark Skousen quote and the concept of Skousen's having been an influence on Beck to the article, I'd sourced these both as opinions and attributed them to Mark Skousen or to Religion Dispatches, so I don't know what your red herring is about with concern to my supposedly desiring to contribute unattributed opinions. I've repeated this stuff twice in this very post, the second time just for emphasis, so please don't ignore it, requiring me to re-state it again and this time for the 5th time!)↜ (‘Just M E here , now) 01:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Text under dispute. I propose that the following be retained in the article.

    According to Joanna Brooks, a scholar of American religion, one preeminent philosophical influence on Beck's political ideology has been W. Cleon Skousen (1913–2006).[11] Skousen was an anti-communist[12] and limited-government conservative[13] whose works involve a diverse range of subjects (including, for example, Mormon eschatology, New World Order conspiracies, history, and even child rearing. Beck praises Skousen's "words of wisdom" as "divinely inspired", referencing Skousen's The Naked Communist[14] and especially The 5,000 Year Leap (originally published in 1981), which Beck said in 2007 had "changed his life". Leap reflects Skousen's passion for the United States Constitution, which, according to his nephew Mark Skousen, Skousen "felt was inspired by God and the reason behind America’s success as a nation."[15] The book is touted by Beck as "required reading" to understand the current American political landscape and become a "September twelfth person".[16] Beck authored a foreword for the 2008 edition of Leap and Beck's on-air recommendations in 2009 propelled the book to number one in the government category on Amazon for several months.[17]

    ↜ (‘Just M E here , now) 01:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
You really didn't read the version that I recommended, or you would never had said "you don't think Skousen is an influence". I clearly think the opinion Joanna Brooks should be included. I thing two things are wrong however. 1) too much detail about Skousen adding synth to this article. and 2) trying to define Beck as a theoconservative, a blatant use of POV using a fringe term. Bytebear (talk) 19:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Here is my copy for reference:

According to Joanna Brooks, a scholar of American religion, one preeminent philosophical influence on Beck's political ideology has been W. Cleon Skousen (1913–2006).[5] Skousen was an anti-communist[6] and limited-government conservatism[3]. Beck praises some of Skousen's ideas as "divinely inspired", specifically his book The 5,000 Year Leap,[3] a book on the U.S. Constitution and American history, published in 1981, which Beck said in 2007 had "changed his life"[3] and has been described as "required reading" to understand the current American political landscape. Beck authored a foreword for the 2008 edition of Leap and Beck's on-air recommendations in 2009 propelled the book to number one in the government category on Amazon for several months.[3][4]

Bytebear (talk) 19:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

unrelated-Fixed Utah stuff in article.Cptnono (talk) 05:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Good job.↜ (‘Just M E here , now) 05:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
I want a pat on the head, dammit!Cptnono (talk) 05:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 Done ;^) ↜ (‘Just M E here , now) 05:58, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

"History" --> "the Six Day War" (@ Skousen oeuvre)

The line sampling Skousen's oeuvre had originally been cribbed in whole from Zaitchik. I subsequently changed Christian child rearing to simply child rearing (although the former def is no doubt accurate, at least in the sense that Alcoholic Anonymous is a Christian addiction fellowship, which is what its beginnings were, as were Skousen's framework as an "LDS" (if we want to class that as Christian, but I digress.....)) -- and I added "history," too. But now I've changed the generic "history" to a more precise mention of the Six Day War, to give a more distinct flavor to this sampling. (BTW, Skousen was a typical American right winger in being extremely pro-Israel. (...As, witness Skousen patronee Orrin Hatch's devotion to its cause.))↜ (‘Just M E here , now) 14:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Is this the Skousen article? I thought it was the Beck article. Bytebear (talk) 17:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Armed security + wall around home ?

The right-leaning New York Post owned by Beck's boss at Fox News Rupert Murdoch is ---> reporting today (albeit in their pg 6 column) that "Glenn Beck is now traveling with an armed guard" ... "even to the men's room" at a Broadway show (I realize this sounds more like an satirical Onion headline). Now while I don't find this recent revelation particularly relevant nor newsworthy, when coupled with ---> past reports that he was applying for a special permit to place a six foot wall around his home (citing angry audiences) - it may be worthy of inclusion in reference to his "reception". Thoughts?   Redthoreau (talk)RT 03:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Is this really noteworthy? Don't most high profile celebrities public figures have bodyguards? Bytebear (talk) 05:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Public figure. I don't think it would serve any purpose but to scream at the reader that he is divisive.Cptnono (talk) 09:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I think it's noteworthy. How does it make Glenn Beck look bad? All it does is illustrate how prudent he is, and how far people will go to shut someone up that they disagree with. I do think it's funny how the people that mock everyone else for a "lack of tolerance" are the same people making death threats to a man they don't agree with. (Well, not funny "ha-ha", but rather, funny "oh my God you're an f-ing idiot!".)
However, I think that if we are to include all that, we should put up a separate section labeled, "Death Threats," and add all the death threats he has gotten in the last few years. Joshua Ingram 21:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Such as...
---------- Public Response ------------------

The old American mind-set that Richard Hofstadter famously called the paranoid style – the sense that Masons or the railroads or the Pope or the guys in black helicopters are in league to destroy the country – is aflame again, fanned from both right and left. [...] No one has a better feeling for this mood, and no one exploits it as well, as Beck. He is the hottest thing in the political-rant racket, left or right.[7]
— David Von Drehle
(Time magazine, Sep. 17, 2009 cover story)

Reception-------------

Beck's shows have been described as a "mix of moral lessons, outrage and an apocalyptic view of the future ... capturing the feelings of an alienated class of Americans."[8] One of Beck's Fox News Channel colleagues Shepard Smith, has jokingly called Beck's studio the "fear chamber", with Beck countering that he preferred the term "doom room."[7]

Beck has referred to himself as an entertainer,[8] a commentator rather than a reporter,[9] a rodeo clown,[8] and identified with Howard Beale "When he came out of the rain and he was like, none of this makes any sense. I am that guy."[10] Time Magazine describes Beck as "[t]he new populist superstar of Fox News" saying it is easier to see a set of attitudes rather than a specific ideology, noting his criticism of Wall Street, yet defending bonuses to AIG, as well as denouncing conspiracies against FEMA but warning against indoctrination of children by the AmeriCorps program.[11] What seems to unite Beck's disparate themes they note, is a sense of siege.[11] Time further describes Beck as "a gifted storyteller with a knack for stitching seemingly unrelated data points into possible conspiracies", proclaiming that he has "emerged as a virtuoso on the strings" of Conservative's discontent ... mining the timeless theme of the corrupt Them thwarting a virtuous Us."[7]
.......................................................................................................................Moving on................................................................................................................................

The controversies throughout 2009 garnered increasing attention and Beck was featured on the cover of the September 28 issue of Time magazine. The piece called him "the hottest thing in the political-rant racket" and reported that his television program had drawn upwards of 3 million viewers in recent days.[7] He was also parodied in an impersonation by Jason Sudeikis on Saturday Night Live.[12] The Daily Show's Jon Stewart quipped about Beck: "Finally, a guy who says what people who aren't thinking are thinking."[13]


Death Threats------------

Beck started receiving death threats in 2007. [14] A lot of the death threats came from Ron Paul supporters, as was stated by Beck on the December 18, 2007 episode of "Glenn Beck" on CNN. It was serious enough that he showed it directly to Ron Paul during a commercial break. [15]


Something like that, only a lot more expanded. Joshua Ingram 22:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It's simply not noteworthy. Does the Madonna article say that she has bodyguards? Does the Nancy Polosi article? Bytebear (talk) 04:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
The difference for Madonna and Pelosi is this: for Madonna, she has them because she's an egotistical narcissist. Same for Pelosi (although, her bodyguards are more prudent, as she is #3 for Presidential Succession-well, I've never figured out why she's number three. Isn't she technically #2, since she is second in line?) For Beck, he's a political commentator with death threats. That's a completely different thing. However, I don't think it's terribly important, so I won't put up a fight. Joshua Ingram 05:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Removed Daily Mail

I removed the Daily Mail source as the paper is notorious for being loose with facts as all tabloids are. I'd as soon use the National Enquirer or (God forbid) the the Sun.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Soxwon (talkcontribs) 03:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Anything new here?

Louisville Courier-Journal↜ (‘Just M E here , now) 00:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Several things:
  • Salon says he was fired but that piece says he left (three times and there is a quote).
  • "“I saw him as a well-polished guy for as young as he was,” Lincoln said. “It was a different type of show. I didn't think there were many other morning shows doing things like that.” - He was good for being young or something
  • "Before he was an influential political commentator, Beck battled the likes of Terry Meiners, Ron Clay and Troy Roebuck for listeners on Louisville's radio airwaves. From 1985 to 1987, Beck worked at WRKA, where he already was demonstrating a knack for creating controversy." He made "borderline tasteless jokes" which "weren't uncommon on Louisville radio back then" - Beck started controversy with his competition. He poked fun of one girl's weight. He made tasteless jokes.
  • "Lincoln said that when WRKA hired Beck, the station staff was abuzz. He was a young up-and-comer with a reputation that preceded him, and he lived up to the expectations. His ability to create characters — particularly Clydie Clyde, a voice he still uses today — and write elaborate skits was incomparable." - he was fresh and new or something
  • he was not political.Cptnono (talk) 01:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Salon.com v The Courier-Journal

Salon.com vs The Courier-Journal

"Beck left, abruptly, in the summer of 1987 amid a dispute with WRKA management. Months later, after he had landed a job in the much larger Phoenix market" [18] The article also asserts "he picked up and left town" (from a competitor) "and he left Louisville after barely two years"

or

"He was fired and the station brought its youth experiment to an end. As Beck and his wife packed their bags for Phoenix in early 1987"[19]Cptnono (talk) 01:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

A good practice when there are differences between equally reliable sources is to include both, or to cover the difference by leaving out the details. Something like "Beck either left or was fired in 1987..."   Will Beback  talk  03:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Is Salon reliable? There have been concerns about this report but I don't know that much about the writer or website.Cptnono (talk) 05:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
"Left abruptly amid a dispute with management" sounds a lot like "fired". Does it really make much difference? Radio talk show hosts in smaller markets seem to move around a lot., usually because they didn't get the ratings the management wanted. It's not like getting fired from many other kinds of jobs, which can imply dereliction. I'd say try to avoid giving too much detail.   Will Beback  talk  07:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
It might make a huge difference in the eyes of some readers. "Left abruptly amid a dispute with management" is good and could imply both ways (but certainly is not a verified termination for cause) but fired is pretty strong. I am also concerned about the date. Dates have been a pain in the article and although it is trivial it should be right. Summer and early of whatever year are not the same. Just the year seems like a fine replacement to me.Cptnono (talk) 08:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
You need to err on the side of caution. You have three sources that say he left, one arguably biased source says he was fired. BLPs need to avoid anything that may result in libel charges. Claiming he was fired without definitive proof is simply unacceptable. Bytebear (talk) 18:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Then again, there are those people who know that IT REALLY DOESN'T FREAKIN MATTER WHETHER OR NOT HE GOT FIRED IN 1987. He makes $27 million a year, and his quitting/firing in 1987 does not detract from his success. Joshua Ingram 19:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The terms "left abruptly" and "fired" are used by the sources in a way that is directly contradictory. I would prefer to use The Courier-Journal since it has a reputation and a less biased and more reliable source. The Squicks (talk) 19:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

To some people being fired is a big deal. All of the bolding won't change that. There is also the principle of being factually accurate on a Wikipeida BLP. Please read the opening of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons if you haven't had the chance. Cptnono (talk) 19:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
My bad, Cptnono, I should have phrased that differently. I was pointing out to whomever keeps pushing the retarded point that, "he may have been fired," in 1987, that it really doesn't make him look as bad as they might have thought. You were doing the right thing However, that guy is making a very poor libel attempt, and I was pointing out how pointless it was. Sorry, Cptnono. Joshua Ingram 20:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I couldn't figure out why you were bolding it. It reminded me of me editing without having enough coffee!
Going with "left abruptly" works it looks like. Just to make it simple, we an use the year instead of early or summer. Small little changes that need t be done to keep us honest. Any concerns?Cptnono (talk) 20:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Part II (kind of)

Salon makes a big to do about his mother's death being either an accident or a suicide and we have given it space. The Courier-Journal says that Beck says it was a suicide. Should this be mentioned?Cptnono (talk) 21:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The Hartford Advocate & the H---- Courant w/re Beck's morning zoo stint there

Glenn put the Conn-servative into Connecticutt?

"Matt Feduzi, who did the news for that morning show [KC101's "morning zoo"], told the [Hartford] Advocate that he figured Beck's chances to make it to the big time were maybe 50-50: 'We used to say he's going to be either a cult leader or a failure.'" (link)

↜ (‘Just M E here , now) 08:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Um... what? There's nothing in that source (that I see at first reading) that implies that Beck was a criminal or that his colleagues thought that he would be a criminal. The Squicks (talk) 19:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Just ignore the "cute" quote! -- I am just pointing to the piece as a source of info about Beck during that part of his life.↜ (‘Just M E here , now) 22:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I for one appreciate the heads up on new and relevant sources. We have two excellent sources now that will prevent the potential scourge of RECENTISM. Now where to start?Cptnono (talk) 01:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Follow-up: Is it a good source though? The first line is hilarious! I assume we can use the less flamboyant aspects.Cptnono (talk) 01:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The Hartford Courant has a quick piece now, too.

    "'My bad memories of Connecticut stem around me being a bad guy. But I also have fond memories because it's the place where at least I started to turn my life around. I found my wife, I married her and we live there now.'"

    ↜ (‘Just M E here , now) 12:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Beckian tidbits becoming iconic

  1. The "red phone" bit(?)
  2. Portraiture from out of photographer Jill Greenberg's shoot of Beck for GQ -- used ubiquitously since (including for Time) -- & not to mention this behind the scenes clip↜ (‘Just M E here , now) 04:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The red phone is an icon of the Cold War. Can you prove that the words "red phone" automatically remind people of Glenn Beck, and not the Cold War? Novalord2 04:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Novalord2 (talkcontribs)

No one needs to prove a thing. if the sources comment on it we can use that.Cptnono (talk)
What sources? Grsz11 05:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Ask the editor proposing it or see if you can find them. Maybe that is what you meant but it initially came across like it was about to start another long debate when a source would be the best first step.Cptnono (talk) 05:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Beck's "war" against O & the White House and/or vice versa is white hot, media-wise, with Beck's "red phone" bit cited in the sources as an instant classic. (My phrase, not theirs; come to think of it though, its very apropos of 50s McCarthyism, huh!...well, plus 60s Kennedy-Kruschev nuclear brinksmanship. Anyway, links on current skirmish(/es?) classed together today by Google are here(?) --> click↜ (‘Just M E here , now) 15:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Video clips do not qualify as a reliable third party source. This is trivia and original research. It doesn't belong in the article. Preservation does not apply to non-noteworthy trivia. Bytebear (talk) 17:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
The link above (labeled "click" a couple posts up) provides proof of ample notability for Beck's "red phone" satire [Edited: My bad.] (BTW, PRESERVE sez (a) tag a notable contribution for better sourcing or (b) provide it oneself or (c) mv it to a better pg or (d) take it to talk somewhere, presumably if its provided sourcing is waay weak -- which is why, incidentally, I had picked choice d.!)↜ (‘Just M E here , now) 21:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  1. Fox News coverage of Fox-WH controversy, highlighting red phone satire ("Media Brawl" 17Oct)
  2. Mediaite "[...B]eetween the red phone on set, the grip whose job it is to sit beside it in case the White House calls, the chalkboard, and Beck’s impressions, his opener this evening may have been the best 20 minutes of television you’ll see all day." (link)↜ (‘Just M E here , now) 19:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
  3. The AP: "Beck placed a red phone on his desk, saying it was a hot line available to Dunn anytime she thought something untrue about Obama was being said on his show." ("Picking a fight: Obama vs Fox News" 18Oct)
  4. The NYT's Kate Phillips: "Late last week, Fox News had a bit of fun with the mini-battle between Ms. Dunn and Mr. Beck, laughing about Mr. Beck’s installing a 'red phone' to get the chief communicator to call him."   &   "(...W)ill he (Gibbs) call Mr. Beck’s red batphone?"↜ (‘Just M E here , now) 22:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)↜ (‘Just M E here , now) 17:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
  5. The Public Broadcasting System's News Hour with Jim Lehrer:

    This week, Beck referred to Dunn as "a woman who is trying to crush freedom of speech" and mockingly said he had installed a red phone to take her call any time.

    GLENN BECK: We used to have a red phone at the White House where, if Russia did something, you know, they could pick it up, and the president could say: "What are you doing? We're going to bomb you." And then they would talk things out.   ¶   Well, we have installed this telephone, the only people that have it, the people now in Anita Dunn's office in the White House.

    (link)↜ (‘Just M E here , now) 18:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
  6. Sydney Morning Herald

    "Last week on his show, Beck placed a red phone on his desk, saying it was a hotline available to Dunn any time she thought something untrue about Obama was being said on his show." (link)

    ↜ (‘Just M E here , now) 07:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
  7. LATimes "Glenn Beck, the network's newest star, gleefully unveiled a red telephone on his set, saying it was a special line for the White House to use to correct any mistakes he makes." (link)↜ (‘Just M E here , now) 00:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
The red phone will probably be forgotten pretty soon. The sources don't seem to indicate that the red phone was wildly popular or significant to his persona. I agree that it is trivial and un-noteworthy. Novalord2 ([[User talk:Novalord2|talk] —Preceding undated comment added 03:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC).
Well, Novalord2, do you have any opinion, then, as to whether the controversy w/re to "Fox News's slanting 'vee es' the White House's media strategizing" might be notable enough for Wikicoverage?↜ (‘Just M E here , now) 04:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Yawn. Media yapping mouth concocts stunt of the week to keep up ratings and maintain ad revenue. So what? He's got to come up with material daily. If its' still being covered regularly in a month as more than another example of his 'wacky' behavior, if she actually calls and uses his 'hotline', then it might be notable. Mostly it's the weekly media stunt. He's learning from Stephen Colbert, more than anything. ThuranX (talk) 05:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Folks' pontifications are interesting but sourcing is what's definitive. It appears, per our editing directives at "Wikipedia:RECENTISM," that the job of Wikicontributors, as a first step, is our composing accurate and balanced treatments of incidents of much public note, to eventually be refined into more nuanced presentations later.

Recentism in the first sense—established articles that are bloated with event-specific facts at the expense of longstanding content—is usually considered one of Wikipedia's faults. But in many cases, the recentist content can be a valuable preliminary stage in gathering information. Any encyclopedia, even Britannica, goes through rough drafts; new Wikipedia articles are published while in draft and developed/improved in real time, so rapidly developing drafts may appear to be a clutter of news links and half-developed thoughts. Later, as the big picture emerges, the least relevant content ought to be and often is eliminated.---WP:RECENTISM

↜ (‘Just M E here , now) 08:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

"Lunatic fringe" term

I do not believe the line "leading the lunatic fringe" is sufficient to use the hyperactive term in that manner in this article. A writer for Time something something lunatic fringe might work but this is a BLP and there is not a preponderance of evidence or sources equating him to being the leader of a leaderless group. I also believe the editor should be ashamed of himself for including such information in BLP without considering the caution that is necessary. Juicey sources do not equal good sources.Cptnono (talk) 22:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You revert my edit saying it is vandalism, then you come here and post several more completely different reasons. You should be ashamed of yourself for accusing me of vandalism. Reliefappearance (talk) 22:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I assumed you were a vandal. When you reverted I realized you were simply editing in a grossly inappropriate manner. Bother are bad and you need to check up on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons before attempting to contribute to this project further.Cptnono (talk) 22:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
That's funny because your addition to my talk page states quite a different story. Reliefappearance (talk) 03:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Twice now my edit has been reverted. Am I surprised? Absolutely not.

Lunatic fringe is a real term. Beck is described as being part of the lunatic fringe in an RS. So, in good faith, I added the term to describe Beck. This is not vandalism. Reliefappearance (talk) 22:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I admit I too hastily credited your edit to vandalism, however, to proclaim Beck the "leader" of a lunatic fringe indicates he is the intentional leader of such and has accepted responsibility of the same. This is clearly not the case. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 22:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
"In good faith?" Are you kidding? You must be, because no one would label anyone the pejorative adjective, "The Leader of the Lunatic Fringe," in good faith. Go find some other "good faith" idiots to cry to, and stop the BS. And while you're there, look up the term, "good faith." Joshua Ingram 23:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Are you trying to tell me that my edit was vandalism? If so, you must be kidding. I admit that there may be a valid reason or two to remove my addition, and per WP:BOLD there's no reason I shouldn't make edits I feel that I should make, but my edit was in no way vandalism. You seem to be extremely worked up over this. Considering you just called me an idiot and a bullshitter, I suggest you take a cool down. Sleep on it my friend. Reliefappearance (talk) 03:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Vandalism? Perhaps, but definitely way POV and inappropriate. Bytebear (talk) 04:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The dogpiling and personal attacks in this section are ridiculous. If ReliefAppearance took this mess to AN/I, I have little doubt that there woudl be justifiable blocks handed out against all of you. You're assaulting good faith editors in your zeal to protect your idol, to the detriment of both the article and the tone of the talk page. ThuranX (talk) 04:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Funny, you grandstand on good faith amuses me for its irony. Bytebear (talk) 04:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
You must be missing words or letters, because I cannot parse your comment for any meaning. Yes, seriously. I think you left out a word or two. ThuranX (talk) 05:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
ThuranX, you go right ahead and take it to someone. If they decide to dole out blocks, I will take mine quietly and apologize profusely as soon as I get back. However, if you took it to someone, they would probably point out to you the ludicrious claim that this edit was made in good faith with no POV behind it. That's horse****, and you know it. Now, I'm not convinced that he is aware of how NOT good faith it was, because that editor seemed honestly surprised that it was not considered good faith.
Maybe, reliefappearance, you should look up the definition of good faith. If you honestly believe that Beck is the leader of the lunatic fringe, then you should probably look into his stances and beliefs (not people's interpretation of his words, ALL of HIS ACTUAL WORDS), then make a decision. Based solely on your talk page and history, you might want to take it easy on being bold until you have all the facts. Joshua Ingram 05:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Amazing how little people can read. CptNono tried to work with Relief, suggesting the use of the 'Time magazine says...' approach, but was brusque and unclear in his suggestion. However, afte that, it became a dogpile on the editor., I say, stop dogpiling. The obvious hostility displayed by those like 'JoshuaIngram' is really ridiculous. On no, someone on the internet is "wrong". Go nuts, and good luck with the aneurysm. Either help the editor work on the material, or keep your fingers on the desk. What I see above is sa lot of attacks on him because you assume he hates Beck, instead of that he wants to include Time Magazine's assessment, which is, by any reasonable standard, a Gooed Faith edit to make, whether or not the ultimate consensus is for or against inclusion. ThuranX (talk) 05:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
So one man's opinion is proof enough to make it into the lede of a BLP, and not at least be labeled as a single man's opinion? You know what?
Reliefappearance, if you really meant it in good faith, then I apologize for "dogpiling" on you. I am used to dealing with people like ThuranX, and made the assumption that you were a jerk with a "persecute Glenn Beck" complex. You have my apology.
ThuranX, you might want to be careful with your words. If there was one or two more people saying what you just said about me, then that would meet your definition of "dogpiling." And that's called HYPOCRISY. And if I can't read, at least I can spell. Joshua Ingram 05:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I Looove Joel Stein but his use of a term such as "lunatic" is really more akin to Jon Stewart's or Mr. Beck's use of such hyperbole than it would be akin to a Time news piece's asserting that description, without attribution (or if a very rare Time official editorial were to do so.......IAC, everybody knows the brilliant Stein's generally-quite-ideosyncratic opinion columns, laced as they are with humor, ain't exactly straight news features!)↜ (‘Just M E here , now) 06:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

is Beck part of the lunatic fringe?

Despite the above discussion, I contend that Beck IS part of Roosevelt's Lunatic Fringe. Obviously there needs to be better sourcing to include it in the article, but I believe the opponents above feel that the statement is false or something, and that is why they tried to accuse me of vandalism, because of they are not looking at this from a neutral point of view. "Lunatic Fringe" is a term that describes, to put it simply, lunatics that offer fringe political views. IE: NOT MAINSTREAM. Honestly, it is clear I will have to drop this, but not without having made my point. Thank you and goodnight and don't bother posting the usual ban threats on my talk page. Reliefappearance (talk) 04:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The guy is one of the most popular talk show hosts in the country, with over 3 million viewers a day (destroying the other networks in this time slot). He's is a multiple #1 NYT bestselling author. How is that the Lunatic Fringe? Who would have thought that promoting the values of the founding fathers would now label you part of the lunatic fringe... Morphh (talk) 4:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
The founding fathers were fiercely partisan. Beck just picks and chooses things they said or wrote that he agrees with and then rants about it on his show. Nice try. Reliefappearance (talk) 13:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Being partisan is one thing, being a lunatic on the fringe is another. Also, I was being eccentric with the last sentence, sorry if that wasn't clear. Morphh (talk) 13:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Is there any decent third party reliable source on this opinion? And make no mistake, this is an opinion, but is is a noteworthy one? Does this assertion come from anyone who is not critical of Beck? In other words, is this criticism only coming from (ironically) the left-wing lunatic fringe? Bytebear (talk) 04:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
For the record, Morphh, your long held contention that you are truly neutral and working solely to improve the article is betrayed by your assertion that Beck is "promoting the values of the founding fathers", an idea debately centrally in almost all critical assessments of the man. Thank you for making your biases clear, so that awe can all work on a neutral article more clearly in the future. ThuranX (talk) 04:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Have you ever read or listened to Beck without the filter of the HuffPost or MMfA or MoveOn.org? Obviously not, because if you had, then you would know that almost every other sentence has the words, "Founding Fathers," in it. While I don't personally pretend that I am not an unapologetic Beck fan, I do try to take a neutral stance when editing the article, and it is possible to be a fan and not be blind to a person's faults, and certainly not want to hide them. Joshua Ingram 04:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Just because you don't agree with him, does not make him lunatic or part of any "fringe." So, absolutely not. Joshua Ingram 04:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I think you can be a [Edited: self-described] "founders lover" and still be considered fringy. Witness our friend -- not Van Jones, but, Alex Jones! Whereas it is A. Jones who coined the phrase popular among some teaparty goers, "The Answer to 1984 is 1776," WP's lede of A. Jones's BLP cites Michelle Goldberg as saying in The New Republic w/r to Jones (who is a self-described "aggressive constitutionalist" and paleoconservative libertarian) that Jones represents, we quote, an old strain of American conservatism--isolationist, anti-Wall Street, paranoid about elite conspiracies--that last flowered during the John Birch Society’s heyday. (Here is a profile on Jones.)↜ (‘Just M E here , now) 05:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Just because he uses a phrase often, doesn't make it true. ThuranX (talk) 05:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, ThuranX -- that goes without saying!↜ (‘Just M E here , now) 05:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
You're absolutely right. However, when the beliefs you claim to espouse are the same as the Founding Father's views, it tends to lend more credit to your claim. Joshua Ingram 05:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
You seem to have confused Wikipedia's talk page with a WP:FORUM setting. You are quite blatantly letting your personal agreements with Beck's interpretations of the Founding Fathers color your entire attitude towards this situation, and indubitably, any other related to this topic. I suggest, quite sincerely, you consider editing in other areas, where your personal feelings inhibit your ability to deal with things objectively. A simple google search shows numerous disagreements with his interpretations, and we have an RS describing him as a leader of the lunatic fringe. This discussion, thus, should focus far more on criticisms of his opinions re: the founding fathers, and on the reliability of Time Magazine as a source for Wikipedia, and the weight of their comments regarding Beck. Instead, you've clearly made this an 'us vs. them' fight, which helps nobody. ThuranX (talk) 05:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
And you aren't? I don't hide the fact that I am a Beck fan, but I don't use it one way or the other when I edit the page. You are the one that is trying to paint me in a bad light, thereby using this place as a forum for general discussion. You, sir, are a HYPOCRITE. And I'll take my bias and go away as soon as you do. Joshua Ingram 05:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
No, I've sought to include material which both flatters, and does not flatter, Beck, so long as it is reliably sourced. I've often argued for more unflattering criticism of the man, because this article definitely seems to lack a balanced coverage. That said, I'll take your offer. I'm unwatching this page after this post. I'm sure the page will benefit more from your absence than my presence, and there are other places on this project I can spend my time. ThuranX (talk) 06:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Um, both sides of this argument are getting a bit too heated and clouded. Please, take a quick breather, and approach this again from the outside. (The "views of the Founding Fathers" and whether editors agree with Beck or not has absolutely no bearing on this article.)

It might be significant that a major periodical like Time referred to Beck as "leading the lunatic fringe." However, under no circumstances should it be stated as an assertion as Reliefappearance did; it should be attributed as one significant viewpoint of several, if it warrants inclusion at all. Personally, I don't think it would add anything that the mention of "polarizing... controversial views" in the lead and the further details in the "Public reception" section already cover. Fran Rogers (talk) 05:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Whether Beck is part of the "lunatic fringe" is not for us here as editors to decide. I would add as well that such a hyperbolic description (i.e. "lunatic") would not be acceptable for the lead.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 05:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. And it certainly isn't something that should be put in unilaterally, without any warning on the talk page, by a person that is editing the page for the first time. Joshua Ingram 05:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
ThuranX, since you took a bit to attack my motives, I figured I would respond. I was being as eccentric. It was a contrast to the views he often challenges like Mao, Chavez, and Marx - views held by those which Beck calls radicals in America. Most U.S. politicians promote the views of the founders, it's not overly bias toward Glenn Beck, perhaps communism. These views are not uncommon in America and not part of a lunatic fringe. In any case, we all have bias in one way or another, the goal is that we all work together to build the article and make sure content reflects Wikipedia policies. Liking Beck or disliking Beck is irrelevant when properly followed. Morphh (talk) 11:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Whether or not Beck is x,y,z is absolutely not for editors to decide. It's a matter of reliable sources to decide. I've gone through similar fights on the pages for Geert Wilders and Avigdor Lieberman (both of which are so far right that they make the likes of Beck look like Jerry Garcia), and it seems to be a clear convention that hyperbolic criticism does not belong in the lead. The lead can state neutral facts about a person- including that he or she is controversial- but it can't prejudice the reader in certain ways. The Squicks (talk) 04:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, and the utility to use such hyperbolic language without attribution is limited at best... so case closed? --kizzle (talk) 07:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Commentary w/r Beck

Examples for possible inclusion in BLP:

  1. As culled from "The Southern Avenger," Jack Hunter, in The American Conservative): Social-liberal/libertarian, economic semi-libertarian/conservative, and "paleo-conservative-in-foreign-policy (ie quasi-isolationist) guy Andrew Sullivan: "[...]I do think that Beck deserves some kudos for putting defense on the table as an issue for small government conservatives. There is no way the US can return to limited government without abandoning its neo-imperial ambitions and its middle class entitlements. The Pentagon, as that limited government president Eisenhower understood, is as much a big government program as Medicare or Social Security. Limited government Americans are rightly skeptical of a government that insists on a massive investment of time, money and human beings in open-ended nation-building in a place where these is no nation and no credible government. (link)↜ (‘Just M E here , now) 01:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
  2. The WaPo's Jason Horowitz: "[...]Beck has become arguably the most influential and incendiary conservative critic in America[... ... -- and is] the man some in the White House see as Public Enemy No. 1.." (link)↜ (‘Just M E here , now) 22:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
  3. Lieberman says Beck is his long-time acquaintance. CBS video↜ (‘Just M E here , now) 15:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  4. Jon Stewart: "The 5 o'clock to 6 o'clock emotional whirlwind and national group therapy session that is Glenn Beck? not even close to news!" (link)↜ (‘Just M E here , now) 01:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Heads up

A topic related to Beck, at least in part, is currently being discussed here: Talk:Presidency of Barack Obama#Enemies List.↜ (‘Just M E here , now) 14:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

This article is getting increasingly biased

Someone added the view appearance that there was a consensus to not add! John Asfukzenski (talk) 02:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the paragraph is leaning toward trivia, and opens the door to add more trivial details of his interactions with opposition. I haven't gone through the sources, but I would think the initial incident needs to have substantial coverage to be considered a critical aspect of Beck's notability. As I see it, Beck is not famous for being criticized by or critical of Whoopie Goldburg. Bytebear (talk) 00:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Having reviewed the primary source, I would have to say delete the paragraph or find better sources. KSHE95 (a radio station of some sort) and the UK's The (anything but) Independent, are not unbiased, and certainly not notable sources for this issue. Bytebear (talk) 00:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Education

Can an Education subject be added to this page? Any person like Beck who is important to the general discourse of world events deserves a section relating that person's educational history. From what I can gather on the page he is a high school graduate and attended one class at Yale that he dropped out of, being admitted to Yale only on the recommendation of Joe Lieberman almost a decade after completing high school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shazaamemt (talkcontribs) 08:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

According to WP:BLP, section and subsection headings "should reflect important areas to the subject's notability". Since education is not an important area to Beck's notability, I would say that no such heading should be added. It would place undue weight on a area with little content and could violate WP:NPOV#Article_structure. It would only serve to focus attention on his lack of formal education, which would violate policy. The best place for such content based on its importance to Beck's notability and weight on content is to have it in the personal life section. Morphh (talk) 14:37, 05 November 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be notable to mention that he makes $23 million a year on a high school education? That would really piss those liberal whiners off! 173.22.102.132 (talk) 14:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
In any case, focus on formal education to either demean or praise someone seems elitist (speaking as someone that has several degrees). It's either background information, like in this case, or it's part of their notability, like a professor at a university. We shouldn't make it any more or less important than it is. Morphh (talk) 16:08, 05 November 2009 (UTC)
Regardless, the fact that he has only a high school education is already referred to three places in the article. Anybody reading the article (or even just searching for "school") will see these facts. ~a (usertalkcontribs) 17:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there is no need to add an education. However, I think that the current representation of his Yale history implies that his time at Yale was longer than it actually was. It now says, "Beck took one theology class, "Early Christology," and then dropped out." Factually correct, yes, but it implies that he took the course (a series of classes, "class" and "course" often used interchangeably) when he literally took one class (one session) and dropped out. Suggested amendment: "Beck attended one theology class, "Early Christology," and then dropped out." Subtle? Perhaps, but it's the difference between picturing Beck studying away at night for weeks at a time and then dropping out and Beck attending one class. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heyamishgirl (talkcontribs) 15:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

South Park

The South Park episode tonight appears to be a parody of Glenn Beck. Question is, is it notable? Arzel (talk) 05:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

South Park parodies everything. No. Grsz11 05:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


No, at least not yet and it certainly wouldn't get a subsection. It's WP:TRIVIA and it's unsourced. People parody Glenn Beck all the time. It's not encyclopedic. See WP:IINFO. Morphh (talk) 5:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Articles on his other books?

It would be worthwhile to have individual wiki articles on the other books by Glenn Beck. They have most likely received significant coverage from independent reliable secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 07:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Website parody

I think there should be a section on the satirical website 'controversy' - [20]--81.65.111.106 (talk) 17:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Be very careful when discussing this topic. Don't discuss the parody as an actual event or it will be quickly blanked because this is the talk page for a biography of a living person. Also, I'd like to mention that this was discussed in the archives here: Anti-Beck spoof website. I'm not sure if anything about this needs to be added to the article, but a few reliable sources linked from the slashdot article do seem notable: Ars Technica, MediaPost News, and PC Magazine. ~a (usertalkcontribs) 18:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
It should have a place here since Beck did file claim against it and now has lost. It was never run as fact but a joke against beck and how he ask questions and handles himself. But there are a lot of beck Fanboys here that do not want anything negative on his page, so be ready for them. --Marlin1975 (talk) 18:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Marlin please observe WP:NPA. "beck Fanboys" is not acceptable. Soxwon (talk) 20:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
There is actually a fantastic article on the case already. It had the power to really screw up the weight of this article but a line or two a a Wikilink should be just fine.Cptnono (talk) 21:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Agree it merits at least minor mention as it has received fair amt of attention, much of it Beck-generated.Jimintheatl (talk) 22:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
If you find comments by Beck on this it would be appreciated on the other article because so far there hasn't been much from him and it would balance out the piece.Cptnono (talk) 22:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I was referring to his bringing the action, not his actual comments.Jimintheatl (talk) 22:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

These are well-referenced facts, and the subject is definitely notable. There is no violation of the slashdot policy here. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 01:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Too much space was allotted to in comparison to other aspects of the article so it was reduced. Please see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for all sorts of fun information on how to appropriately present information to the reader. Let me know if you still have a concern.
As a side note, notability does not directly limit the content of articles so you don't need to use that as reasoning in the future. (WP:NNC) 01:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Follow-up: I see that you reverted. Please try to follow the practice of Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Consensus has ben to be cautious with the rape site and we have also provided a wikilink to the main article. If you insist on keeping it in I will have to report it as a gross potential violation at the appropriate noticeboard.Cptnono (talk) 01:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I have made a mention here to see if this is a BLP concern or not.Cptnono (talk) 01:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
This should be a relatively brief mention along the lines of a parody site was created to mock GB's conspiratorial-style analysis. Beck sued; the suit was unsuccessful. The essence of the story here is not the "facts" of the spoof-site, but their parody of Beck's methods.Jimintheatl (talk) 02:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Agree with a brief mention with wikilink to the article, and I'd recommend against putting the name of the site in this article. Describe it just as Jim has stated above. Geoffrey.landis's edits add way way way too much weight for this biography violating several areas of NPOV and BLP. Morphh (talk) 2:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I removed the link name but did place it as a ref tag as without it the reader does not know why glenn beck would file claim against it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marlin1975 (talkcontribs) 11:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
That's why there is a wikilink to the entire article, where they can read all the gooey details. Morphh (talk) 14:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Let me do a little commentary here. A first note: Cptnono's very first edit of my text was to delete about three paragraphs of material and a subheading, and doing so with no edit summary. If his original intention was to be annoying, he succeeded. If his original intention was to do useful edits, well, next time he deletes massive amounts of somebody else's text, he should assume that his deletions will be reverted unless he puts in an edit summary with at least a brief explanation of why the text was deleted. (And before somebody says "but he explained the deletes in the talk page": no, the explanation in the talk page postdates my reverting the deletion.)

Second point, Cptnono stated, in explaining his deletions, "Consensus has ben to be cautious". Well, OK. In the context of wikipedia, I assume "cautious" means "cautious to make sure that all the factual points are referenced." Fine; done. The consensus was that the material should be included; now it is.

Third point, Cptnono has twice implied (and Morphh once) that the added material violates the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy. It would be useful if they would state more precisely exactly what part of the BLP policy they think is violated. This is factual material, the facts are referenced, and there is no controversy about what the facts are. There is no part of BLP policy forbidding including referenced facts (The only point they bring up, in fact, is that the section is "too long", and being too long is not a part of the Wikipedia BLP policy.)

The only remaining point, then, is that the material is "too long" and makes the article "unbalanced." OK, this is a point worth discussing. I disagree. The added material is of much more interest to the internet community than much of the stuff that's already here; and the added material was 600 words added to a 4500 word article, which I don't believe is "unbalanced." It deserves a subheading because, to the interenet community that is the primary readership of Wikipedia, it is significant. If the people arguing the other side seem to want to bring up points that are focussed on the actual issue, which is how long the material should be, and whether it should be a subheading, I'd be willing to listen. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 16:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's about an increase of about 13 percent about a non-notable subject...far, far too much. There is no reason for it to go into that much detail... Soxwon (talk) 16:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. The internet domain name case is very notable. However, quoting from cptnono (above) "as a side note, notability does not directly limit the content of articles so you don't need to use that as reasoning in the future."
Nevertheless, I have cut down the subsection to try to address the "too many details" issue. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 17:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Your edits are in violation of WP:NPOV#Article structure, WP:UNDUE, and WP:BLP. Consensus is the trimmed version. It follows summary style and directs users to the article. The case is of more interest as a unique internet ruling, not specifically Glenn Beck. In the biography of Beck's life, this deserves about one sentence. I think it already has too much weight with one summarized paragraph. You have not shown this to be significant to Beck's notability and it violates core policies. Stop edit warring. Morphh (talk) 1:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I regret that I disagree. The links you provided to WP:NPOV#Article structure and WP:UNDUE both refer to cases where there are different viewpoints, and say that the policy is that neither viewpoint should be given undue weight. Nothing I added is a viewpoint. And I have yet to see any actual explanation of why any portion of WP:BLP is in any way relevant here.
I have been receiving a lot of irrelevant (and occasionally self-contradictory) arguments for deletion of referenced, factual material. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the material is being deleted for no other reason than because it makes Beck look silly. You are violating WP:NPOV.
In your comments, you seem to use the word "consensus" to mean "I said so, and another guy did too." If you don't like edit wars, please feel free to cease. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 02:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree with several others, this section needs to be trimmed. It is, for the most part, not something Beck actively caused to happen. Some critical of Beck start a highly negative website asserting that he rapes and kills a girl, if even in jest, and it becomes a Major part of Beck's life? I don't think so. Arzel (talk) 02:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Yet another irrelevant argument. I could, in fact, argue that it most certainly was "something Beck actively caused to happen," but, in fact, it doesn't make the slightest difference whether it was something he "actively caused to happen" or something that "just happened to happen;" I don't believe that Wikipedia distinguishes these two categories of events. It is a lawsuit in which he participated, and it is of some importance; therefore, it should be in the article. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 02:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
It is currently in the article, the question here seems to be of weight. Arzel (talk) 03:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Geoffrey, for one, it's not up to us to convince you, it's up to you to convince the other editors since your the one adding the content. I count 5 editors disagreeing with your addition - that's consensus. There is also a prior consensus if you look through the archives. The material you are adding does represent viewpoints. It's a viewpoint of Beck, it's a viewpoint of criticism, it's a viewpoint domain law, it's a viewpoint in relation to all the other viewpoints in the article. NPOV Article structure for a BLP states that this must be important to Glenn Beck's notability (a major area of his life) to be a section header. While it is notable news which I think is worth including, it's not important to Beck's notability and questionably even relevant to Beck's notability as required by BLP for criticism inclusion. If you look at the body of Work that makes up Glenn Beck's biography in a historical context, this is barely notable in his life. There is also the issue that the content is defined by Beck's lawyers to be defamatory, so extreme care must be taken and we have been hesitant to include it at all in the biography. To top it off, there is already an article on this topic, so this is unnecessary duplication. There is no need for any detail here at all. So again, you are required to convince everyone that your edits do not violate the above policies, that it is best for the article to add all this content, which is an insignificant issue that already has a separate article. Morphh (talk) 4:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
"Neutrality 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." This is a significant viewpoint and it is published by multiple reliable sources. The "proportion" point is a little harder to assess since it's more of a subjective issue. It's my opinion that the current version adequately addresses the viewpoint since we already have an article on the subject. I do think we should pull the website link out of the <ref> tags. ~a (usertalkcontribs) 19:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Need for clean up

General

Glenn Beck article is a member of these categories:

  • Category:All articles containing potentially dated statements * Category:All articles with dead external links * Category:All articles with unsourced statements * Category:All pages needing cleanup * Category:Articles containing potentially dated statements from September 2009 * Category:Articles needing cleanup from November 2009 * Category:Articles with dead external links from November 2009 * Category:Articles with dead external links from October 2009 * Category:Articles with hCards * Category:Articles with unsourced statements from July 2009 * Category:Articles with unsourced statements from November 2009 * Category:Cite web templates using unusual accessdate parameters * Category:Wikipedia indefinitely semi-protected biographies of living people * Category:Wikipedia introduction cleanup from November 2009

It is obvious from these categories as well as previous remarks on this discussion page that the article needs cleaning.

November 17-18 2009

These are small changes, but I am explaining here because they were reverted previously.

I moved a few words from the footnotes into the article to provide a better explanation of Beck's mother's death, an important event in his life.

Before:

In 1979, his mother died in a mysterious drowning in Puget Sound, just west of Tacoma, either accidentally or as a suicide.[7] A Coast Guard investigator speculated that she could have either fallen or jumped overboard.

After:

In 1979, his mother died in a mysterious drowning in Puget Sound, just west of Tacoma, either accidentally or as a suicide.[7] A man who had taken her out in a small boat also drowned. A Tacoma police report filed after the drowning stated that Mary Beck "appeared to be a classic drowning victim", but a Coast Guard investigator speculated that she could have either fallen or jumped overboard.[7]

Secondly, I delete some trivia- the name of one of the the counties where Beck lived and the name and location of the defunct bakery owned by Beck's parents. KeptSouth (talk) 15:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Consensus on latest edits/reverts

I'd like to bring the latest large edits (and then reverts) to the attention of this article's usual editors. User:KeptSouth has removed large chunks of the Personal Life section. When I reverted that edit, my comment in the edit summary was, "fail to understand why so much was changed - rvtd - pls use talk page to explain". KeptSouth reverted the revert without utilizing the talk page to explain. I don't want to get into an edit war here, but I did revert the revert that was reverted this morning. Can we get some other editors to weigh-in here? Thanks. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 15:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

That is not true. The only changes I made were as described in the section above. In fact, I expanded the explanation of Glenn's mother's death by moving relevant info from the footnote to the textKeptSouth (talk) 16:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

KeptSouth actually what he is saying is factually true. He reverted you and asked you to discuss it. You posted your reasons for the change and reverted him. That is by definition edit warring. If someone disagrees with your changes you should be trying to discuss it reach a consensus then make the changes that are appropriate. I as well fail to see the significance of the changes you have made. That is not to say that you are wrong but the way you are going about making your point leaves a lot to be desired. I strongly suggest you discuss this further instead of edit warring. I also think you should undo your edits until this has been settled. Regards - 4twenty42o (talk) 16:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok...let's look at the history -- first, note that that number of bytes doesn't really change much - only 106 bytes out of 56,000 - so there cannot be "large chunks" of personal history deleted, only a few words. The words deleted are Central, downtown, and Skagit County. Second, you can see that SkagitRiverQueen asked me to use talk page to explain - he or she did not demand that I get a consensus first. I did use the talk page to explain my edit as requested by SkagitRiverQueen, and thus his or her statement that "KeptSouth reverted the revert without utilizing the talk page to explain" is factually incorrect. I followed ALL of the rules, and the edit that he or she has chosen to revert twice actually added information and readability to the body of the article. There really should not be a controversy here. It is not my doing, and I am portraying all of the facts accurately.

00:43, 18 November 2009 KeptSouth (56,219 bytes) (→Personal life: A little clean up)
01:08, 18 November 2009 SkagitRiverQueen (56,325 bytes) (Undid revision 326446846 by KeptSouth I fail to understand why so much was changed - rvtd - pls use talk page to explain)
15:40, 18 November 2009 KeptSouth (talk | contribs) (56,219 bytes) (I thought the minor changes I did were not controversial...oh well... see talk)
My posting ON THE TALK PAGE creating a new section and two subsections to explain my edit:
15:46, 18 November 2009 KeptSouth (23,525 bytes) (→Need for clean up: new section)
SkagitRiverQueens reversion on ARTICLE Page:
15:48, 18 November 2009 SkagitRiverQueen (56,325 bytes) (Undid revision 326549577 by KeptSouth don't revert back until you have discussed on talk page)
15:53, 18 November 2009 KeptSouth (56,219 bytes) (Undid revision 326550892 by SkagitRiverQueen Wow, I had ALREADY posted a discussion on the talk page)
15:56 SkagitRiverQueens request on this page for consensus - with no reply to my discussion

Of course, I have not gotten a response to my substantive discussion -- just this new section asserting that I had deleted huge chunks when I had not and that I had not explained on the talk page before reverting when I had. I hope this is clear to you all. KeptSouth (talk) 18:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The additions are contested by someone. Now two people contest your additions. Now stop editing and discuss the changes you want to make. - 4twenty42o (talk) 19:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
You got a reply from 4twenty42o - you haven't gotten a reply from me (until now) because I haven't been back here since this morning. Patience is a really, really good virtue in Wikipedia, BTW...
Anyway, it was my error originally when I stated that there had been large chunks of the article removed. I had thought there was a section completely removed when, in fact, it had only be placed elsewhere. Okay...so now that we have that cleared up, it's still the desire of two editors in this article that you please give some explanation when making edits to this article. If you notice, this article is semi-protected. It's semi-protected because Glenn Beck is controversial, and all kinds of yahoos were coming here to edit with crap and vandalize. Those of us who have been here a while are protective of the article. This article has been discussed ad nauseum over much lesser edits than the ones you made (examples of which you can view in this talk page's volumonous archives). So please, in the future, if you want to edit something here and it is contested or reverted with instructions to explain your edits on the talk page (either first or simultaneously), just comply, okay? Your re-reverts were edit-warring, and that's not okay - okay?
As far as the "trivia" you deleted - I am changing the bakery back to "City Bakery" as it is still in operation in Mount Vernon. If it were not, I could see that it wouldn't be an interesting piece of information and should be deleted.
Thanks for your cooperation.
--SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 21:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
It could be argued that the original edit should not have been removed. The edit summary certainly does not dispute any of the changes. Edit warring is still bad.Cptnono (talk) 23:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of another reversion of my edits

19:03, 18 November 2009 KeptSouth (55,709 bytes) (alpha cats, checked cites - combined a duplicate)diff
19:09, 18 November 2009 4twenty42o (55,887 bytes) (Undid revision 326584698 by KeptSouth WP:OR, improper use of references discuss on talk)diff

The revert 4twenty42o did was of my correction of two duplicate citations, my alphabetizing of the categories, and my marking of a citation as "subscription required". What is original research or improper about that?

The revert has resulted in references [4] and [5] again being to the same site,

4. Ganser, Tahlia (September 27, 2009). "Beck charms while protesters vent". Skagit Valley Herald.
5. The Skagit Valley Herald, Tahlia Ganser, 9/27/09

and [9] and [10] also being to the same site.

9.Glenn Beck not household name -- yet, BNET, November 25, 2006
10.Lynn Arave (November 2006). "Glenn Beck not household name - yet". Deseret Morning News (Salt Lake City).

I could be mistaken here, and I still do assume good faith on the part of all parties including genuine and honest mistakes of fact. However, it is beginning to seem to me a frequent editor or two of the Glenn Beck article wishes to exclude other users from making any edits to this article-- including, mundane, non-controversial edits such as all the ones I have made.

Again, I must emphasize there is nothing "OR"- original research -- or improper about fixing broken or poorly formatted cites and turning duplicates cites into the Cite error: The opening <ref> tag is malformed or has a bad name (see the help page). format so that they are grouped a, b, c, etc. in the reference section. It is the correct way to do in-line cites according WP:Cite.

Regarding the one cite that I labeled "subscription required"-- I have seen that done elsewhere on Wikipedia. It is a courtesy to Wikipedia readers to inform them that the site is not freely accessible. In fact, there is a WP guideline that says sites requiring registration or a paid subscription should not be used as references. I took a reasonable, moderate approach in just labeling it, but keeping it there as a reference. I have not done anything unusual, outside of the rules, or controversial, despite the somewhat strident assertions on this page.

The edit summary 4twenty42o that explains the reasons for the reversion is simply not true in any way. If there is a reasonable and genuine explanation for the revert, I would like to hear it KeptSouth (talk) 21:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

You are correct. I apologize for that. I misread the diff's. - 4twenty42o (talk) 21:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

about beck's WIPO filing against the satirical website

I realize that consensus has decided to truncate the information about the "satirical website incident" (and i see that the court case has its own article now); however, i think we're doing the encyclopedia a disservice by not mentioning the name of the domain, which was the source of the dispute. right now, the article states:

"In 2009, lawyers for Beck brought a case (Beck v. Eiland-Hall) against the owner of a satirical website[102] with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). Beck claimed that the site infringed on his trademarked name and that the domain should be turned over to Beck.[103] The site, created by Isaac Eiland-Hall, claimed to be parodying Beck using the same kind of straw man arguments Beck reputedly employed. The WIPO ruled against Beck but Eiland-Hall voluntarily transferred the domain to Beck."

as someone who's never edited or visited this article before, the first thing i thought when i read the aforementioned was that it's completely ambiguous as to what happened. what was it exactly that was infringing on his name? Beck claimed, in the lawsuit, that the website was "plainly libelous," which was rejected. What was libelous? are we keeping the details out due to a BLP issue? I don't see how something can be a BLP issue if it receives mention in the article at all. Besides, if we have proper sourcing, then it's not a BLP issue because the legal onus is on the RS, not wikipedia. But if it's not a sourcing issue, then it can't be a BLP issue and just a matter of consensus.

I realize this has been discussed previously, but I would like to open a new dialogue in the efforts of developing a new consensus that involves mentioning what was supposedly libelous, and what was supposedly IP infringing.

I propose: "In 2009, lawyers for Beck brought a case (Beck v. Eiland-Hall) against the owner of a satirical website "GlennBeckRapedAndMurderedAYoungGirlIn1990.com"[102] with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). Beck claimed that the site infringed on his trademarked name, was "plainly defamatory"[[21]], and that the domain should be turned over to Beck.[103] The site, created by Isaac Eiland-Hall, claimed to be parodying Beck using the same kind of straw man arguments Beck reputedly employed. The WIPO ruled against Beck, stating that "(Eiland-Hall) appears ... to be engaged in a parody of the style or methodology" of Beck's political commentary, "... and for that reason (Eiland-Hall) can be said to be making a political statement ...", which "...constitutes a legitimate non-commercial use of Complainant’s mark under the Policy." After the WIPO ruling, Eiland-Hall voluntarily transferred the domain to Beck." Theserialcomma (talk) 01:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The name of the site has been described by Beck's lawyers as defamatory. It would be best to stay clear of including it in a BLP per our policies. If they want to know more.. the information is available in the other article and in the sources. Do no harm. Morphh (talk) 14:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
i don't see how this is a blp issue if the info is available in other articles and the sources in this article. it just seems like censorship. Theserialcomma (talk) 00:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
One way in which it could be a BLP issue is in quality of sources; BLP: "Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.(citing [22] and [23]) and "In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article—even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out." Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
based on what you're saying, i'd interpret what you mean to be that we should remove the potentially libelous material. however, i don't think you're arguing that at all. it appears as if the editors of this article are trying to have it both ways - they are claiming it's BLP violating, but still are including it, and admit there is an entire article dedicated to the situation. so i ask, how could it be a BLP violation if there is an article on it which isn't a BLP violation? how is it that one article can be a BLP vio and the other can't, based on the same wording and same sources? hiding the facts in the source is not protecting blp; it's superficial security through obscurity. i think that either it's a blp vio - which i would accept with consensus - and should be removed, or it's not a violation and should be expounded upon (at least so the readers of the article know what happened.) i just don't see how something that has its own article can be a blp violation in one, but acceptable in another. Theserialcomma (talk) 04:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not trying to have it any particular way. I'm just responding that, AFAICT (and I'm no BLP policy expert), BLP (a) says that high quality sources are very important, (b) gives more leeway on negative material for more vs. less notable persons, but (c) doesn't relax the source quality requirement. Personally, I feel that the Glenn Beck article on the topic of Beck himself should be more circumspect about mentioning the website name than the Beck v. Eiland-Hall article on the topic of that lawsuit. However, BLP says, "This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to information about living persons on other pages." As I read that, if it is allowable anywhere it is allowable everywhere, and if BLP disallows it anywhere, it is disallowed everywhere. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I see no problem with mentioning the site in the prose. We don't need to link to it and I would be against adding it as an external link at the bottom. As long as we keep weight in mind everyhting should be OK.Cptnono (talk) 05:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
i agree that there's no need to link to it in an external link, but rather we should just mention the name so people know what the actual controversy was. as Wtmitchell said, if it's not a BLP vio in its own article, it wouldn't be here either. it just must be presented from a NPOV. i believe that my proposed addition above meets the NPOV requisite. Theserialcomma (talk) 05:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

ACORN voter fraud

The article as it is now states-

"In 2009, Beck and other conservative commentators were also critical of Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) for various reasons including claims of voter fraud in the in the 2008 presidential election.[99] In September 2009, he promoted a series of undercover videos portraying community organizers offering inappropriate advice to filmmakers who posed as a pimp and prostitute while visiting various ACORN offices."

The reference link in the paragraph is to an article that discusses the 'pimp and prostitute videos' not voter fraud. http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/09/16/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5315657.shtml

The claims against ACORN are not for 'voter fraud'. They are 'registration fraud'. This is commonly misstated and is a false accusation.

According to the Wikipedia article on ACORN there have been cases of ACORN being involved in voter registration fraud, which is the correct terminology. Registration fraud is a petty crime that people do for small scale individual financial gain. It is very different than voter fraud. Putting voter fraud in the article implies it may make a difference to an election. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACORN#Voter_registration

These links to FactCheck explain the differences in terminology and how they are exploited. http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/acorn_accusations.html http://www.factcheck.org/2009/06/acorn-and-the-census/

Also, stating that the staff members entrapped in the illegally obtained ACORN office videos were 'community organizers' is political and incorrect. That was not their job title, they were reception/clerical staff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.79.210 (talk) 23:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

can you provide a reliable source for their actual job titles? i agree with the other changes you've suggested about changing voter fraud to voter registration fraud, but we need reliable sources. Theserialcomma (talk) 00:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure if you are saying you need reliable sources for 'voter registration fraud' instead of 'voter fraud'. If you read the above wikipedia entry carefully, it states that-

ACORN has fired employees for fraudulent registration practices and turned them over to authorities.

Jeff Ordower, ACORN's Midwest Director, observed, "There is no scenario where those people on problematic cards would show up at the polls." According to the prosecutor, the misconduct was done "as an easy way to get paid [by ACORN], not as an attempt to influence the outcome of elections."

This article states the difference-

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/05/us/05acorn.html “This is not a case of voter fraud, it’s a case of voter registration fraud,” Mr. Miller said. “I’m very confident that none of these fraudulent voter forms found their way into the voter registration rolls or to cast votes.”

“This is in complete violation of Acorn national policy, and to indict us is a clear case of blaming the victim,” Mr. Levenson said. “We had an errant employee who violated our policy and he was ordered to stop.”

And this article appears to trace the now defunct organization that used the term 'voter fraud' in place of 'voter registration fraud'. http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/points/stories/DN-hasen_10edi.ART.State.Edition1.436da28.html

For sources for 'reception/clerical staff instead of 'community organizers', first I would point out that ACORN stands for Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, not Organizers for Reform Now. ACORN has 400,000 members, and it's offices are run like any other bureaucracy. When you walk in the front door off the street without an appointment, you are greeted by low-level reception/clerical staff. This is obvious and I do not think it needs a source.

The Wikipedia entry for 'undercover video controversy' calls them 'employees' nine times with sources, and 'organizers' once, and has no source listed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACORN_2009_undercover_videos_controversy

This article about the story has the term 'employee' nine times and the term 'organizer' is not there. http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-city/bal-md.ci.acorn11sep11,0,7738162.story

Here is a source stating that the term 'community organizer' is a loaded political term. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26547877/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.79.210 (talk) 20:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

on my recent edit

if reverted I need a "I'm doing for the sake of wikipedia" or ya know, something abuot sources or something. a "this is what glenn beck constantly calls himself" argument doesn't feel right. the neocon article here is hurting anyway

U.S. political movement. It originated in the 1960s among conservatives and some liberals who were repelled by or disillusioned with what they viewed as the political and cultural trends of the time, including leftist political radicalism, lack of respect for authority and tradition, and hedonistic and immoral lifestyles. Neoconservatives generally advocate a free-market economy with minimum taxation and government economic regulation; strict limits on government-provided social-welfare programs; and a strong military supported by large defense budgets. Neoconservatives also believe that government policy should respect the importance of traditional institutions such as religion and the family. Unlike most conservatives of earlier generations, neoconservatives maintain that the United States should take an active role in world affairs, though they are generally suspicious of international institutions, such as the United Nations and the World Court, whose authority could intrude upon American sovereignty or limit the country's freedom to act in its own interests. See also conservatism.

is kinda pretty sounding. (britannica)

Skakkle (talk) 04:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

If you would bother reading Wikipedia's definition of neoconservative, and bothered to listen to Beck's position on key points, such as interfering with the free-market system, you would see how ignorant your edit is. The neoconservative page says this:
Neoconservatism is a political philosophy that emerged in the United States of America, and which supports using American economic and military power to bring liberalism, democracy, and human rights to other countries. In economics, unlike traditionalist conservatives, neoconservatives are generally comfortable with a welfare state; and, while rhetorically supportive of free markets, they are willing to interfere for overriding social purposes.
I listen to Glenn Beck all the time, and all he ever says about the economy and the free-market system is that the government should leave it alone. Put simply, your edit looks like a personal attack to tie Beck to a political ideology that he does not hold. And until you can prove that Beck is a neoconservative (meaning he called himself one, or even acted like one), your edits will be reverted as vandalism. Thanks. J DIGGITY SPEAKS 18:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Pot...kettle.Jimintheatl (talk) 02:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
If you could keep your comments on talk pages to constructive comments on the article in question, you might not break enough rules to be blocked this week. Just a thought. J DIGGITY SPEAKS 02:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
That didn't take long, eh? what, a month to be back at the talk page, and only days to edit the page itself. Knew you couldn't do it. ThuranX (talk) 06:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm wondering how you knew I edited the page if you had done what you said you were gonna do? And anyway, I watch a lot of pages for vandalism. If you hadn't noticed, the only edits I have made to the article have been reverting vandalism, and direct responses to reversions of vandalism. I don't remember saying anything about not watching for, or reverting vandalism. So...whatever you want to think or say, I really don't care. Add whatever you want to the article (if properly sourced, and NPOV), say whatever you want on the talk page. I still won't care. J DIGGITY SPEAKS 06:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
We shouldn't attempt to decide, on our own, the political subgroup to which a person belongs. If he or a reliable 3rd party call him a "neo-conservative" then we can report that.   Will Beback  talk  19:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
  • you won't (legitimately) be reverted as vandalism if you provide a reliable source WP:RS. we must make sure not to contribute any original research WP:OR so a WP:RS for every claim is vital. Theserialcomma (talk) 02:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Just in case it's unclear in my statements, what Theserialcomma says above is exactly what I meant. You can say what you want on the talk page, as long as you can back it up with an RS. You can change the main page itself if you want, if you can back up your edits with an RS, and a majority of editors agree with you. If you come in here to throw accusations and crap around for the fun of it, or because you don't like the person, it's vandalism and needs to be reverted. Now, Skakkle explained his edits (a further explanation here) as the product of "not-enough-information", and so it was not vandalism, just a lack of knowledge. While ignorance still needs to be fixed, if the intent is not malicious, it's not that big of a deal. I guess I've just been burned by "good-faith" editors that end up being d-nozzles that just want to slander (or libel, or whatever) people because they don't like them, and it's getting harder to distinguish between the two. If I came off a little strong, I apologize. (For an explanation of what a d-nozzle is, glance around here.) J DIGGITY SPEAKS 05:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
joshua, can you try to keep it more civil? calling people names and responding in an aggressive tone does not assist in building an encyclopedia. we should judge edits solely based on their merits, not judge the editors by making assumptions about their intentions. our job is to stress and implement WP:NPOV and WP:RS ad nauseum, not try to figure out who is or isn't a douchebag. Theserialcomma (talk) 20:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Four things. First, how can you ascertain my tone from text? Second, whom specifically did I call a name? Third, a person's intent is very important. People that make an incorrect edit (by incorrect, I mean wrong, NPOV, OR, or not cited with an RS), while they should have done a little research first, are not vandals, but it still needs to be fixed. However, someone that comes in and starts trashing the place simply for a dislike is blatant vandalism, and that needs to be fixed, too. (And those people are the d-nozzles.) Fourth, I was honestly not trying to come off uncivil. My bad. J DIGGITY SPEAKS 02:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Paleoconservative

Would it be appropriate to classify Beck as a paleoconservative or traditionalist conservative? Stonemason89 (talk) 19:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

we can only classify him based on what reliable sources call him because wikipedia does not allow original research. what do the sources in question say? Theserialcomma (talk) 20:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, Glenn Greenwald referenced "...the many libertarian and paleoconservative factions with which Beck has now associated himself" in this piece critical of Beck: [24]. I'm not sure if paleoconservatives themselves accept Beck as one of their own, though. Stonemason89 (talk) 02:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
We need to be careful with that Salon ref. Salon has already provided info that is contradicted by more mainstream and (assumed) reliable press. He has associated himself also does not mean he is or that they accept him. Cptnono (talk) 02:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Libertarian conservatism

I've removed a wikilink inside a quote in the Political views section, per Linking in WP:MOS#Quotations.

The edit previous to mine (this edit) changed that wikilink in Beck's self-description of his political leanings from [[Right-libertarianism|libertarian]] back to [[libertarian]]. Neither link should be inside the quote, however since Beck describes himself as a libertarian and as a conservative, perhaps some clarifying verbage wikilinking Libertarian conservatism would be appropriate and useful. Perhaps not; perhaps it's too POV (sorry if that is convoluted and confusing—I'm rushing out the door just now).Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

New article at Latin Wikipedia

Hey all! There's an important new article over at Latin Wikipedia on Glenn Beck. Problem is I can't edit this page cause of all the haters. Could some kind soul add [[la:Glenn Beck]] among the transwikis at the bottom. Thanks and God bless, CTRlatin (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC).

No problem.Cptnono (talk) 04:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Fox (esp Beck) v White House

-- appears to have legs. Eg:

"It was some time around then that the White House launched a war on the Murdoch-owned Fox News Channel – or that Fox launched a war on it, depending on who you think threw the first bomb, and when. 'War', in any case, was the White House's word. Communications director Anita Dunn explained that the cable network – which has more than double the viewers of its closest competitor – was 'undertaking a war against Barack Obama and the White House" and that as a result 'we're not going to legitimise them as a news organisation'. Fox, Dunn went on to say, 'often operates almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican party'. (Since then, Fox's ratings have shot up, Obama has altered his strategy by giving an interview to one of its reporters, and Dunn has stepped down as communications director.) ¶ The suggestion that Fox skews right is not new, and not especially contentious. What is new is its position in a spectacularly energised opposition movement that has taken hold in Obama's first year. George W Bush's senior adviser Karl Rove used to keep Fox in step with a Republican agenda; now the Republicans are no longer in power, Fox is beholden to nothing other than its own desire to make money."---today's GUARDIAN (link)

↜ (‘Just M E here , now) 16:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The article above also quotes David Frum talking about Glenn Beck and FOX attacking Obama's appointments:

"Glenn Beck takes it into his head that this guy is bad news." The result is that 33 Republicans vote against confirming him to the job. "That's the Fox problem: it pushes the party into doing things that it knows it doesn't want to do – that its most important constituencies oppose, that put you on the wrong side of where the potential swing voters are. In order to appease the Fox audience, you end up being more radical than you need to be." "Radical right, you mean?" "I'm not sure I want to use that word. Radical angry." and concludes with: "The White House may have got that line about Fox being a wing of the Republican party backwards: The Republican party, it seems, is now a wing of Fox." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.79.210 (talk) 21:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Am I the only one that can't really see what this has to do with the BLP of Glenn Beck? Yes, they talk about him specifically, but if we added every article that included people talking about Beck this page would be longer than my... well, it would be really long. Can someone get to the point and tell us why this is important? J DIGGITY SPEAKS 22:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh God, I have to take this opportunity to be crasser and just link to penis! (I'm 5 years old today, I guess) There was talk of making a new article for the info but it hasn't got off the ground. I said that I would but got sidetracked :( . Depending on how it is done, I can see it fitting. Like all of the other stuff that we have limited, caution is needed to not give it undue weight. A couple lines should be OK depending on where it is included. A quick note on Beck's opinion of the current affairs in Washignton with a brief mention of it being part of ongoing contention between the White House and Fox? This could fit really well and would actually be useful to the reader in the "Political views" section.Cptnono (talk) 23:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

In an attempt to head off the edit war that is building...

...I added more of Beck's quote. While I will admit it doesn't make Beck look as bad as the previous version did, it's his words, direct from his mouth, backed up with a source. If there is a problem, say something here before you remove it. Let's avoid a BS edit war over something stupid. J DIGGITY SPEAKS 20:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

"fearmonger-in-chief"

I have concerns with this new line but am not sure how much: "The Anti-Defamation League issued a report identifying Beck as the "Fear-Monger-in-Chief" and stating that "Beck and his guests have made a habit of demonizing President Obama and promoting conspiracy theories about his administration."[25]

  • Is the ADLs opinion that noteworthy? I would hate to see this turn into quote after quote being added. For example, if someone calls him a little bitch next week is that OK? The source does summarize views that are out there, though.
  • Why is fearmonger-in-chief "quoted" in the source? Is this from the writer or did they impose scare quotes on their own work?
    • Is that cute phrase necessary to provide the information to the reader or do the other parts of the inclusion summarize it just fine?
    • Who's opinion is this? Is it safe to say it is the ADLs official stance or is it a contribution to a special report?

Cptnono (talk) 03:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it is important to readers who want information on Glen Beck and the controversy around him. The ADL remains a significant organization and its report does make a good point that, where other conservative talk show hosts have not given voice to extremists, Beck has. Wikipedia does not need to side with the ADL conclusions, but it should note the ADL position as part of the debate about Beck. LynnCityofsin (talk) 13:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the group so thought I would ask. My primary concern is the pretend "fearmonger-and-chief" label. The conspiracy theorist and demonizing Obama lines do the job on their own. It is a little too encyclopedic and silly. Cptnono (talk) 21:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the Fear monger in chief label was added by other news organizations and not the ADL. The ADL report just points out that Beck is stoking anti government sentiment; basically saying he is a fear monger, but not using the word. I think removing the label is fine, but the ADL is a very important organization and the report should be referenced in the article.LynnCityofsin (talk) 03:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

In the future, maybe researching the ADL before questioning their status would be a good idea. The "fearmonger -in-chief" label is a quote from the ADL's report: I added it after that quote was picked out of the report by other media outlets. But I'm not interested at this point in arguing about inclusion so long as the ADL report remains.Jimintheatl (talk) 23:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Don't be a jerk. That is why it was worded as a question.Cptnono (talk) 06:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
If it qualifies as being a jerk to ask that an editor actually read and know something about an organization before questioning their legitimacy, then, yes, I'm a jerk. And if you had done so, maybe you would have known that the ADL's legitimacy/veracity is a frequent target of anti-Semitic orgs., so I may also have been a little reflexively defensive in my response.Jimintheatl (talk) 03:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I see that ADL's applying the "fearmonger" label to Beck has become a news item:
etc. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Good thing we aren't news! In all seriousness, though: A handful from NBC affiliates and a few others over one news cycle is not important enough to give weight to. We can say everything that needs to be said with out that cute label. Its things like that that will skew the article. I assume if a relatively obscure and overly complimentary quote was cherry picked the same amount of caution would be adhered to. The recent expansion now gives it more space than it deserves in relation to other aspects of the subject.Cptnono (talk) 22:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
While I'm not sure there is sufficient weight for this BLP criticism (not sure if it satisfies the "relevant to Beck's notability" requirement), but at least there are a couple secondary sources for the fearmonger-in-chief. What is all the other crap that is being stuffed in there? Edit waring with WP:Primary sources for a BLP criticism - seriously? It's getting ridiculous again with people just adding fluff crap. Is it really a notable part of Glenn Beck's historical biography regarding what he thinks of the ADL? Why is ADL important to his biography when he criticizes people and organizations on a daily basis. With all the people and orgs attacking Beck, what makes ADL somehow worth a paragraph? This is a damn encyclopedia people, go to Wikinews to publish the latest WP:RECENTISM crap news. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS Morphh (talk) 1:26, 01 December 2009 (UTC)

BEcause despite attempts by the likes of Beck and Orielly to belittle the organization, The ADL is a leading human rights agency. That it would caution about Beck is significant. Whether you like it or not. Can we please stop letting the Beckerheads take the lead in editing this article. It is a seriously flawed peice, that paints beck in the most postive light imaginable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.110.167 (talk) 15:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

This is nuance:

"[...]when, from his bottomless grab bag of fearmongering and inciteful comments about the coming 'redistribution of wealth,' and the revolutionaries who want to take away our freedom, and the apparently satanic form of capitalism called eco-capitalism, and Mao-loving politicians, he pulled out a doozy. It was a couple of days before the 'beer summit' at the White House—the sitdown that Obama arranged for Henry Louis Gates, Jr., and the policeman who had arrested him outside his house a few weeks earlier. Beck said, on 'Fox & Friends,' 'This President, I think, has exposed himself as a guy, over and over and over again, who has a deep-seated hatred for white people, or the white culture, I don’t know what it is.' It’s not a logical impossibility for anyone, even for a person who is half black and half white, to make a racist statement, but Beck’s act of malice was, to say the least, stupid—and, it could be argued, not without its own whiff of racism. Although a number of advertisers subsequently boycotted the show, Beck did not retreat, and the media emperor Rupert Murdoch, who owns Fox News, supported him, saying in a recent interview that Obama 'did make a very racist comment, uh, about, you know, blacks and whites and so on.' (In the same interview, Murdoch defended Fox News’s prideful characterization of itself as 'fair and balanced.')"

Bravo, Nancy Franklin!↜ (‘Just M E here , now) 23:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm wondering what this has to do with the BLP of Glenn Beck. This looks like a hit piece on both Beck and Fox News. If you are trying to give an example of nuance, perhaps you should go post this quote here or here, where it actually has some import. J DIGGITY SPEAKS 23:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Diggity, if you think this piece's coverage of Beck's [in-(?)]famous "racist" comment is a hit, you've lost your ear for balance, IMHO. (Also, your seeming to imply that The New Yorker is but a repository of hit pieces would tend to position yourself within the editorial fringes moreso than myself, methinks.)↜ (‘Just M E here , now) 00:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Inclusion of some portion of this commentary, from a notable source, is warranted. And JMHN, perhaps you should assume good faith and not assume that other editors are familiar with The New Yorker (anything with New York in its title is suspect to some, as there apparently is some very scary artwork in New York).Jimintheatl (talk) 00:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, Jim, I apologize for deleting your comment. There was an edit conflict, and I accidentally highlighted and pasted over yours. My bad. J DIGGITY SPEAKS 00:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Who was it, Dan Quayle, that said something about not being able to lose what one never had?Jimintheatl (talk) 00:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm still looking at the part of your recent history where you got blocked for edit-warring for a whole week. Sorry, I just can't seem to forget that... J DIGGITY SPEAKS 00:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, let's see...first of all, this article doesn't only cover his race comments, it spends the first few sentences talking about his, how did they put it? Oh, yes, "fearmongering and inciteful comments." Hmmm...they sound soooooooooo neutral...oh, yes, and what else do they say? Yes, they said that Beck, in giving his opinion, was committing, "[an] act of malice..." I'm holding my breath for the moment the neutrality of this piece comes up and bites me on the ass.
I'm sorry if I come off rude, however, I will not apologize, or pretend to be okay with, people coming in here with things that are blatantly NOT NPOV and try to pass it off as an RS or something. Seriously, put your freakin bias aside and be a man about this! And as for me seeming to imply anything about the New Yorker (except that I don't read it, won't read it, and don't give two [explitive]s about it), you are wrong. I did not intend to imply anything about the New Yorker. J DIGGITY SPEAKS 00:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Pieces leavened with opinions can be from reliable sources and also can help establish some one or another issue's notability. In any case, since I believed that the "racist" statement likely has already been established as being notable, all I was pointing out is what I take to be the nuance of Franklin's admittedly still-negative take on this issue (but, please only take my opion about this for whatever it might be worth to you).↜ (‘Just M E here , now) 00:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
JMHN, your patience is admirable, but, as GB might say there is no point in conducting some arguments. I support adding some portion of the New Yorker piece in the public reception section. Jimintheatl (talk) 03:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Pieces leavened with opinions can be reliable sources, as long as you use the verified facts in the article and not the opinions. Now, if all you were saying here is that this writer still had a negative view of Beck's comment, why didn't you just say that in the first place? I wouldn't have said a word to that. J DIGGITY SPEAKS 00:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

redundant text

the text "He has become a well-known public figure, whose views have afforded him media recognition and popularity, along with controversy and criticism." is not needed at the end of the 2nd paragraph, since it also present at the end of the 1st paragraph. C.H.O.I.C.E. (talk) 16:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC) RJchoice

Thanks for pointing that out. I removed it. J DIGGITY SPEAKS 16:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Live events

The film drew only 17 viewers at theaters in New York and Boston, but performed better in more rural, conservative areas.

This line here seems rather biased, trying to take hits at Beck. So what if one site had 17 viewers. This isn't encyclopedia worthy. and it's not even a reliable source. Rawstory.com is a left leaning news site. This should be removed, or changed to a line that better portrays his attendance as a whole, and not select venues with the attempt to make Beck look bad. 72.231.158.139 (talk) 02:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. It is a covert way to talk shit. The numbers in rural numbers or Washington DC (where it was more but only 30 according to the source) are not mentioned. The coverage also doesn't mention how other theaters in those metro areas did. If a reliable source is found, I see nothing wrong with mentioning the difference between rural and urban attendance.Cptnono (talk) 02:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Jimintheheatl reverted without discussing so unless the line is retooled or better sources are provided, I will be reverting.Cptnono (talk) 23:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Just in case this comes down to an edit war, I'm casting my vote for a retooled wording of the phrase. I think it needs to be included, but in a way that is not just trash-talking in the guise of statement of facts. (Of course, everyone knows what I REALLY mean is that I just don't like Beck trashed! *eyeroll*) J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 00:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
The Rawstory piece and the Huffington Post peice reporting on the Rawstory piece. Was it 17 in all of New York or just one theater. How were the other "liberal" enclaves such as Seattle and San Francisco. I am not against saying "It did better in the sticks than in the city" but we don't have enough data to support it.Cptnono (talk) 01:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Seems like very weak sourcing, representing a tiny minority. This should not be included per WP:UNDUE unless we can show that this was a significant minority or a majority of theater attendance. I don't see that including such information is anything meaningful unless it's part of some overall analysis that gets more mainstream coverage. Morphh (talk) 4:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
So there is conversation here with four people thinking it needs some sort of change. Jim reverted again while relying on an edit summary instead of discussion. I will be reporting for edit warring (does not need to be 3rr to be disruptive) if it continues.Cptnono (talk) 07:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Goldline

I've removed an insertion under "other" saying that he is a paid spokesman for Goldline International, citing this. The cited source doesn't directly support the assertion, but there is a link on that page to this interview audio, which begins with Beck saying, "Uh, full disclosure here, ...uhm... this is my ... this is my gold guy but my gold guy happens to be a sponsor of this program, so I want you to understand clearly going into this that this is a sponsor of my program. Uhm, we're not going to talk about, you know .... we—we're gonna talk about gold, but I want you to know—full disclosure—sponsor of the program ..." I don't think that supports the assertion that he is a "paid spokesman". Also, the connection doesn't seem very notable and the cited source reads and the clip sounds very promotional about Goldline. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

While we're on the subject of "full disclosure," I should make it clear that I just changed the reference from this to the Goldline reference. While I personally don't find a half-true "Yahoo! News" story a good citation, if there is a good number that okays it, I can't really say anything. And I would disagree that the new source does not directly support the assertion. The citation says this: "Exclusive precious metals sponsor of the Glenn Beck radio show, the third highest rated talk radio show in the country. See what Glenn says about Goldline." I'm not sure how that doesn't support the assertion, but I've been wrong before. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 02:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Another source that support the assertion: Goldline International Introduces a New Company Spokesperson. --Jmundo (talk) 02:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I'll buy that. My concern was that a spokesman or spokesperson is someone engaged or elected to speak on behalf of others, and having X as a sponsor (which is what the first source cited seemed to support) is not the same thing as being a spokesman for X. The source which you provided above does support the assertion that Beck is a Goldline spokesperson. I'm still doubtful that this is notable enough for inclusion in the Media career and income section; it would probably fit better in a Controversies section (see this), but I won't pick that nit just now. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
It almost appears to be a controversy the source is trying to push. The whole bottom third of the article I read makes it appear completely innocent while the opening makes it sound as if it is the biggest deal ever. Has anyone seen this has gained any traction in the coverage? Cptnono (talk) 21:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

You guys really seem stuck on trivialities. Bytebear (talk) 00:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Have any of you listened to XM radio? Randi Rhodes, Hannity, Thom Hartmann, Laura Ingramm...they ALL advertise for Goldline or some other gold service and have been for at least the past two years. This much ado about nothing. Arzel (talk) 01:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Ha. Excellent point Arzel. Except that you don't have to have XM Radio to hear those shows. Citing that Beck is a spokesman for Goldline might be something that is relevant(but probably not. Who cares?), but not if the insinuation is that it's a COI because he promotes chaos to influence the price of gold. I mean, I think Beck is nuts, but you can't put innuendos and accusations in a WP:BLP with no reality basis in facts. You could make the same accusations towards all of the hosts Azrel lists above, who at one time or another can be accused of promoting 'chaos'. DD2K (talk) 16:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
sure, nobody cares, including fox.--Jmundo (talk) 17:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm....I don't believe I used that phrase. But the links are interesting. That's a different tact than suggesting that Beck is promoting chaos to influence the price of gold and suggesting a link to his relationship with Goldline. There is some news there, but I'm not sure adding anything until there is something substantial is a good idea. DD2K (talk) 23:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
This is actually a very interesting situation. This guy is pretty upset about Thom Hartmann doing exactly what people are accusing Beck of doing. And just how many stories were published about this.....um none. So I guess the NYT only cares about apparent COI when it is a conservative that is involved. Even Colbert (whom I think is funny) did a segment about this issue but didn't mention that this little conflict of interest appears to have no political line in the sand. I like this story because it reaffirms that there is a liberal bias of the media in general. Same situation for two people on different political spectrums, but it is only a story for the conservative. yeah. Arzel (talk) 00:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
That's not actually a valid criticism. The Times wrote the article because Beck works for Fox News, a supposed news/media outlet, and FNC has rules for it's employees. Tom Hartman hosts his own radio program and isn't on a news network. Perhaps if Keith Olberman had the same deal and MSNBC had rules regarding their employees having spokesman deals, and the NYT didn't cover the story, you might have a point. But your current analogy and conclusion seem pretty far removed from any sort of dotted line. It's like saying A + B = Oranges.DD2K (talk) 05:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Adding a Controversies section

Does anyone else see the need for a Controversies section? (I know we've had this conversation before, but it's time to have it again.) It seems that there is a new controversy involving Beck every day (a testament to the political establishment's hatred of the man), and it is certainly worth mentioning most of these controversies. As much as I like Beck, we are supposed to be neutral and present as much information as is warranted, and, in my opinion, a section is warranted. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 17:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. He has received far more attention since moving to Fox News, leading to more scrutiny and thus, more controversy. We need to be careful to avoid this proposed section from becoming a bulletin board of daily blogs. ThinkEnemies (talk) 18:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, and that might be the problem. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 18:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Still, it's worth the risk to balance the article. Definitely need to keep Van Jones, Anita Dunn, and ACORN in the Glenn Beck Show, and out of this BLP. If we can keep it to criticisms of Beck himself, his political views perceived as controversial, and maybe his "antics," this section will benefit the article. ThinkEnemies (talk) 18:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
LOL. Apparently I haven't checked the article lately. I concur with John Carter on separating the Public Reception section, and expanding the new subsections. Merry Christmas all. ThinkEnemies (talk) 23:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I would alter the "Public perception" section to "Criticism and controversies", and place all such material, maybe in separate subsections, there. Remember, "criticism" doesn't necessarily mean negative criticism, so most of the extant material there could probably stay. John Carter (talk) 18:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Is there really a controversy every day? Or is is left-leaning critics elevating mundane trivia creating a perception of controversy? It seems like partisan hypocrisy to me. Seriosuly, you are basically wanting to add a section to add POV and allow for bloat. Let me give you the flip side of this. There are a lot of interviews and information about Beck and his conversion and activity as a Mormon. Should we have a section detailing every article and statement he has made bout his religion? Yet, you want a section where you want to document every word uttered by any critic of Beck. Bytebear (talk) 06:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Dude, calm down. Seriously. No, I do not want a section where we can post every single thing anyone says about the man. That's against several guidelines, mainly WP:BLP and WP:RS. I'm not trying to discredit him. I'm trying to help keep the article as neutral as possible.
It is mostly hypocrisy (although it can be bipartisan, since Beck has severely criticized the Republican establishment for it's corruption and and various other things), but there are some things that are fairly controversial. For instance, his statements about Obama, the racist comment. While I can't say that I disagree with his statement, it is, rather obviously, a highly controversial thing to say, and that's not the only controversial thing he has said. I'm not saying we should report every dingbat's opinion of the man (although there is an editor or two that think it's appropriate to post an EL to every dingbat's website-we all know who you are), I just think a Controversies section would be appropriate. What I meant by, "there seems to be a new controversy every day," was that he seems to be calling someone out every other day for the appearance of corruption and scandal, and the rest of the days someone is trying to discredit him. I just think it's worth a section. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 06:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
By creating a section specifically for controversies, you open the door for BLP violations and article bloat. I personally think most of the "issues" addressed in the article are trivia, and we have recently had discussion on whether Beck's promotion of Gold and his commentary on Tiger Woods. Do you really want to open that door? We need to be looking at paring down the trivia, not creating a venue for people to add more. Again, think of POV, and then think if the Mormons came here with the same enthusiasm as his critics, and decide if you want a section called "Praise and adulation". Bytebear (talk) 06:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I see your point (it was a very persuasive statement). I really do. But I still think it's worth the risk, on a trial basis if nothing else. I am willing to open the door (I'm not worried about someone watching this page intently, because I do that every day) because this suggestion was made to me by a very respected administrator (at least, I respect him...I can't speak for everyone), and I think it's a good idea. I would say that the minute it becomes a problem we can either put it back the way it was, or we can ask for better protection. Again, this is NOT a backdoor attempt to slander the man. If you look on my talk page, and at all my statements on this page, I am a huge Beck fan. (I paid 30 friggin bucks to become an Insider, for God's sake!) But I also try to be as NPOV as possible, and that includes stating the (verified, reliably sourced) facts about Beck, and not worry about how he comes off in the end. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 06:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
The problem is we are losing perspective on what this article is about. It's about what makes Beck noteworthy. The trivia of a few critics who find every jot and tittle to complain about is not what this article is about. I see a whole paragraph about the "Goldline scandal" has made it into the article. Are you saying that Beck is known for this scandal? In 30 years, or 100 years, will Beck be known for this issue? No, he is know for being a radio and television host, and best selling author. When the compromise was agreed upon to add even a few examples of "criticism" it was not to highlight that issue, but to show how his shows impact society. What has been lost is the view that the issues are not there in and of themselves (i.e. as a stand alone section) but rather how they relate to Beck and more specifically his show, which is why I was against the inclusion in the first place of such issues, as they are more appropriate to his show, or to the article about the specific issue (if there is one). Bytebear (talk) 18:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Gold?

Should all these go in this article or should they go here? Dflav1138 (talk) 18:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you should bother reading the article before you come walking in with a bunch of non-RS references and a couple that are already mentioned in the article. Just an idea. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 19:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
So, you think it should go here? Dflav1138 (talk) 19:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Some of the criticism, specifically about comments he may have made on either his radio or televsion show which do not seem to address the individual beyond that, would probably best be put in those articles. Reagrding his Mormonism, personally, I know it is generally counted as a rather conservative religion, and he is more or less a conservative pundit, libertarianism being regarded in the US as kind of extreme conservatism, so I could see a bit more information added on it, particularly if it comes directly from him and if it is in what seems to be an honest, direct manner, rather than in what many would call the somewhat intentionally inflammatory material of his shows and at least some of his writings. I personally think the article as is probably overstates the media material, which is or can also be covered elsewhere, and a bit more directly biographical material about the subject would not be out of line. John Carter (talk) 19:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with having a controversy section. It creates issues with NPOV Article Structure and goes against general guidelines in this case, particularly being a BLP. Separate sections containing negative evaluations will become a troll magnet - this is apparent by looking through our own history. Our problem is we have too much crap going into it. The thread started that there is a controversy every day... No.. this is the problem.. it's not a controversy.. it's just news. This is not a news webpage - it's an historical biography in an encyclopedia. We need to separate the real controversy from the historically unimportant news. BLP policy is strict on [[WP:BLP|criticism and praise, and we're ignoring it and treating it like normal content. It should be summarized to only a few paragraphs covering the real controversies that received significant attention. Everything else should be integrated into the article as appropriate for the section or in other articles that are more specific to the topic. Just because we can find sources for an news item, does not give it sufficient weight to justify adding it as criticism. Cover the main criticism points, and let the news take care of the daily grind. Morphh (talk) 20:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Article Paints Beck in Positive Light

Am I the only one who read this article and thought it was treating Beck with kid gloves? I mean the man is a laughing stock in this country, routinely blasted for his on air temper tantrums, weeping, and instability, yet one doesn't even get that impression from the article. I know the article needs to be balanced, but come on. The man has displayed truly bizarre behavior on air and the radio, been taken to task for it by reporters, and hardly a mention of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.110.167 (talk) 20:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

You might want to read the rules before you go editing pages and posting your POV all over the place. And just because this article doesn't declare to the world what an ass YOU think Beck is, does not mean that the article paints him in a positive light. J DIGGITY SPEAKS 21:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
IP, speaking to what I take to be the substance of your statement: I personally likewise believe that the hyper protectiveness shown by the phalanx of spirits that hang around and protect this, as well as any, BLP on Wikipedia tends to go overboard a bit. (See this hilarious definition on Urban Dictionary.) However, speaking to your tone, and your apparent belief that Beck appreciators inhabit but the fringes: it is also true that commenters on WP's talkpages are encouraged to leave partisanship at the door (that is, IP, try using the tone of an AP reporter as opposed to the tone of a opinion page column in your comments here; thanks).↜ (‘Just M E here , now) 23:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I haven't edited the article at all. I am just pointing out, a lot of the criticisms of the man appear to be absent from the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.110.167 (talk) 23:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Better said (IMHO). And, I agree.↜ (‘Just M E here , now) 23:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
The same could be said for a large number of BLP's, most notably Barack Obama. Why aren't you there throwing a hissy fit?
This is something that I will never understand. It's called a double standard. I'm terribly sorry that Wikipedia decided not to be a website devoted to making sure that everyone has easy access to the worst parts of people's lives. However, there are a lot of sites that are willing to let you say whatever the hell you want about some people. Take Liberapedia's page on Glenn Beck, or Conservapedia's page on President Obama. If you are really wanting "the whole and complete truth" to get out about Glenn Beck, go expand that article and leave the people that actually want to try to remain neutral to trying to be neutral. J DIGGITY SPEAKS 00:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
(Speaking for myself and not the IP), I think the Obama articles are vastly over-protected from notable content conceivably interpretable by some as criticisms, as well (and believe a nonpartisan reading of the WP:WELLKNOWN section of WP:BLP supports inclusion of notable critiques of politicos and pundits).↜ (‘Just M E here , now) 00:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

All notable events and reactions should be posted about any figure. Because someone who is extreme, should be presented as such. I haven't read the Obama article yet, but if the reverend wright issue isn't in there, that is a problem. With Beck, the man wept like a child on television and was ridiculed for doing so. He has become a laughing stock for most mainstream Americans. Yet after reading the article, one doesn't get that impression at all. I mean the man is clearly on the fringe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.110.167 (talk) 00:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

"The man is clearly on the fringe..." Uh, do you pay any attention to the ratings the man gets? At 5:00, he regularly beats all of his competition combined. The only way he could theoretically be behind his competitors is if you combined, and then doubled them! I'm sorry, but "fringe" inhabitants don't have that kind of audience. J DIGGITY SPEAKS 00:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia itself doesn't think Beck is a laughing stock because of his tears et cetera; however, that some commentators do, perhaps could be noted (along with the fact that yet other commentators disagree with this notion).↜ (‘Just M E here , now) 00:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Fringe inhabitants do have those kind of ratings. And half the people tune in because they can't stand the guy. The other half tune in because they know he'll do something crazy. The remainder of viewers are fringe folk themselves. But my point is tons of people, including Shep Smith from Beck's own network, have pointed out how unhinged the man is. It is worthy of mention. Most moderate and mainstream people find Beck's behavior unusual if not down right nuts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.110.167 (talk) 13:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Half the people tune in because they can't stand the guy. The other half tune in because they know he'll do something crazy. The remainder of viewers are fringe folk themselves. Okay, so you're now purporting to know the intentions of three million people, and you don't know how to add (1/2 + 1/2 +more ≠1). You see, this is called POV, and there is a reason why it is severely discouraged. Look, I'm sorry that you don't like Beck. I personally do, for reasons that are my own. However, this site is supposed to be neutral. If you can't be neutral about things, you should either leave, or stick to the people that you are sure you can be neutral with. Seriously. And, I don't know about you, but I don't watch too many TV shows that I can't stand the people on it. I know The Office is popular, but I don't watch it because I think it's stupid. I know that a lot of people don't like watching WWE, but I watch it all the time, because I like it, and for no other reason. I admit that I do watch as much Olberwomann as I can stand sometimes, but that is usually on days where there is literally nothing else on (I despise Olberwomann because of his whining and his rudeness, not because of his politics or his ideology). I'm sorry, but saying that 1.5 million people watch a TV show at 5pm "because they can't stand the guy..." That sounds like wishful thinking on your part. And it really doesn't matter what "most mainstream people" think, it is not appropriate to start talking about how "unhinged" he is on his own BLP. If you want to start a Glenn Beck Controversies page, click on the red link and cite your sources. Until then, please read some friggin rules before you come up in here and start making judgments on articles. J DIGGITY SPEAKS 15:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Nice work random IP. I think that summarizes the true problem. We have said what several of the controversies are but we haven't laid out that aspect of it. There is a big difference between being a self described "clown" and acting like a nut (oddly enough I don't think he would mind that categorization). We need sources though. It would also need to be worded in a way that is not "Hey, this guys is a lunatic and everybody hates him, look at this list of quotes making fun of the guy..." If some quality sources are found and we do some good summarization style there should be no BLP concerns. Cptnono (talk) 13:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Diggity: I am not asking for POV, I am asking that we mention how many main stream commentators have accused Beck of being fringe or crazy. One doesn't have to look far to find such statements. As I pointed out, Shep Smith, from Glen's own station, has made fun of the man for his unusual behavior. Personally I do think he is unhinged, but I don't think the article should take that position. It should just report how many people agree with the position, which is an awful lot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.110.167 (talk) 13:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

So, you personally think he is unhinged, and you think the article should report how many people agree with you. You're absolutely right, there is absolutely no POV in that statement. *eyeroll* Have you even bothered to figure out what exactly POV is? Read that, and then come back and try to prove to me how getting your point inserted into a BLP is not POV. Seriously. J DIGGITY SPEAKS 18:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention the total lack of reference to the widely reported "Get off my phone" incident. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.110.167 (talk) 14:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

If people want to see what an in-your-face critical-of-Beck ("hit"?) piece is, here is one:

"... ¶ Actually, Beck is a problem of taste as well as ethics. He laughs and cries; he pouts and giggles; he makes funny faces and grins like a cartoon character; he makes earnest faces yet insists he is a clown; he cavorts like a victim of St. Vitus's Dance. His means of communicating are, in other words, so wide-ranging as to suggest derangement as much as versatility. ¶ He is Huey Long without the political office. ¶ He is Father Coughlin without the dour expression. ¶ He is John Birch without the Society. ¶ He is an embarrassment to all true conservatives, men and women who believe sincerely, thoughtfully and sensibly that the role of government in American life should be limited. Of course, Beck does not call himself a conservative; he is, rather, a libertarian, which may be defined as a conservative-squared, a person who wants the feds to collect no money in taxes, spend no money on programs, but make available all services that the libertarian deems necessary for his own convenience and safety. ¶ It is remarkable that Beck has attracted the amount of attention he has. Remarkable because, every night, Fox's Sean Hannity and MSNBC's Keith Olbermann stage a duel of one-sidedness in political commentary that would have been the talk, and the shame, of a more civil era. ¶ Remarkable because, every night, Fox's Bill O'Reilly stages an exhibition of contentiousness, mean-spiritedness and self-aggrandizement that would similarly have affronted civil viewers of the past. ¶ Remarkable because, every night, CNN's Campbell Brown stages an exhibition of a different kind, one of honorable pugnacity, an exhibition that would have stimulated viewers of the past but instead makes her a part of her network's continuing decline in prime-time ratings. ¶ Yet Glenn Beck surpasses them all. He is the talk of the talkers. It is he who causes commentators to comment, fans to swoom, foes to fulminate. And it is he who has motivated me to burrow up from my literary researches to opine on journalism one more time. ¶ ..."---Emmy award-winning media critic ERIC BURNS (2 Dec 2009 HuffPo (link))

↜ (‘Just M E here , now) 18:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Let me try to rephrase this so my point gets across better. THIS IS A BIOGRAPHY OF A LIVING PERSON. This is not the place for everyone's opinion of the man to be posted. This is an encyclopedia, not a friggin blog site. If you can't be bothered to actually read the guidelines, here is a small excerpt for you to check out:
"Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects must be considered when exercising editorial judgment."
That comes from the Wikipedia Guidelines on Biographies of Living Persons. Here is another excerpt from the same page:
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, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints. The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral; in particular, section headings should reflect areas important to the subject's notability. Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Look out for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be promoting a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.
Does that clear it up?
And as for Shepard Smith, I don't pay too much attention to people that have dropped the F-bomb on national televison. J DIGGITY SPEAKS 18:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Diggity: Your bias on this topic is clearly showing through. There is nothing fringe or controversial about noting the wide perception of Beck, that he is unstable and even dangerous. THis is one of the most frequent criticisms leveled at the man. POinting that out is entirely relevant to his notability. And, regardless of what you think of Shep Smith, the man is one of the leading faces on Fox News, and a Colleague of Glen Beck. But the list of notable people who have accused beck of being unstable and dangerous is virtually endless. It is clear that you like and admire Beck. And it is clear that lots of people join you in your admiration. He has a large following and that deserves mention in the article. But it should also mention the large number of people who feel he is off his rocker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.110.167 (talk) 20:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Then name some. Put up some sources that qualify under Wikipedia rules for reliable sources. I know this means you might have to read some rules, but I believe in you.
And, since you clearly are not getting my point, I will try to clarify once again. I have no problem with "notable people's" perception of Glenn Beck. What I do have a problem with, is people coming in here trying to slander (or libel, or whatever you want to call it) people on their freakin BLP's. If it's a bias to ask people to follow the rules and guidelines, then I ABSOLUTELY have a bias. J DIGGITY SPEAKS 20:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


I am not here to edit the page itself. I am just making a suggestion for more experienced editors to follow up on. And your bias is obvious in this case. I have not slandered or libeled your precious Beck. I have just pointed out that notable people have called him crazy and dangerous. And that a large portion of the population feels the same. He is a laughing stock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.110.167 (talk) 03:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

You have yet to provide a link to a reliable source that backs up your claim. No sources, no inclusion. It doesn't matter what you think or what Diggity thinks or what I think. If you want to include such claims in a living person's biography they must be verifiable, backed up by reliable sources. Reach Out to the Truth 04:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
My bias...I asked you to prove your point, within the confines of the guidelines, and you counter not with proof of your claim, but with another claim that I am biased. Have you considered backing up your claims with evidence? NOPE. Therefore, you should probably shut up. If and when you decide to come in here and try proving your assertions, then we all can talk about what you would like added to this page. And I'm glad that someone in here has a bias for the rules being followed. I think we ALL should be that way, regardless of how we feel about a particular topic.
Truth, that is my point exactly. Yes, I like Glenn Beck. I have not tried to make that a secret. However, I am more inclined to keep Wikipedia as accurate and as broad as possible than I am to improve the image of Glenn Beck. I have no problem including whatever is properly sourced, and whatever is applicable to a BLP. However, if someone is not going to follow the rules and guidelines, I really don't care what their opinion is, or what they want added to a BLP, or any page. J DIGGITY SPEAKS 04:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

All I did mention shep smith already, and as I have pointed out, regardless of what you think of the man, his contempt for Glenn Beck (which is obvious) is significant since he is a fellow fox news caster. I only came in to suggest it should be explored by editors more familiar with Wikipedia than myself (I haven't edited the Beck page). For merely suggesting that, you immediately attacked me and ranted about the rules (which I haven't broken because I haven't edited the article). It is clear you are just a beckerhead who can't stand the idea that most of the country thinks the guy is nuts. But there are plenty of reliable sources calling him dangerous. THe ADL report is highly significant. As are the number of editorials in major papers following its release (Here is but one: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-rutten25-2009nov25,0,6632984.column). Here is another: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/11/17/2009-11-17_glenn_beck_is_scarier_than_rush_limbaugh_sean_hannity_says_antidefamation_league.html. Just google Beck and Fear, and you will see dozens of articles on the topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.110.167 (talk) 18:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

First, Shepard Smith, while he seems to be a pretty good journalist, and tries to be as neutral as possible in his reporting, is rather obviously a liberal guy. (Google "Shepard Smith Liberal" if you don't believe me.) I won't argue that Shep Smith's opinion on a coworker is germane and applicable, but it's not exactly without bias. Second, I "ranted and raved" about the rules, not because you broke them, but because you were asking us to do something against the rules. (And because you were asking us to do your dirty work for you.) This is supposed to be a neutral information site, not a compilation of everyone's opinion of the man. I can't stand that idea, simply because there is no proof, just your opinion. Third, the two sources you cite are all opinion pieces, and all base their opinions on the ADL report. One of them says that Beck was promoting the FEMA camps idea, when in fact it was Beck that disproved it. And I googled "Beck and Fear", and all I got was a bunch of blogs, which are not admittable according to the rules. Again, if you are under the impression that "most of the country thinks the guy is nuts," you should either admit that you have no proof for your supposition, or prove it, and then we will all discuss what we can add to the article, within the confines of the rules. If you have a problem with the rules, you should just go away, because everything added to the articles on Wikipedia is subject to the rules, and someone will find it and challenge it. J DIGGITY SPEAKS 18:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

But we are talking about opinion. One cannot prove as a fact that BEck is dangerous or not dangerous. My only point was a large number of commentators, news people and academics think he is nuts and dangerous. Shep being liberal (which he isn't) has nothing to do with the fact that his opinion of a fellow co worker is important. You are not just referencing rules, like a hall monitor you are using them as a weapon to protect a figure you adore. Neutrality is fine, but it doesn't preclude painting people in the light they are generally seen. I would expect an article on Louis Farakan to note that many think he is an extreme guy. I would expect an article on Mao, to note he is viewed as one of the villains of the previous century. As the article is now, it looks more like a promotional piece for Beck. I am just trying to bring this to peoples' attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.110.167 (talk) 20:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Write a draft, FFS. Originally it was that he was a laughing stock and now it is the fear thing (which already getds play in the article). You have been so busy arguing that nothing is getting done. You only just recently provided sources. Take 10 minutes to stop complaining and propose a couple lines to add. Instead of having a knee jerk and defensive reaction to someone explaining guidelines and policies, you should be using that information to ensure you are improving the article in accordance with them.Cptnono (talk) 22:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Since I still don't think you are getting it, I will try arguing this using your own tactics.
Shepard Smith isn't a liberal? Of course he is. There are several notable people that think he is a liberal. For instance, this guy, and then here he is grilling Joe the Plumber, which is a favorite pastime of liberals, and then, my centerpiece, a report from a well-known political action group, Free Republic, (you'll have to google it, WP won't let me post it). (Oh, wait, you waited for a week before you posted references. My bad. I'll let it ride.) It is obvious to a VAST MAJORITY OF THE COUNTRY that Shepard Smith is a liberal, and your being a biased shephead is obvious at this point.
I'm not sure if I did it right, but that's what your arguments looked like (except for the quick use of references).
I don't know much about hall monitors (we didn't have them in my school), but in all of the characterizations I've seen, I have never seen a hall monitor using rules and guidelines to protect certain people that he/she likes. However, in every characterization, the hall monitor has been true to form: he/she follows the rules. Maybe you should try reading the rules. Again, it's just an idea. J DIGGITY SPEAKS 22:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

YOu are missing the gist of my argument, I am not saying that notable people believing Beck crazy and dangerous makes him so (though I do believe he is), I am just saying that this reaction to him needs to be noted. ANd I agree with you, if lots of conservative viewers of FOx think Shep is too liberal because of his recent outburts, that is worthy of mention in his article. When I read a wikipedia article, I think it is important to know how someone is viewed by a range of people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.110.167 (talk) 14:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

What you need to provide are reliable secondary sources that show the position is held by a significant minority, otherwise it's undue weight. Viewpoints held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, do not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not. This is particularly true with with a biography of a living person. The biography should be looked at with a long term historical perspective. Morphh (talk) 15:17, 08 December 2009 (UTC)
Morphh is right. That's what I've been trying to say, but you won't listen. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for what you want to be heard (yes, I realize I brought up another pesky rule). I'm glad that you think it's important to know how someone is viewed by everyone, but that's not how things are done. However, if, as I said previously, and Morphh just reiterated, if you can come up with some reliable sources that confirm your supposition that Beck is the laughing stock in the eyes of a respectable number of people, then that will be included in the article.
As for Shepard Smith being viewed as a liberal, no, it is not worthy of mention in his BLP. It is notable in everyday life, perhaps, and if Smith had a "Political Positions of" article, it would be notable there, likewise if there was a notable controversy involving an obvious political leaning by Smith, it would be worthy of mention somewhere. Otherwise, it is not important. J DIGGITY SPEAKS 18:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Alright, 24.147.110.167. There you go. What from that peice needs to be in the article. I think "...And Fox's ratings surge is inextricably linked to Glenn Beck." That will more than likely read as positive. I also think "His shtick is so wildly theatrical, in fact, as to invite comparisons to fictional demagogues and ranters,.." and "one whose unpredictability has been a significant part of why he's drawn so much attention." are noteworthy. "ticking time bomb," is cute. It grabs the reader and is interesting. However, this isn't a magazine trying to right article to get more sales in the check out line. I wouldn't necessarily be against its inclusion. So what do you think? A whole lot of complaining and no follow through. What from that story would improve this project in your opinion? This isn't a forum for general chit chat and you are starting to sink into that.Cptnono (talk) 04:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Maybe we should ping 24.147.110.167.'s talkpage, Cptnono. (<Thinks to self> Hey, do IPs' talkpages tend to be pingable?)↜ (‘Just M E here , now) 22:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

How did an avowed Glen Beck supporter get put in charge of this page? Does whoever creates a page get to control it? I find it disturbing that some who is clearly a big fan of glen beck and wants to promote him gets put in charge. He even comes out and says it. "I like glen beck for my own reasons" I mean its obvious but dont come out and say it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.215.136.154 (talk) 17:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Since I'm the only person that has stated that they are a Glenn Beck supporter (as far as I know), I assume you think I'm in charge of the page. Uh, that would be a no. I do not claim that title, nor do I want it. Now, I try to do my part to make sure that this BLP stays within the GUIDELINES, and I don't think I'm the only one. However, that does not put me "in charge." I might be the "watcher" (since I don't have a life and spend most of my day watching my watchlist), but that don't make me in charge. Sorry to burst your bubble. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 18:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

He compared Tiger Woods to O. J. Simpson

Worth mentioning? [26]Stonemason89 (talk) 21:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

no. Bytebear (talk) 00:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Ditto.Jimintheatl (talk) 14:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Negative. ThinkEnemies (talk) 16:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It depends. If it was done in a racist way, yes. Absolutely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.110.167 (talk) 22:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Protection

This page is now temporarily fully protected. It has been asserted that Shepherd Smith's comments were deemed relevant for inclusion in the article as per comments on the talk page. I have to admit I don't see where this consensus took place. So far as I can see, the content in question seems to be about a Piece in the New Yorker regarding Beck's program. I cannot see how this article is where any material referring specifically to either of the subject's programs necessarily belongs. There are extant articles on both the radio and TV programs, and it seems to me the bulk of the material on those programs should be placed there. Some mention of Beck's on-air and I think in-print persona is obviously relevant to the article on the person himself, but I'm not sure how much, considering seems to be a persona at least a little exaggerated for public consumption. WP:SS would seem to apply about material which is directly related explicitly only to either of the programs, and possibly the books with separate articles as well. Anyway, I would welcome discussion as to why any specific material which seems related to either program should be included here. Some such material is obviously called for, but which and how much space should be given to them is another matter entirely. John Carter (talk) 22:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

That's not the point, that massive wall of other ppl's posts is not necessary. Soxwon (talk) 04:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
All I have to say is: "Mr. Jim in Atlanta , tear down this wall!" ThinkEnemies (talk) 05:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for the clutter, but I reposted this discussion b/c an editor denied it had ever taken place and accused me of lying. Not only did the discussion occur, but the editor himself took part in it, and while doing so, actually deleted and did not restore some of my comments.Jimintheatl (talk) 15:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
In all honesty, the discussion copied above is both difficult to follow and understand. If possible, a diff link indicating the differences between the first and last revision included would probably be a lot easier to follow. As an individual, the points that strike me as relevant are:
  • (1) Is the piece substantively an editorial? If it is, then there is a real question as to whether that specific item qualifies under RS, because it isn't really "sourcing" anything other than the writer's opinion.
  • (2) Is it specifically about him as an idnividual, or is it presented in the context of one of Beck's works, either print, broadcast, or otherwise? If the latter, then this article frankly already has too much material about his media endeavors, and those sections could and should be substantively shortened, at least IMO. I think it is generally understood that most such opinion-presenters do in fact "overplay" themselves for their media appearances. If this is about the media appearances, then I think it might better quqlify for inclusion in whichever article is discussing the specific item in question. John Carter (talk) 18:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Okay, since I haven't been on here in a while, I thought I would clear some things up. First of all, here is the link to the entire discussion. The most important part of that discussion is this statement by Justmeherenow:

"In any case, since I believed that the "racist" statement likely has already been established as being notable, all I was pointing out is what I take to be the nuance of Franklin's admittedly still-negative take on this issue (but, please only take my opion about this for whatever it might be worth to you)"

Note that the editor responsible for bringing it up stated that his original intent was not to include the piece in this article, but instead to point out, in his opinion, a really good example of nuance. Nowhere in that discussion did I find anyone that was actually for inclusion. Therefore, yes, Jim, you were right that I was the only editor against inclusion, however, there was no one actually in favor of inclusion.
Second, yes, I did delete a user's comments. That was the result of my own lack of attention. If I remember correctly, I clicked on the page to respond, and that specific edit had not been added to my watchlist, and I highlighted my entire edit to remove it (I can't remember why), and that one happened to be beneath mine. I did notice afterward that I had deleted someone else's comments, and immediately set out to apologize for that (seeing that it had already been restored). Here is the proof that I did so, even though it was promptly deleted (with a borderline-personal attack edit summary to boot, which seems to be a pattern on that particular page).
So, Jim, you might not have been lying, but you certainly were misleading and withholding the entire truth. Since calling someone a liar is a breach of WP:CIVIL I apologize for calling you a liar, Jim. I tend to call it like I see it, even if that requires incivility.
Oh, and one more thing: I don't care for the New Yorker for one reason: It's primary focus tends to be New York (at least in the articles I have read), and art, two subjects I do not care for. Yes, I see a liberal bias, but that does not stop me from reading and watching news articles and programs. I read from the Huffington Post and Media Matters all the time (mainly to try to figure out how people can tell blatant misleading statements and half-truths), and I occasionally watch Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow, despite their obvious liberal bias. I don't go so far as to actually include them as an RS (for the same reason I don't go to NewsBusters or WorldNetDaily), since I can see the bias, and realize that that is pushing the rules just a little over the edge. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 20:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Again I'll say that just because we have a reliable source like the New Yorker, doesn't mean that the content should be given any amount of weight in relation to the biography of the person, particularly if it is a form of criticism, which BLP requires higher standards for inclusion. I don't care if it's included or not, but we should be careful with including fluff and show that the position is relevant or more than a tiny minority opinion. There is probably enough with the fear angle to include something, but that entire section needs to be summarized in some way. I agree with John Carter - the relevant material should be placed in the proper sections or articles. Morphh (talk) 21:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Agreed that criticism of this type doesn't necessarily belong in a biographical article. Also, I want to stress to all involved that media personalities such as this are probably much more important to those media in the long run than to the basically huge and unmanagable world of "biography". For those people who are interested in the development of talk radio, for instance, I think it would be much more useful to them to have the material regarding his radio show in the radio show article, because that will be the one that they more obviously see as related to the topic. They may well think like I do, that the biography is more about where he was born, went to school, married, had kids, and such. So it probably is in everyone's best interests, particularly the fans of his radio show, to include the material on his radio show in the radio show article, and probably to a lesser extent the fans of his TV show in that article, particularly considering the obvious relationship to the network who broadcasts the show. John Carter (talk) 17:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Glenn Beck does not self-identify as white

Since the article already mentions Beck's comments about Barack Obama's alleged "deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture", it might also be worthwhile and relevant to note that Beck himself does not self-identify as white. [27] Stonemason89 (talk) 15:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how they are related. Then again, I am not searching for a controversy where one doesn't exist. Also, anything added off of this should be with a cite episode template without a link to Media Matters (unless there is for sure no copyright violation over there).Cptnono (talk) 09:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Public reception section is dogshit

Just about the entire section is a slam-piece, citing almost all liberal news sources. This kind of crap is the reason why nobody believes Wikipedia is neutral on politics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.203.4.35 (talk) 07:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

You not providing sources to adjust the section might also be to blame. Or just shit.Cptnono (talk) 07:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Concur. If you have a problem, why don't you do something about it, besides griping about it? J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 10:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
The page seems neutral to me. It states what Beck himself believes, but it does not say that he is right or wrong, it merely states facts about his personal beliefs. If you read the article, you will see that it is un-biased because the only critisism to Beck is followed by a source. If you want more conservative opinions on Beck shown on here, you should have them presented as again his public reception, and then follow by giving a source. Hope to see some of those here soon! --Stevedietrich (talk) 22:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Highly rated Cable News program ≠ "most highly rated program on cable TV"

The recent addition in Public Reception is incorrect in stating that the show is one of the "most highly rated programs on cable TV." It is highly rated for a cable news program, but that is a very small pond in the larger world of cable television. No news program even cracks the top 20 for cable ratings (by way of example, Spongebob draws three times as many viewers on an average day than Beck's progam). --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree that Beck's show is not one of the most highly rated progams on cable TV. If that was changed to, "highly rated programs in cable news," or, "highly rated programs on any cable news channel," that would be much more accurate. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 22:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
FWIW, I understand that Fox and Becks consider it a commentary program rather than a news program.[28] We can call Fox a news channel, but we should avoid calling the program a news show.   Will Beback  talk  23:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. It's obvious on it's face that it's commentary not news, but such a statement would need reliable sources. Since self-identification carries substantial weight in these matters, Beck's and Fox's statement as such is all the verification that is needed. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Requested changes

Inconsistencies in Article

In this article, Glenn Beck is painted as an entertainer and a pundit, a talk show host and a reporter. Is it common practice to have a wikipedia article contradict itself on so many levels? How can you call a man a pundit when his arguments have been shown to be fallacious in the past, or more often simply false?[[29]] The famous parody of Beck's birther movement, about him having raped and murdered a girl in 1990, is a (personally) hilarious example of his fallacious arguing. His behavior and statements do not conform to that of a pundit. Just as Keith Olbermann and Rush Limbaugh are not pundits, neither is Glenn Beck. It is arguably better to have the wikipedia article summarize the people's perception of him (as either a pundit or an entertainer, depending on the perspective) than labeling him as either. Otherwise, where is the NPOV?

Also, the guy above calling Olbermann "Olberwomann" - is that really appropriate? I understand you disagree with Olbermann's views, but personal attacks are unnecessary. You simply cannot present yourself as a neutral spectator and still inject a partisan agenda into the discussion. GRHooked (talk) 07:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

"Glenn Beck is painted as an entertainer and a pundit, a talk show host and a reporter" sums it up well. If you have sources discussing the differences between the common labels applied to the subject that would improve the article. Otherwise, it is SYNTH and your opinion contradicting what some sources have said.Cptnono (talk) 07:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
"Injecting a partisan agenda into the discussion?" Okay, let's work that out. First, let's take your example. "Olberwomann." I have a personal dislike of Keith Olbermann (previously referred to as "Olberwomann," cause I find it funny). How is that injecting a partisan agenda? To me, it shows a dislike of a specific man. Oh, wait! I forgot. Nowadays, you can't dislike someone for any reason except ideological reasons, unless you dislike Obama for ideological reasons, and then you're just a racist. You're right, my bad. It's just too confusing for my simple, Missouri-raised mind to understand. That automatically makes me a Republican drone (except for the fact that I dislike the Republicans much more than I do the Democrats, and I am not registered with, nor do I subscribe to, any party.
Now, in the reality I grew up in, it was theoretically possible to dislike someone for reasons outside of politics. Like, for instance, hypocrisy. Here's a good example (since we are bringing in partisan websites): 1. Another good reason not to like someone is impoliteness. Here's another good example: 2. A third reason is pretending to be something you are not, or misleading people as far as you can: 3 and 4. And the last reason I care to mention (and the reason why I call him Olberwomann) is all the whining: 5 (yes, I realize that Beck cries continuously, however, I personally let emotional reactions that have to do with patriotism slide). And it is not a personal attack to give my opinion on a non-user, so please don't label it as such.
But how is this article contradicting itself? Beck is an entertainer: He calls his radio show, "The Fusion of Entertainment and Enlightment," and he is an accomplished stand-up comedian. He sounds like an entertainer. Beck is a pundit: "A 'pundit' is someone who offers to mass-media his or her opinion or commentary on a particular subject area (most typically political analysis, the social sciences or sport) on which they are knowledgeable. The term has been increasingly applied to popular media personalities. In certain cases, it may be used in a derogatory manner as well." How is that not true? Or is it that some people don't like giving him any more credit than they absolutely have to? Beck is a talk show host: Go to Glenn Beck (TV program), and Glenn Beck Program for proof. Glenn Beck is a reporter: "A reporter is a type of journalist who researches and presents information in certain types of mass media." Sounds about right. Again, how is this contradictory?
As for Politifact's little Truth-O-Meter...wow. They found ten things that he has said this year that were not true, out of (probably) thousands. Man, that kind of lying is almost habitual, right? But, of course, not all of those "lies" actually meet the general criteria to be called a lie. Of those, only two are actually statements either based on false information, or a theoretical lie (I say theoretical, because I don't like calling people liars unless I have proof). The rest were untrue based on someone's opinion, whether it was the people at Politifact, or Beck himself.
For instance, the "Andy Stern" one. Here is a small excerpt: "Stern led the pack for the first data release, which covered visits from Jan. 20, 2009 to July 31, 2009. But he was surpassed by several other individuals in the second release, which updates the data through Aug. 31, 2009 (and which was made public more than a week before Beck aired his comment)." Oh, wow! He must have been lying, and it is not possible that he simply did not know about the new list!
Or, the "Van Jones is an avowed Communist" one: After stating that Jones specifically said he "needed to be more radical," and describing several Marxist actions he took after leaving jail, they list a few things he has said since then, and say, "That doesn't sound Marxist to us." Well, then, Beck must be lying! (Note: No one has ever found a clip or statement from Jones that renounces Marxism.)
Or, and this is the best one, in the "Van Jones/Truther" one: After discussing the petition that Jones supposedly signed, and giving the White House statement on it, they say this: "Jones' name is listed on the petition , and he has not disputed that he signed it. Democrats such as Howard Dean said that Jones made a mistake by signing the petition without knowing its complete contents." (*Head slap*) How is that a lie? He signed the petition. Now, perhaps he didn't know what was on it, but in my personal experience, you don't sign something without reading it first, and if you sign something, you admit it openly, no matter what it said. If he signed it by mistake (I'm not sure how different the actual petition could have been than the first few sentences suggested it to be), then he should just say, "I made a mistake when I signed it."
Lastly, and this is the dumbest one, the "RomneyCare bankrupting Mass." one: This is kin to the old, "Chicken or egg" question. Which causes government to run out of money first: more spending or less revenue? Well, here is a simple question to answer that question: Which can government control? SPENDING! Yes, the almost-$1 billion/year doesn't quite take care of the $5 billion deficit, but it would have helped, and that's just $1 billion more in debt than they are now. So, of course, you can say that RomneyCare is not bankrupting Mass., but that is a matter of opinion.
So, in the future, you might want to do some research on your research. You know, make sure it doesn't put forth a partisan agenda. Or something like that. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 09:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
It is weird to see how defensive you get. Are you Glenn Beck? I don't see otherwise why this matters to you so much, but please remember this is not a forum for general discussion on the man. This has to do with the article alone, please stay on topic. As far as your definition of pundit: does Wikipedia policy typically allow you to use words as they are defined on Wikipedia, or as they are actually defined in a dictionary? A pundit is more understood as an expert on a subject. In fact, this is the definition of the Wiktionary entry: "A professed expert in a particular field, as called upon to provide comment or opinion in the media." What field is Beck an expert in? Fear mongering, demagoguery? He is certainly allowed to his opinion, but to call him an expert on opinion is simply wrong. GRHooked (talk) 15:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Am I Glenn Beck? Ah, you caught me. Despite the fact that I make over $20 million a year, I care enough about what people like you think to come down here and pretend to be someone else...Of course I'm not Glenn Beck. And it matters to me because when people come in here and claim that there is a problem with the neutrality of an article that several editors have collaborated on, using a biased argument, is hypocrisy, and that guy is indirectly accusing me and several other people of breaking the rules. For some odd reason, it bothers me. I'm also wondering why WP:NOTAFORUM is getting thrown in my face, when everything I said was a response to a post about the consistency of the Glenn Beck BLP, on the BLP's talk page. Yeah, that is a total breach of the guidelines. Again, you caught me.
As for the claim that Beck is not a pundit, I think, honestly, it really doesn't matter what the hell we call him. (In case no one could tell, I've had this argument before, and it exasperates me.) Why the hell does it matter that hardcore to some people? So we call him a pundit. A pundit is, by definition, someone knowledgeable in a particular field. I would contend that Beck is quite knowledgeable in the field of punditry and commentating itself, seeing as he regularly has over 2.5 million viewers, almost as many viewers as the most watched television show on a news station, at a slot where a year ago the most anyone got was a little over a million! But, of course, that's not at all notable, and easily accomplished by anyone. On the flipside, let's not call him a pundit! It will accomplish something awesome: It will cause all the whiny Beck-haters to shut up about it, and it won't make a bit of difference! Hell, that would be enough for me to support the idea right there. Except, Mr. Hooked, that you are supposed to refer to him as the reliable sources refer to him, and there are numerous sources that call him a pundit. So, no, I will have to withdraw my support, based solely on the rules. So, no, not to call him an expert would be wrong. And also, here is that Wiktionary entry you posted, only with some emphasis on the important part: "A professed expert in a particular field, as called upon to provide comment or opinion in the media." I do believe even Beck-haters would have a hard time arguing that point without resorting to name-calling and debasing of character and accomplishments (i.e., claiming, as is claimed here, that Beck is thought of by more than 100% of everyone in America as a crazy lunatic and a right-wing hatemonger), but I'm willing to see them try. It might be funny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshuaingram (talkcontribs) 17:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I was never proposing you were Glenn Beck, please calm down. This is NOT a general discussion on what you think of Beck, this is about the article. I do not care what you think about the man, and the reciprocal is very obviously true, so how about this: you calm down, and discuss (with emphasis on the important parts) THE ARTICLE like an ADULT.
Now, if to be a pundit you must be an expert in the field of punditry, then I don't know what to say to your logic. If being an expert in entertaining someone makes you a pundit, why aren't Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert listed as pundits? GRHooked (talk) 23:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
He does meet Wikipeida's definition of pundit with "...or opinion-leader who analyzes events in an area of expertise in the popular media" in my opinion. Expertise might be debatable but he obviously knows more about politics than the average Joe. Application of the knowledge might be a problem. Are you trying to say he isn't a journalist? Regardless, don't talk about this not being a forum then completely disregard a key aspects of the project such as using reliable sources. It isn't for us to decide if he is a pundit/news anchor guy/jerkoff/sunshine or not. I might just be being CHILDISH, though. (couldn't resist :) ). This discussion really might be better at an article discussing the overall concerns of entertainment in the news in general. Make sure the sources are there, though.Cptnono (talk) 09:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Calm down? I fail to see what I have said that is not considered calm. Passionate, maybe, but I have not been screaming like the crazed maniac you are implying me to be. Could you point out some non-calm things I've said, so in the future I don't freak anyone out?
Second, yeah, you did imply that you thought I was Glenn Beck. " Are you Glenn Beck?" was your exact phrase, and I responded as such. Again, I don't see a problem with this.
Third, everything I said was a response to what you said, which, where I'm from, it is customary to respond to someone's statements. If you have a problem with this, let me know and I will ignore everything you say in the future, or you could put a little "respond to this please" behind the sentences you want me to respond to.
Lastly, again, everything I have said has been a response to you, and I have responded with what I thought was an equivalent level of maturity. So, if an editor wants to have a grown-up discussion with me, they should probably start by making grown-up statements. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 01:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
I've never seen such a sarcastic (NOTE: sarcastic statements have far less impact via text) person over the internet, but it's fine. If you are responding to everything I've said as per your claim (which, by the way, is total bullshit: most of what you said was off of a wild tangent, unless you typically write an essay in response to everything a random asshole posts on the internet), then let me give you another chance to respond to my last statement (which, contrary to your claim, you have NOT responded to): Why aren't Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert listed as pundits? They meet the definition, especially if you continue to use your circular logic that to be a pundit you simply must be an expert in punditry. By the way: by calm, I meant polite. Your statements seem to be incapable of being polite. Facetiousness, sarcasm, and a generally shitty attitude only make the editing process harder, and taking out your frustrations with dissenters on a new editor like myself hardly seem the role to take if you want yourself to be seen as a "grown-up" editor. GRHooked (talk) 07:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
First, I apologize if I came off rude. That was not my intention. Sarcasm, however, was my intention, and if that hurt your feelings, well, I guess I'm sorry for that too.
As for responding to your statement, uh, Stewart and Colbert are both listed as pundits. Perhaps they aren't listed as pundits on their own BLP's, but I can't help that. And you are certainly correct that they meet the definition, except they meet the definition because multiple sources have called them "pundits". It has nothing to do with what they do, or what they are good at, it has to do with what the reliable sources state them to be.
Lastly, facetiousness and sarcasm are the same things, and I have never found them to be impolite, unless used to insult someone, and I have never found being told I was wrong, backed up with some form of proof, insulting. I'm sorry if you do. I do not think I have had a shitty attitude, either. I will absolutely agree that I have not treated you as someone to blindly agree with, but don't take it personally, because I do not blindly agree with anyone. If you don't believe me, ask my wife. And you know what? When I was brand new, I walked in here and started changing shit for the fun of it, because I thought I knew what I was doing. Then someone sarcastically pointed out that I was breaking several rules by using blogs and biased self-published sites as sources, making claims that were not factual, things like that. It forced me to read the guidelines, and now (while I am never going to claim that I always know what I'm doing) I have a decent understanding of what is acceptable and what is not. And you have no reason to be ignorant to the rules, as someone put a welcome template on your talk page over six months ago.
And I'll tell you a secret: if you stick to articles of people that you like, but can see their flaws and fallacies, and avoid people that you dislike (or hate), it's a lot easier to be neutral. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 15:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Crying

Why isn't Glenn Beck's crying mentioned? A google search reveals many sources discussing the times he has cried on the show and how he used Vicks vapor rub to fake cry. This led to controversy and thus his show becoming more popular. Shouldn't it be discussed? Do a google search to see the sources. Wikipediarules2221 08:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Do a google search and provide the links.Cptnono (talk) 11:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

This has been mentioned, parodied, criticized in multiple mainstream news sources. Beck crying on air, is pretty common on the show. Probably deserves some mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.110.167 (talk) 04:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

So provide the sources.Cptnono (talk) 04:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
  1. Genesis of the Beck - Vicks Vapor Rub legend/meme: "Jill Greenberg is The Manipulator"
  2. An instance of analytical commentary: "How Mormonism Built Glenn Beck"
  3. One of many critical mentions: "If I Still Worked at Fox"

↜ (‘Just M E here , now) 14:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Realistically, none of those sources would be usable in a BLP. Number 1 is an opinion piece about Jill Greenberg, number 2 is a commentary piece on Glenn Beck's Mormonism, and number three is an opinion piece from a site that is not exactly known for their neutrality. If we are going to mention this on his BLP, it should be done correctly. Make sure you follow the guidelines about sources used in BLP's. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 16:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Sometimes notable instances of commentary are included as sort of samples of a topics reverberations in the culture. And, with this in mind, note that No. 1's Jill Greenberg is a "famous" photographer in her own right (with the twin memes of her applications of mentholated balm in the production of portrait of crying babies and of a crying Beck being notable within their own right as well), No. 2's Joanna Brooks is a credentialed academic, and No. 3's Eric Burns is an Emmy winning media critic.↜ (‘Just M E here , now) 10:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Sometimes, sure. However (as I'm sure you are aware), the sources used in a BLP are subject to different rules. In my opinion, these sources do not meet the criteria. I'm not trying to block the addition of Beck's crying to this article, since I agree that it is notable enough to be mentioned. That does not mean that we should use sources that do not meet the guidelines. Find some sources that meet the guidelines, and I will wholeheartedly support their entry into the article. (Because we all know that my support is required since I run this page, right? *eye roll*) J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 15:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Cptono: I am not an editor. I am pointing out something I hope editors will take note of and explore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.110.167 (talk) 15:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I did decide to follow-up on this and it appears to be bogus. Vapor rub was used for a photo shoot. Cptnono (talk) 09:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Some googling turned up the following, among others: [30], [31]. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The Plan, MLK

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

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

CD

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

Propose expanding quote

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

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

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

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

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

ADHD diagnosis?

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

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

Links to interviews

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Opinion pieces as sources

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

Suggested Additions to Glenn Beck Article-Page

In addition to the book "Christmas Sweater", Glenn Beck has a new book for children (with pictures.) I have prepared the line to add, but as everyone knows, the article-page is protected and can be modified only by an Administrator. Here is my code-text to add, . . . please & thanks.

  • The Christmas Sweater: A Picture Book Simon & Schuster, 2009 ISBN 978-1-41-699543-2 (For pre-teens and grandparents.)

Thanks Again. Keep up the good work .!. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC) . . . . [It's done. Thanks!]


There is no mention Of Becks many disagreements with the Bush Presidency. He had all sorts of Arguments with how bush was dealing with the dept and the border. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.52.161 (talk) 16:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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


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

Criticism sections are actually frowned upon. The article has tons of criticism if you actually read the article.Cptnono (talk) 23:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. Criticism sections are discouraged (if not outright prohibited) on Wikipedia anyway. But on articles about controversial subjects, they're just poison. It's much better to weave notable criticism into the article as is done here. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Also Agree, Criticism sections are discouraged and often a sign of poor writing. Good articles have the criticism woven into the article where appropriate based on weight. Morphh (talk) 1:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. While I have argued for the addition of a criticism section to this article in the past, I have to admit I have changed my mind. There is a fair amount of criticism in this article, and that should be good enough. If the people that have problems with this article can't read the article before they criticize it, they should be soundly ignored, in my opinion. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 02:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Maybe not criticisms but there should be a controversies section, Beck has certainly been responsible for those sections on other peoples pagesMark Lloyd, Anita Dunn.Tstrobaugh (talk) 21:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
What would be a controversy that is not a criticism... it's essentially the same thing. It would be better to improve the other articles you mention, rather than move backward on this article. We settled on "Public reception" - that's where the controversy is placed. Morphh (talk) 22:24, 01 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Doesn't like the term African-American

"African-American is a bogus, PC, made-up term. I mean, that's not a race. Your ancestry is from Africa and now you live in America. OK, so you were brought over -- either your family was brought over through the slave trade or you were born here and your family emigrated here or whatever but that is not a race." [32] [33] Stonemason89 (talk) 03:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

I'm not sure what you mean about a "problem." If someone who is of color emigrates to the U.S. and has children, their children are going to be considered African-American. Their descent and ethnicity is still African, as it is in Jamaica. It's a matter of separating nationality and ethnicity. Their heritage would be Jamaican, but ethnicity would be accurately African-American if they had children in the U.S. who were naturalized citizens. 98.168.192.162 (talk) 08:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

"Conservative" label

Why this article describes Beck as a "conservative political commentator"? He says about his own political view, "I consider myself a libertarian. I'm a conservative, but every day that goes by I'm fighting for individual rights." There are mainstream sources which describe Beck as libertarian (BusinessWeek) [34] and fierce libertarian (The Australian) [35] And he is definitely NOT a mouthpiece of American conservatives [36] I will propose not to use any ideological label in the lead. --Defender of torch (talk) 07:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

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

I would agree with Lynn... he is more of a libertarian-leaning conservative than a conservative-leaning libertarian. For example, he does not favor immediate legalization of all drugs. He has said on his radio program that our society "is not ready for that", but that we should head in that direction when the culture has evolved to handle more personal responsibility. I would prefer something like "libertarian conservative" to "conservative" by itself, and would strongly prefer either to nothing at all. CosineKitty (talk) 17:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the clarification. One who does not support drug legalization in the name of society (i.e. giving importance to the society than to the individual) is not libertarian. However he is not opposing drug legalization, he is arguing for a gradual decriminalization of drugs. Since he has libertarian leaning opinion (unlike mainstream conservatives), I am still uncomfortable with the explicit conservative label used in the lead. This is why I will support not to use any ideological label. And there are plenty of sources which describe beck as libertarian, so the explicit conservative label is inappropriate and definitely misleading, IMHO. It is obvious Beck is not a representative of mainstream America conservatism (for example his criticism of Bush). --Defender of torch (talk) 17:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
BTW, can someone provide a neutral source which documents Beck's view on homosexuality? It will be a great indicator of Beck's ideological position. If he opposes homosexuality, he can be labeled as conservative without any hesitation. --Defender of torch (talk) 17:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
You would also have to provide evidence that all conservatives "oppose" homosexuality. That is a vague and sweeping statement, like a conservative automatically wants to round them up and put them all in prison? Or did you mean something more specific? [See my follow up below.] Also, about criticizing Bush, lots of conservatives (notably Rush Limbaugh) had strong opposition to some Bush policies, for example Medicare Part D (drug coverage entitlement), bailout programs, and the comprehensive immigration reform bill. Instead of establishing arbitrary litmus tests (person X argues for position Y, therefore he is a Z), I suggest we favor self-identification and consensus of reliable sources. CosineKitty (talk) 18:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I did some self-strikeout above because I realize I was veering off into an emotional reaction!  :) Let me rephrase: If Beck's citable views on homosexuality-related topics are available, that would be a fine addition to the article, but I would object to equating "opposition to homosexuality" (which I still think is too vague) to "conservatism". Forget the politics and think strictly in terms of logic: if "opposing homosexuality" implies "conservatism", then the contrapositive is that not being conservative means you don't oppose homosexuality. I'm sure there has to be some non-negligible number of non-conservatives who do "oppose" homosexuality (however you define "oppose"), the original assumption falls down. Bottom line is: it comes across as a stereotype, not a fact.

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

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

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

I tend to think leaving the lede say "conservative" is sufficient, so long as the existing self-identification quote by Beck as both "libertarian" and "conservative" remains later in the article. Political identification of a person as conservative (or liberal, or whatever) does not imply a monolithic belief system with no flexibility, but merely a point of reference as to where on the spectrum his particular beliefs are clustered. An article lede should remain concise and provide an accurate but summarized view. Nuances can be explored and explained in the rest of the article, as is done here. CosineKitty (talk) 23:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that, absent any self-identification as "conservative," it would be inappropriate to label him as such here. Lumping living people into broad categories of "conservative" or "liberal" is completely arbitrary as there is no dividing line and no criteria for membership on either side. We have the one quote, but it's just an interview response not any kind of declaration so I'm inclined to think it's not enough of a basis to go labeling him in the lede. I say we don't apply any ideological label whatsoever (at least in the lede) and let the reader decide. --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Self identification is only part of the equation here. Carter may regard his presidency as succesful, but that doesn't make it so. And it certainly hasn't changed the consensus. I agree it is important to include the self idendification in the article. But what is most important is how the person is normally described in reliable sources, and whether their actual positions place them into one camp or the other. And the labels liberal and conservative are not arbitrary, they in fact do have clear characteristics. Wikipedia has an entire article on the subjcet you should read. Beck is most certainly a conservative by American standards. LynnCityofsin (talk) 17:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theorist?

While I think this article is overall pretty fair in regards to Beck, though a bit easy considering many of his statements, I'm curious as to why he is not classified as a conspiracy theorist, while Alex Jones is? Their anti-globalist positions are based on almost exactly the same premises. I mean, look at this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZsY5XbLinw

The whole "New World Order" is obviously a conspiracy theory, even by wikipedia's standards. How can be objectively not be one with these kinds of statements? 98.168.192.162 (talk) 09:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

This has come up before and I am not completely against it. How about you find reliable sources (reputable work, reputable writer, and so on) that call him a conspiracy theorist. There might even be a way to fit it in with atribution but nothing can be changed until RS is provided. Period.Cptnono (talk) 10:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
If reliable sources can be provided, this point of view would have to be tempered with Glenn Beck's own stated disdain for certain conspiracy theories, such as the 9-11 Truthers, the Birthers (those who say Obama is not a citizen), etc. He consistently says these people are full of crap and he wants nothing to do with them. If needed, I could try to dig up transcripts from his radio show that illustrate this side of the question. CosineKitty (talk) 16:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Cite episode coupled with something independent would be great for that. It should be easy enough to get a neutral and accurate paragraph assuming #98 or someone else is adamant about getting the sources in.Cptnono (talk) 00:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree. My only objection would be an attempt to stick an unqualified conspiracy theorist label on anybody. That term is a code word for "kooky person". If Glenn Beck believes certain things, and we can prove that, that is fine. Say "Glenn Beck has stated that he believes in X" (with a reliable source attached) where X is a specific assertion. Let the reader decide whether X is kooky or not. CosineKitty (talk) 16:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I think it is important to be careful about the CT classification. Rosie O'Donnell could be put in that column just as easily a Beck. Efcmagnew (talk) 03:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I think you're right. Incidentally, I did some googling and turned up this from David Neiwert, this by Harry Dahms, and this (interesting front cover on that last one). On the other side of the coin, there's this in Inside the Mind of a Rightwing Extremist. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Glenn Beck rape/murder satire

I think this should be included. The rumor that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990 is clearly false, and yet continues to spread, damaging his credibility with the internet generation. I believe this article should have a section on the rumor, its negative effects, and emphatically state that it is not true that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990. If we don't attempt to stamp out ignorance and libel here, then countless people will go on thinking that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesporkmurderer (talkcontribs) 08:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

This is already included in the article. Morphh (talk) 16:28, 06 February 2010 (UTC)
Minor nit on that section. The current text says: The site, created by Isaac Eiland-Hall, claimed to be parodying Beck using the same kind of straw man arguments Beck reputedly employed.. The fallacy the website is parodying isn't really a straw man, but rather loaded questions in the general form of "Why haven't you refuted the claim you raped and murdered a girl in 1990?". Could a registered editor make this small adjustment? 67.160.71.165 (talk) 00:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
You may be right, but I don't think so. The web site in question seems like satire to me. Personally, if I make any edit to this paragraph, it would be to delete the entire thing as not notable.--Jarhed (talk) 00:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Umm... there's no question it is satire. The issue I had was not whether or not it is satire, but what it is satire of. The statement says its a satire of Glenn Beck's "straw man" arguments. It's not; it's a satire of Glenn Beck's "loaded questions". There's a difference between a straw man and a loaded question. The satire website itself uses the loaded question directly: "Why won't he deny that he raped and killed a young girl in 1990?" [37] That's all I'm saying here. 67.160.71.165 (talk) 01:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree that loaded question is a more accurate phrase than straw man in describing the web site's critique. A straw man, at least as explained by the Wikipedia article, is when someone misrepresents an opponent's position, then knocks it down, as in pretending a straw man is a real man; the straw man is much easier to topple than the real man. The loaded question is assuming something is true implicitly in a question (or statement), as in the (obnoxious in my opinion) satire of raping and killing a girl. As to whether this incident was notable or not, that is debatable either way. The legal conflict over the domain name is interesting, in that it set a precedent over whether a domain name in itself could be construed as libelous. Whether that is important in this article (as opposed to an article like libel) is a matter of judgment, and one on which I don't have a strong opinion either way. CosineKitty (talk) 02:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
If the source says "straw man" then we can't adjust it to "loaded question".Cptnono (talk) 06:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
None of the sources we have say "straw man" as far as I can tell. We don't have a source for that term and loaded question does sounds like a more accurate description. Morphh (talk) 14:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I am fairly sure I saw "straw man" in the sources for Beck v. Eiland-Hall. I also do not recall seeing "loaded question" ever. I poked around over there but it is not mentioned. A good fix might be a parody of "...Beck's very rhetorical style" or "to highlight what they perceived as his habit of forcing people to explain away completely baseless charges" which are sourced on the other article.Cptnono (talk) 23:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I am fine with that edit.--Jarhed (talk) 00:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Ditto, especially the latter one. 67.160.71.165 (talk) 01:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I made a change similar to the second wording suggested by Cptnono. What do you all think? I made the site's creator the subject of the sentence: it sounded better to me that a person is saying something, not a web site, though either is correct. I found the "claimed" and "what they perceived" combination to sound a little bit POV, like we double-really doubt they mean it; "said" is more neutral, and "purported" is enough to avoid the article tacitly agreeing with the premise. Comments? CosineKitty (talk) 01:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


"damaging his credibility" ?!? he shouldnt have any credibility! he spouts "facts" he made up, complete lies, and the occasional imaginary statistic. examplaes? "Anyway, the boat that sunk the Japanese ship is from Paul Watson's organization"(the week the ady gil was sunk by a whaler) "every one green job destroys 2 other jobs" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.204.217 (talk) 19:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Libertarian

Beck clarified the libertarian thing during a radio show last September.[38] We cannot link to that content. However we can use the Template:Cite episode but that would be harder on the reader to verify. I found coverage in an OK source that is easy for the reader to follow up on.[39] The previous info is now outdated. "A conservative with libertarian leanings" summarizes it perfectly. It takes away the debate of if he is a libertarian or not. I know it went on for some time and it is contentious on this talk page and elsewhere. This is also a BLP and we need to be careful of misrepresenting the source. Using the source that says he is a libertarian is out of date and against wikipedia's standards.Cptnono (talk) 09:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

When I read the two lede sentences, I don't see any difference worth mentioning. The newspaper article is a far superior source, much better even than the Beck show. I think we should revert to the better source.Jarhed (talk) 19:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

New image

I prefer the new cpac image recently added by User:GageSkidmore. It's a better image - clearer, professional, recent, and released under CC. I think the name of the file may be inappropriate (Glenn Beck by Gage Skidmore.jpg), which is why I expect Jarhed reverted it as self-promoting. I don't know that there is any rule on this - in fact, the CC share alike license requires attribution. Gage should have probably named it ("Glenn Beck at CPAC.jpg" or something) and left attribution for the image page, but that may be his right as the image creator. We could put in a request to rename it, but in any case, I think the file should stay - the attribution is only in the code. Morphh (talk) 14:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

That image is an obvious screen capture. The blatant self-promotion of the editor is completely intolerable. Mr. Skidmore needs to get his own website elsewhere.Jarhed (talk) 17:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
This a screen capture too? And no I'm not renaming the image. Gage (talk) 17:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Morphh. The CPAC picture is much clearer, much more official-looking, and more recent. If it comes down to a vote, I say the picture stays.
As for it being self-promotion, since when does someone become a bad or unethical person for wanting credit for their work? If the new picture sucked, then yes, I would be the first one to ask for its removal. However, the CPAC picture is much better. This is America, Jarhed. The "collective" didn't take that picture, so credit must be given where credit is due. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 18:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I've uploaded a second photo from the event that I attended. If it isn't any better than my other photo that I uploaded, feel free to say so. Gage (talk) 18:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Article misstates how many #1 NYT best sellers Glen has.

In the summary, the article states that he has 5 NYT best sellers. However, in the section titled "Media Career and Income" it states that he only has 3 NYT best sellers. I do not know the exact number of best sellers he has, but one of the 2 statements is incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.169.185 (talk) 21:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Fixed --and thanks for pointing that out. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 21:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Was this article written by Beck or something

Enough, start a new section or better yet quit arguing and take it off-wiki
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Complete agreement with the top post. This article has so much pro-Beck bias its embarrassing. Funny thing is, it used to be much better. It wasn't that long ago that there was a controversy section. It was clear, and provided useful information. Now the page is just spin. 67.149.196.50 (talk) 20:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Any specific examples besides the lack of the controversy section (it is frowned upon). Specific lines? Holes? Words?Cptnono (talk) 20:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Geez its pretty obvious the majority of people editing this page are Beck fans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.16.187 (talk) 03:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I actually take offense to that. I just don't hate him like some people do.Cptnono (talk) 03:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Again, here is a golden opportunity to make this article more fair. If it is biased in favor of Glenn Beck, what are we leaving out? Point us to the facts that are missing. Alternatively, point out where in the article we have used misleading language or have whitewashed something. If you just drive by, drop some accusations, then leave, that accomplishes nothing. Help us make the article better. But be specific in your criticism, or it will be ignored. CosineKitty (talk) 16:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Take all the offense you want, it doesn't change the fact that this article is clearly pro-Beck. Especially with all the controversies it ignores. Wikipedia is an ecyclopedia, where facts matter, not a platform for populist sentiment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.16.187 (talk) 00:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Encyclopedic biographies are generally not a list of controversies or praise. If controversies are significant enough that they become part of the persons notability, then we'll include them. Wikipedia is not news. We take the most prominent areas of his life. Public reception and criticism are one part of his life and weight will be applied for that content based on prominence in reliable sources. Again, as CosinKitty implied, be specific. Your comment is unhelpful - in fact, it's just disruptive for people trying to improve the article. Morphh (talk) 1:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I strongly concur with Morphh. Take a look at President Obama's article. While there is significant controversy surrounding Obama, the vast majority of the article is not based on this. Boromir123 (talk) 01:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Obama doesn't cry in public or advocate insane conspiracy theories. But even so, he is a public figure and there are considerable controversies that warrant inclusion in his article too. By the standards you have set in these articles, the entry on hitler should just focus on his role as a german leader and not on his terrible role in murdering millions of people. As a person who used to contribute to real encyclopedias, I honestly think wikipedia is missing the entire point. I am not suggesting you come down as pro beck, anti beck, pro obama, or anti obama, but you should provide the important details about their public stances, activities and utterances people need to formulate their own opinions. Right now their isn't enough information in the Beck article for people to form that sort of judgement. It is basically an advertisement for Beck. This is not an academic or objective approach. It is a cowardly approach. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.16.187 (talk) 02:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

How about you read the article, find exactly what you don't like, get some sources and then comment here. If you don't do the first part your comments are just filling up space better used to improve the article. ThanksCptnono (talk) 03:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
No, 173, don't read the article. First, read Wikipedia's policy on writing a Biography of a Living Person, then read the article and come back with specific criticisms. And, please, try to make them constructive criticisms. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 00:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)



it's should be worth mentioning that he makes up stuff on the spot. i rermber once he suddenly came out with "evry one green job kills 2 other jobs" seroously, no one's ever reasearched that. also, he spout complete lies. one time, he said “And remember those whale protestors who actually attacked and rammed into a Japanese whaling ship? (ADD moment, your honor) Whales? I mean, they're great and everything, but when you are risking life and limb to stop someone from catching a whale, wow. Who's daddy didn't love them? Anyway, the boat that sunk the Japanese ship is from Paul Watson's organization.” this was the same week the japanese wha;er sunk the Ady Gil. what does that say about this guy? i think Bush was better! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.204.217 (talk) 19:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The Spanish government’s renewable energy initiatives have destroyed 2.2 jobs for every new “green” job created, concludes a new study by economics professor Gabriel Calzada of King Juan Carlos University in Madrid. Calzada says American jobs will suffer the same fate if the United States similarly attempts to promote renewable energy at the expense of conventional energy sources.
--The following is an excerpt from, "“Study of the Effects on Employment of Public Aid to Renewable Energy Sources,” written by Thomas Cheplick, published in Environment & Climate News, July 2009 publication date, 07/01/2009, Publisher: The Heartland Institute.
You might want to do some research before calling someone a liar. And also, the Ady Gil or whatever, sunk as a result of ramming a whaler. Seriously, it's called research.
Oh, and so you don't think I'm making it up, here's the source.J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 22:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Diggity, I have to say I agree with the poster that wikipedia doesn't seem very encyclopedic. Perhaps instead of demanding people read the Wiki guidelines, you should be defending those guidelines. The criticism being made is obviously against wikipedia itself, not just the article, and I tend to think the criticism is a good one. Reading the article again, I really it is a a victim of the golden mean fallacy (as are most wikipedia biographies). That isn't how real encyclopedias operate. It shouldn't be how wikipedia operates. Right now, it basically whitewashes controversies, and paints even the most extreme public figures as uncontrovertial. The Beck article is no exception. Perhaps if wikipedia changed its approach you would get real academics like myself to contribute. Until then, I suppose it will have to settle with fan boys and people who don't understand the issues they are writing about. Same thing happened on the fort hood page. My attempt to include an opinion by the most respected authority on Religious Terrorism, was edited out, because people editing the page had no working knowledge of the field and were letting their politics get in the way of producing a quality article. And just so people don't think I am some left wing nut, opposed to Beck and trying to fiddle with the entries on terrorism, the opinion I tried to add was Bruce Hoffman, stating that he felt Fort Hood was an act of terrorism. LynnCityofsin (talk) 20:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

This page isn;t for general discussion on Wikipeida but this specific article. We don't need anyone working on this article if they can't stay neutral and refuse to follow basic instruction on how to use a talk page.Cptnono (talk) 21:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Then where is the place for a general discussion about wikipedia, and why is it wrong to raise general issues when they arise in specific instances? Cptnon, this isn't an issue of people not being neutral. Its the editors mistaking balancing out the details of a public personality in order to appease both sides of the political spectrum for neutrality. And as I've said before, it isn't encyclopedic either. This is why wikipedia has little credibility with people in academia and journalism. It simply isn't a reliable source of information on public personalities, because it omits too many important details. Posters here have pointed out countless times this is the case. You and Diggity shout people down and wave the wikipedia guidelines like they are the constitution. See my concern over the Fort Hood article. It seems wikipedia is more concerned about avoiding partisan flak from either side than it is about producing a quality information source. I am sure you will respond by caling on me to point out something specific I want changed, or calling on me to produce citations for a particlar edit. I am not here to edit. I gave up on that with the Fort Hood article. But I am here to level a general criticism both of the Beck article and wikipedia in general. Instead of hiding behind the guidelines, or shifting the ball to me, you should take some responsibility as an editor/contributor. LynnCityofsin (talk) 21:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

If you refuse to use the talk page to better the article (presenting specifics and sources) then your comments are just wasting space and you are wasting your time. Cptnono (talk) 21:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Lynn, Cptnono is right. This is not the place for this discussion. However, I will respond here for the sake of simplicity.
There are reasons for these policies and guidelines. And I can tell you have not read them, simply because if you had, you would not be arguing for the "golden mean fallacy," and all that shit. I will give you a small excerpt from one of the policy pages (All words that are bold and italicized have my added emphasis):

Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States and to all of our content policies, especially:

We must get the article right.[16] Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[17] As of early 2010, efforts to improve sourcing of material about living persons are under way. A discussion of how to accomplish this is taking place at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people. (←Here is where you can discuss this, Lynn!)

Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects must be considered when exercising editorial judgment.

This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to information about living persons on other pages. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material. Therefore, an editor should be able to demonstrate that it complies with all Wikipedia content policies and guidelines.


Does that answer your question? Wikipedia is the way it is because there are lots of people out there that do not give a shit about people's privacy, people's image, people's reputation. They are simply out to bash everyone they disagree with. Are there things that could be added...no, should be added to certain articles? Absolutely. If you wanted to look back at some of the old discussions, I was originally for adding a Controversy part to this article. However, that merely opens the door for every asshole with an opinion to add crap that either doesn't matter, isn't applicable, or is a blatant smear. Wikipedia is not perfect. Not by a long shot. However, I think they are doing a good job with what they have to work with. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 22:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you have the right idea. Just to clarify, Wikipedia:Village pump is probably better than RfC for venting about Wikipedia in general. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is also something that needs to be read closely. Balance was mentioned up above. There is tons of stuff discussing tone, choice of words, and so on at that wikilink that a new editor should read if they want to comment on specifics.Cptnono (talk) 23:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Diggity: I have read the guidelines on biographies. Call it crap if you want, but its true that wikipedia is a perfect example of the golden mean fallacy in action. Youc an keep citing your policy guidelines all you want, it doesn't change the fact that these articles are clearly missing critical controversies, as well as accurate overviews of how the individual is perceived by the general public. What you do is give equal voice to all sides, rather than try to contextualize each individual figure (something that can be done without original research by the way). I will restate that I am not a left wing or a right partisan. I actually consider myself fairly objective. Showing all sides of a debate doesn't mean you ignore the broad view of things. If someone is generally regarded as far to the right, by most of the people,even if that person has a highly rated tv show, you should point that out. As I said, you wouldn't want an article about HItler, Stalin, or Mao, to try to present the favorable and the negative POV on them equally. And you would certainly want to place them accurately in their context. Right now, the fact that a sizeable portion of the population considers Beck nuts, and the fact that he routinely misrepresents the truth and employs logical fallacies in his arguments, is difficult to discern from the article. Not saying it should be an anti beck article, but the facts about his lying should be present. Just as the consensus among most counter terrorism experts that the Fort Hood Shooting was a terrorist attack, should be noted in that article. Let me ask you a question, do you think the entry on Evolution, should provide treat the Theory of Evolution and intelligent design as equally valid theories, just because there are lots of people who buy into intelligent design and reject evolution? LynnCityofsin (talk) 00:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

You would not have asked that if you had read the policies and guidelines provided above since something similar is actually addressed there. As this talk page is for discussing this article and generalizations are not helping, you are bordering on using it as a forum. This is not what this age is for so please stop.Cptnono (talk) 00:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I did read the page. I understood the page. Yet I asked the question. Perhaps the problem isn't that users aren't reading the guidelines, but that there is a more fundamental problem with wikipedia and its approach. Keep pointing to the guidelines if you want to. That doesn't change the fact that the Beck article is seriously flawed, as are most other articles on people and controversial topics. You might not like me saying this, but there is a reason college educators do not allow their students to use wikipedia. It is a bad source of information. Let me type that again, wikipedia is not recognized as a legitimate source in colleges. That should tell you something. Beyond the campus, a number of journalists have been burned for using wikipedia as a source. LynnCityofsin (talk) 02:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who uses Wikipedia as a sole source instead of reviewing the references needs to start doing their homework better since they deserve to be admonished for being lazy and not verifying research or double checking the standards required from their prof. Fix it if you think that is a problem. You can help improve this collaborative project by providing specific details for this article or you can go make yourself feel better by venting at the Village Pump. This isn't the place for a debate on the merits of Wikipeida but a place to discuss improvements to a specific article.Cptnono (talk) 03:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

One should never rely on a single source. But that isn't the point. Wikipedia is almost universally rejected as a source at all, even if you have others to go along with it. It isn't used by academics, it is not supposed to be used by students (virtually every professor on every college campus has a policy of not allowing wikipedia as a source), it isn't used by journalists (or at least they aren't supposed to use it), and its generally looked down upon in the business world. The reason is, anyone with an axe to grind can go on and post what they want, and the editors tend to try to reconcile the views of people of different extremes (which is why I keep pointing to the golden mean fallacy). This article is a perfect place to point out the problem, because it is a clear example of the problem. LynnCityofsin (talk) 14:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, Lynn, we get it. You don't like that Wikipedia won't take you more seriously than anyone else, even thought you're a...how did you put it? "Perhaps if wikipedia changed its approach you would get 'real academics like myself to contribute.' " (Even though most academics know how to spell, and know correct grammar.) We get it. Okay? You don't like that Wikipedia is not more liberal (and not in the ideological way) with how articles are written. WE GET IT. You don't like that you aren't allowed to include certain things about "popular opinion." WE GET IT. You don't like that the "golden mean fallacy" is waaaaaaaaay to common here. WE GET IT.
But here's the deal: WE CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT. Why are you even talking about this here? From the first post you made about this, Cptnono correctly pointed out that this is not the place for this kind of criticism. And yet, you keep responding here. Cptnono and I have both pointed out the correct place for criticisms and complaints. Have you even looked at those places? I know for a fact that you have not edited either the Policy section of the Village Pump, nor the discussion on BLP's, unless you did it anonomyously (which would be kinda counterproductive), or under a different username (which would be sockpuppetry).
You know what? Why don't you name some controversies. Would that be okay? It doesn't break any policies, it doesn't hurt anything. Name some sourced controversies. If no one can successfully argue against them, and a consensus of registered and confirmed users (I say that so we don't have a slew of people logging in as IP addresses giving the same opinion repeatedly...which, as a guy with access to the nine computer labs at Missouri State, I could easily take advantage of...) agrees, then we will go about adding some of them. Oh, and throw in the perception of Beck, also. We'll hit that, too. Okay? But please put it in the new section I am putting at the bottom. This section is long enough. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 15:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Well Diggity, like most people I type hasty responses and don't pay much attention to my grammar or spelling on a discussion page like this. Clearly I couldn't be an academic if I made such mistakes or happened to have a condition like dyslexia. As for the rest of your post, I have no interest in contributing to a page that will be reduced by editors trying to please both sides of a debate (as happened to my contributions on the Fort Hood Shooting page. I am done, and am simply pointing out the problems on the Beck page, to raise the issue with other readers. Defend wikipedia and the beck article all you want. So keep resorting to ad homs and throwing the ball in my court if you want. That doesn't change the fact that what I say about wikipedia (that it is not regarded as a reputable source) holds true. And the Beck article helps bolster that point. LynnCityofsin (talk) 15:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Look, put up or shut up, okay? I give you the golden opportunity to prove your statements, and you tell me that you don't want to argue anymore? That sounds like you have no controversies to add. Hmm...sounds like you're full of shit. Sorry. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 16:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


No diggity, you are not giving me any opportunity I didn't already have. You are just dodging the criticism and trying to impede any real discussion by ending the debate. I made very substantive criticisms of the article and of wikipedia. All you've done is adopt your internet tough guy pose. If the article and wikipedia are so great, why doesn't anyone recognize it as a legit source. And if so, what is the point of wikipedia if not to be a legit source of information? LynnCityofsin (talk) 17:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Nationality

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Having added "American"/nationality to 1,000s of BLPs at this point, it seems to be the "standard"(if there is such a thing around here :)) for US citizens. I would leave "American" unless darn good reason and overwellming consensus to change. Thank you, --Tom (talk) 16:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I actually have to side with Lynn on this one. American isn't a nationality on its own, therefore it really can't be used in articles as such. However, I don't think US American is much better (more accurate, to be sure, but it just doesn't sound right to me). Maybe we could just put, "United States," in the nationality slot? I don't know. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 16:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I think Threeafterthree's suggestion is the way to go. Although being an American can technically refer to anyone who is a citizen of any country in the Americas, it is most commonly used to refer to the United States of America. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

Don't think I could have said it better. Actually, I know I couldn't :). Thank you for the, hopefully, clear explaination...I actually used to link "American" to the United States article but stoped doing that since it seemed like overkill...anyways, anything else here? --Tom (talk) 23:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)ps, to answer Johnpdeever, I believe Nationality means what country a person is a citizen of...if interested, please check out the on going discussion about Bruce Lee on his talk page and chime in :)..Cheers!
I have a hard time believing this has not come up before. There should be a guideline in place already. Anyone know?Cptnono (talk) 23:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Using the USA Today Weekend article as an RS

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

When/where did Beck say that he didn't say four of the 10 things? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
We can certainly report his denials if sourced, but I don't think we can just disqualify a perfectly acceptable RS because the subject of the article disapproves unless there's some legitimate third-party discussion about the reliability of a particular article. Gamaliel (talk) 23:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

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

In addition to what Gamaliel said above...if Beck denies it and the people who wrote the article can't provide proof that he said some (or all) of the those things, then it is a violation of WP:BLP to include the statements. End of story. At any rate, I still want to know where/when/if Beck made any denials. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 00:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
BLP doesn't require that kind of "proof", it requires a reliable source. USA Today is a reliable source under the RS policy. There's no evidence that USA Today goes around fabricating quotes. Gamaliel (talk) 00:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, I heard Beck's show where he denied four of the ten things. If no RS reports on this, then can a primary source be used at all? Asher196 (talk) 00:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
No, Gamaliel, you are mistaken. According to WP:BLP:
Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects must be considered when exercising editorial judgment.
This Rush Limbaugh incident is a case in point. Both CNN and MSNBC admitted they were wrong about the Rush quote. So, if a WP:RS cannot verify a particular claim when called upon to do so, then it is not admissible in Wikipedia. I mean, do you really think the Rush article should reference claims which the reliable sources admit that either they can't verify or have apologized for reporting as true?
Now, if Beck doesn't firmly challenge the source, then there is no violation of WP:BLP. However, if he does firmly challenge the source, and that source is not able to verify their claims, then it is not admissible in Wiki (except in an "historical" context). Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 01:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
He commented on it on his radio show last Friday. Here is the transcript from the show in question. It is my understanding (based on what he said-I'm looking for that part of the transcript) that this article was following an interview by the writer of the article. So, yes, if the subject of the interview is disputing what was said, then it does matter. There's a WND story about it, but we all know that's not exactly RS material. Give me a minute and I will do some more research. Again, he does not specify exactly which four are wrong, except for the Reagan quote. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 00:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Although I frequent the WND Web site (some of the articles they reference are interestingly "fun"), there is NO WAY that they can be considered a reliable source. On that we agree. In fact, the only reason that I'm here on Wiki right now is because WND reported that Beck thinks that Anthropogenic Global Warming may be true - which I found odd, because he "debunks" it frequently. Nevertheless, try to find what you can, and we can proceed in sorting this out. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 02:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't see the relevance of your lengthy quote from BLP. Nor do I see the relevance of the Rush Limbaugh incident. In those instances the news organizations admitted error, so obviously we should not use an erroneous source. But we should not put ourselves in the position of being the ones who judge the news organizations. Who verifies these claims? How do we verify them? You are extrapolating a complicated procedure that simply isn't in the policy. It's quite simple: The policy requires reliable sources. We have one. When that source becomes unreliable, then we should no longer use it. Gamaliel (talk) 04:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

I think at some point we have to consider WP:WEIGHT and the importance of the information in the USA today piece. WP:BLP states we "must get the article right". If the information is in doubt (based on statements from the person interviewed), then we should require multiple reliable sources to verify whatever data we propose to include. If the information is particularly important to the article, then it should be reported in multiple RS giving the statements more weight and verifiability for inclusion. Morphh (talk) 14:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Here is a transcript from Friday, February 26, of a discussion about the article and its accuracy. (Full Disclosure: I wrote this transcript. There might be some minor word errors, or misspelled names, but it is as accurate as I could type it. If anyone doesn't believe me, I will make this pledge: if someone can prove that I misquoted him in a substantial way, I will delete my Wikipedia account permanently.)

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

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

Glenn: No one was more surprised than I am.

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

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

Pat: Okay.

Glenn: Okay?

Pat: You do support the thermometer?

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

Stu: Yeah, I think so.

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

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

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

Glenn: Do you have it there?

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

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

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

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

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

Stu: Right, it is…

Glenn: Climate change. Climate change.

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

(Crosstalk between all three)

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

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

Pat: Really?

Glenn: Yeah.

Pat: Huh.

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


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

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

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

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

First, this talk page is for discussion on improving the article, not a forum for you to give your opinion on Glenn Beck (especially since you offered no proof of your rudely-stated opinion, and feel free to prove me wrong by offering proof that Beck is not a consistent pundit). Second, according to the policies and guidelines on a Biography of a Living Person, all sources must be verifiable. That includes stories that are disputed as factually incorrect by the subject (or target) of the article (or attack story). Until and unless USA Today comes out with their proof of that statement, it has to be removed because it may or may not be false. So, thank you for your opinion, but we are doing the right thing based on the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. While you are still entitled to your opinion, voice it in voice it in the places where you can say pretty much whatever dumb shit pops into your head (as long as you agree with everyone else), because the people there care much more for their opinion than the facts about a person. You can also do that here, but the same rules apply. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 01:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
"Until and unless USA Today comes out with their proof of that statement, it has to be removed" Incorrect. USA Today does count as a reliable source and therefore does not fail verifiability. Also, I believe "fuck off" is borderline uncivil. ~a (usertalkcontribs) 01:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
The paper is fine. That particular story is not. We do not need to give it play in a BLP if it is disputed.
Fuck off does actually cross the line. He was being attacked so I understand the frustration but striking it out would be good form.Cptnono (talk) 02:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 Done J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 02:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Actually, here is where I have to admit to being wrong. He was not personally interviewed, as I previously stated (however, I will point out that I also voiced my uncertainty of whether or not it was a personal interview at the time). That makes this story more an opinion piece than anything else, as they offered no proof of his saying any of these things. Had this been a personal interview, my opinion would be to change this article based on the USA Today story, and add his dispute. But since it is simply someone "pointing out what Beck says," it things should not be changed. We have a duty to get the article right.
But something just occurred to me. I have no problem mentioning this article, none whatsoever. My problem was the change made in the Political Views section (the change that I reverted). If someone wants to add the article and the controversy surrounding it, feel free, but be sure to do it right. I simply objected to making changes to this article based on the USA Today article. I apologize for any misunderstanding. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 02:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm actually not a fan as I have said before. How about you assume Beck is not being honest and I assume the writer made a mistake? ONe of them is wrong and we don't know which. If you really want to add similar info go find other sources.Cptnono (talk) 02:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I concur with Cptnono. If the information is worth including in the article, it should be easy to find in other sources. If we can't find other reliable sources, then it likely fails WP:WEIGHT. It's not our job to add every detail of Beck. We should cover the prominent, relevant, important areas of his life. If we don't get his opinion on xyz... ok.. it must not be that important if we have to rely on a single source that's disputed. Let's get it right.. if there is doubt, don't include it. We'll get it later in another source if it's important. Morphh (talk) 3:04, 02 March 2010 (UTC)
How about something like this in the Political Views section?

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

And once again, I will state my position on personal attacks: It is not a personal attack to point out to someone either what the policies and guidelines are, our mandate to follow the policies and guidelines, or both. It is also not a personal attack to give people suggestions on where the appropriate place for their opinions is, even if that suggestion is given in a rude tone, and with rude words. That would be a slight breach on civility, but not really. I find it quite uncivil for people for people to come in here and bash people in the wrong forums, and, as it says on my userpage, I employ tit for tat strategy. I am not apologetic for that, nor will I change anytime soon. So, go ahead. Go find an administrator to whine to, I really don't care. If people have the right to come in here and say stupid shit, I have the right to respond in kind. If you can't take it, don't dish it out, and we won't have problems.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshuaingram (talkcontribs)
I assume you are directing the second paragraph at LCoS. I am actually going to be boohooing to an admin if she continues to make assertions against me that I find offensive.
I do like your edit idea though. I don't think the story deserves weight myself but am OK with it if consensus says that ti does.Cptnono (talk) 02:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
No, Cptnono, I'm not referring to you. I certainly don't agree with you on everything, but you're pretty fair across the board, and you actually give a rip about the policies and guidelines, UNLIKE SOME PEOPLE, and that's all anyone can do.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshuaingram (talkcontribs)
I don't see a basis for including this as a notable issue in itself.. this is not a controversy, nor part of Beck's notability. I see no informational value in the dispute. A biography should not cover such minor events. Morphh (talk) 3:04, 02 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

Okay, Lynn, seriously, just shut up about me. Seriously. You don't know what you are talking about, and you are starting to get on my nerves. You've been a registered user for, what, 3 1/2 months? Did you go through and look at everything I have done on here? If you haven't, then you are giving your opinion on things that you have no knowledge of. If you have, that just makes you a sad person with nothing to do but find people to give a hard time. I have never gone out of my way to be rude to someone. I will not claim that I have been all sunshine and lollipops to everyone that has walked in here, but you cannot tell me that I am automatically rude to everyone with a post. I am perfectly nice to people that walk in here and respect the policies and guidelines, and people with general questions. I am not nice to people that come in here with malice towards the subject of the articles I watch, and decide that the collective efforts of several well-established and well-seasoned editors must be the result of, "a bunch of fanboys trying to build the subject up." I am not nice to people that come in here and start a section called, "Public Reception section is dogshit," and then continue to bash the article for "non-neutrality," when what he meant was the fact that we use too many so-called "Mainstream Media" references, which he called "liberal media." (Which, theoretically, wouldn't that make him "on my team?") I am not friendly towards people that walk in here and try to label Beck, "The leader of the lunatic fringe," and then claim that that particular addition was made, and I'm not kidding, "in good faith."
You know who else I am not nice to? People that think they are right, despite people using evidence to the contrary. For instance, there was this IP address that made this claim:
"Am I the only one who read this article and thought it was treating Beck with kid gloves? I mean the man is a laughing stock in this country, routinely blasted for his on air temper tantrums, weeping, and instability, yet one doesn't even get that impression from the article. I know the article needs to be balanced, but come on. The man has displayed truly bizarre behavior on air and the radio, been taken to task for it by reporters, and hardly a mention of it.
And then, after I pointed out that he is beating his competition at 5:00 15:1, they say things like this:
"Fringe inhabitants do have those kind of ratings. And half the people tune in because they can't stand the guy. The other half tune in because they know he'll do something crazy. The remainder of viewers are fringe folk themselves. But my point is tons of people, including Shep Smith from Beck's own network, have pointed out how unhinged the man is. It is worthy of mention. Most moderate and mainstream people find Beck's behavior unusual if not down right nuts."
Now, after displaying another obvious moment of POV (and proving an inability to do basic math), do I make a rude statement. And that statement was this:
Half the people tune in because they can't stand the guy. The other half tune in because they know he'll do something crazy. The remainder of viewers are fringe folk themselves. Okay, so you're now purporting to know the intentions of three million people, and you don't know how to add (1/2 + 1/2 +more ≠1). You see, this is called POV, and there is a reason why it is severely discouraged. Look, I'm sorry that you don't like Beck. I personally do, for reasons that are my own. However, this site is supposed to be neutral. If you can't be neutral about things, you should either leave, or stick to the people that you are sure you can be neutral with. Seriously. And, I don't know about you, but I don't watch too many TV shows that I can't stand the people on it. I know The Office is popular, but I don't watch it because I think it's stupid. I know that a lot of people don't like watching WWE, but I watch it all the time, because I like it, and for no other reason. I admit that I do watch as much Olberwomann as I can stand sometimes, but that is usually on days where there is literally nothing else on (I despise Olberwomann because of his whining and his rudeness, not because of his politics or his ideology). I'm sorry, but saying that 1.5 million people watch a TV show at 5pm "because they can't stand the guy..." That sounds like wishful thinking on your part. And it really doesn't matter what "most mainstream people" think, it is not appropriate to start talking about how "unhinged" he is on his own BLP. If you want to start a Glenn Beck Controversies page, click on the red link and cite your sources. Until then, please read some friggin rules before you come up in here and start making judgments on articles."
And that wasn't even all that rude! So, please, unless you are going to stop generalizing, or maybe do some research before you make inaccurate claims and judgments, just let it go. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 16:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

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

Hmmmm...I never heard Beck promote a "conspiracy theory". Can you please list one that can be verified? Thanks. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually, Bill, dependent on your definition of conspiracy theory, Beck does actually talk about them a lot. He might not "promote" them, per se, but he does point out the facts behind some. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 18:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
What I mean by "Conspiracy theory" is Wikipedia's definition of Conspiracy theory (see also fringe theory). For example, the economic ramifications of the solutions for Anthropogenic Global Warming are hardly in doubt. Or that President Obama has a socialist agenda also cannot be disputed. I mean, he's up front about wanting to nationalize health care in the U.S. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
That's true, Bill, but, as I'm sure every Beck hater is willing to point out, he said the Obama administration is turning into the radical regimes of Stalin and Hitler, and can be likened to the horrible actions of Che Guevara (although they have a hard time supporting this point, because all he really did was compare aspects of certain policies, and point out the words of several members of the Obama administration). "What about the FEMA camps," they say! Well, there is also the fact that he debunked the FEMA camp theory. Or when he analyzed and exposed the Communist and Socialist symbols in the artwork at Rockefeller Center, everyone was starting to shout, "Conspiracy Theory!!!" without actually listening to him. Oh, another good one that these idiots have up their sleeve is to call him a racist hatemonger, and then you ask for proof, and the ONLY THING THEY HAVE is Beck giving his opinion (which used to be acceptable in this country, but not anymore) about how Obama looks at race. You have Arianna Huffington running around saying, "Glenn Beck is telling people the government is going to slaughter them!!!", when in fact he is talking about the economic policy of the US and of Obama. But here's the problem: You will never convince these people that Beck is an okay guy. You know why? Because they watch Keith Olberwomann, Rachel Mancow, and Chris "I got this thrill going up my leg" Mathews, read only Lamestream Media (a.k.a. Mainstream Media) publications (such as the New York Times, Washington Post, the New Yorker), spend time only at crazy Liberal/Progressive opinion sites like the progressive watchdog Media Haters (a.k.a. Media Matters) and Media Matters After A Few Drinks (a.k.a. the Huffington Post), and are under the impression that you have to be a moronic, redneck, racist, uneducated, barely-conscious retard to believe in any of this, or go to a TEA Party, or become a 9-12er...when it's these people that usually have no proof of the statements they make. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 22:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
No, what I showed was that when people walk in here and make comments with the intent of bettering the article, and without an inordinate amount of POV, such as your first statement, I respond with a calm statement of fact. Only when people start making outlandishly stupid statements, such as your second statement, I respond with sarcasm and, as you call it, "bullying." And you know what? If you want to call pointing out the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia "bullying," so be it. I'm the biggest bully I've ever seen. I use curse words because, as stated on my user page, "This user is politically incorrect. Hence, he will speak plainly and directly to the point rather than trip all over himself trying to be inoffensive." I am not here to be nice to everyone, to make sure that I hurt no one's feelings (although I will not speak rudely to people that have not spoken rudely first). And I'm sorry if that hurts your feelings, Lynn, but, again, I DO NOT CARE.
Now, you need to stop attacking me on this talk page. You have every right to criticize me, absolutely, and if you feel I need to be criticized, please do so. Please stick to your convictions, please have the courage to stick to them. However, do it in the proper forums. If you feel the need to complain about my MO, do so on my talk page. If you feel the need to go to an administrator, please go find an administrator's talk page. If you feel the need to complain about me in a public forum, please go to the proper forum. But whatever you do, stop doing it here. If you want to provide a link here, well, that would technically be against the rules, but you could go to every regular user of this page's talk page (or whomever you please) and post a link there. BUT STOP DOING IT HERE. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 18:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Fact One: Completely untrue, and I can prove it here, where a poll showed that Beck is the fourth most admired man in the world. Beck came in below Nelson Mandela, and above the Pope. How many people will admit to admiring a "right-wing nut and conspriacy theorist?" Fact Two: I agree, but he also supports these "musings" with verifiable facts. Fact Three: He has consistently stated that yes, we have a terrible healthcare system, but it is still the best in the world. And yes, he is a polarizing figure, but you can say that about a lot of people. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 19:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Without resorting to name-calling, I watch quite a bit of Beck's show and I certainly think the label "conspiracy theorist" fits. As Lynn said, that's the whole point of the chalk board, and I think it's not entirely true that Beck is always using verifiable facts. Again, trying to be objective here, Beck's method is to refer to some verifiable facts and then portentously refer to some sinister "pattern" and point out how "it all comes together" to signify some unpleasant thing. One thing that Beck does quite often is to place items on the board during a commercial break that he has not mentioned at all -- ACORN and SEIU are common ones -- but still refer to the board as something akin to a scientific equation that has been proven. It should go without saying that if you keep gesturing at a visual graphic with the words ACORN and SEIU on it, but have not made any reference to those items, then we are not strictly in the realm of "verifiable facts" anymore. And it should also go without saying that the ranking of Glenn Beck in any poll is utterly irrelevant to the question of whether or not the monicker "conspiracy theorist" fits or does not fit. If you create an analogous situation like, "Is Madonna a believer in kabbalah?" and the rebuttal focuses on her many Grammies or albums sold, then the sheer depth of diversion becomes a bit clearer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Priceyeah (talkcontribs) 12:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

See my February 24th comment near the top of this section for my position on including the USA Today article. Do a search for "No, Gamaliel, you are mistaken." That is the first sentence of the relevant comment and it will make it easier to find it in this bloated section.  :) Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Ah, yes I see that now. Thanks. BLP tells us to be careful and it tells us "an editor should be able to demonstrate that it complies with all Wikipedia content policies and guidelines." I guess I can try to demonstrate this if you'd like. ~a (usertalkcontribs) 23:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
What I was referring to was the edit that I reverted, which can be found here. If someone wants to add a few sentences about the story in question, along with Beck's challenge of it, that's fine with me. I had a problem changing his Political Views based on an opinion story in a newspaper, when the subject in question says that his position is different than what the story said. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 23:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
"If someone wants to add a few sentences about the story in question, along with Beck's challenge of it, that's fine with me." Ok. So how about '...although in a USA Today interview he acknowledged the phenomenon was happening, "You’d be an idiot not to notice the temperature change," and said there was "legit case that global warming has, at least in part, (been) caused by mankind."<ref name="usaweekend" /> though Beck challenges the accuracy of the interview<ref>Friday, February 26, 2010. The Glenn Beck Program or Glenn Beck (TV program)</ref>' ~a (usertalkcontribs) 00:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Does this seem fine with everyone? ~a (usertalkcontribs) 14:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Absolutely not, for the simple reason that he was not personally interviewed for this story. This was a story that was gathered using old Beck quotes from the past. Now, if you remove the words, "he acknowledged," (and filled it with something), I would have no problem with that. So, it would look something like this:
'...although a USA Today story stated that he acknowledged the phenomenon was happening, Beck challenged the accuracy of the report Friday, February 26, 2010 on the radio and Fox News.
How does that sound? I can add references later, but now I have to go to class. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 15:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


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

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

This is not a forum.Cptnono (talk) 00:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, this is not a forum. ~a (usertalkcontribs) 00:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Which is why I responded here. (Be warned: When you get there, it looks blank. Scroll down to find the actual page.) Anyone is welcome to join in the discussion. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 01:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

It isn'y my work to do. Go away if you are not interested on doing more than chit chatting.Cptnono (talk) 02:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with Cptnono. LynnCityofsin seems to be only interested in chit chatting. I've made my opinion clear in this section. Since LynnCityofsin is not willing to make any edits to the article itself, I'm done discussing this with LCOS for now, although I'll be watching the article. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 06:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Mediabistro

Is Mediabistro.com TVNewser RS? It is a blog. Some of its contributors are or have been journalists but as a blog it has no editorial oversight or vetting process. It is true that we can use "blogs" when used as new media by reputable news outlets but mediabistro does not appear to meet the requirements. We should actually consider removing all information where it is used as the sole source.Cptnono (talk) 05:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I concur...up to a point. I think that if it is decided to ditch all mediabistro sources, all of the the sources in question that are up solely for the video that is embedded inside that particular URL should be left, unless that video can be found elsewhere. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 14:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Removal

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

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


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

There is a whole dispute resolution process as mentioned above. I for one would be completely against any such "removal". The editor has done fine work minus a few uncivil comments here and there on this talk page. And even those I can't be too worried about since it was not completely one sided and they are not continuing. Hewhorulestheworld also needs to strike out his troll comment since that is not cool. Cptnono (talk) 02:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Cptnono. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 02:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Bill-the-wise-Cat; but I didn't spend an hour reading this Talk-section, yet. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 10:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Referencing clips Glenn Beck on his show

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

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

Specific Controversies discussion

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

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

Let the record show that I gave Lynn every opportunity to come up with specific controversies to prove her point, and she chose to ignore the invitation for a substantive discussion and decided to keep making the same statement over and over again.
Lunn, until you come up with some specific controversies we are missing, I am done talking to you. And I "guard" this article from vandals and idiots that decide to use it as an attack forum. I have no problem adding anything that is factually correct and adequately sourced. If you don't believe me, just come up with some controversies and see how far I am willing to go to accommodate you. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 17:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to cut in the middle here but this comment is relevant only to the one above me. You're showing your true biased colors with your last statement. I can picture those words coming out of Beck's own mouth. Jersey John (talk) 00:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

So, in other words, if I do what you say, you will think better of me? Are you actually trying to blackmail me into doing your dirty work for you? (Insert obnoxious laughter here.) Thank you, Lynn. I really needed the laugh. Except now I have to change my pants.
OF COURSE YOU THINK YOUR OPINION IS RIGHT!!!!! I have never heard anyone say, "Well, you just proved me wrong, but I still think I'm right!" But guess what? I am not subject to your opinion. I'm sorry if that bursts your academic bubble, but I do not care what gets put into this article, as long as it is factually correct and correctly sourced. So, for what might be the hundredth time, and the fiftieth person telling you the SAME DAMN THING, if you want it in the article, DO IT YOURSELF FOR F**K'S SAKE!!! J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 19:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Lynn, nobody here has to prove anything about their objectivity or lack thereof. Both of you are letting this get way too personal. Please stick to the topic of improving the article. CosineKitty (talk) 19:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Correction?

Reposted: Correction: Van Jones was never the Director of the Council on Environmental Quality. He was nominated to a new and minor position as the Special Advisor for Green Jobs at the Council on Environmental Quality. (This nomination was based on his green jobs work in founding "Green For All" in Oakland. Nancy Sutley is the Director of the CEQ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbaruffi (talkcontribs) 15:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know.Cptnono (talk) 04:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I corrected the article. See this. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Social & economic justice Church controversy

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

— Glenn Beck, radio show, March 2, 2010

Hey I don't know if this should be addded but Beck has been drawing some controversy for telling Christians to leave churches that preach social and economic justice.[40] Richard (talk) 23:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I listened to Glenn Beck address this on his radio show this morning. He is specifically asking people to question their church leaders if the phrases "social justice" or "economic justice" appear in the church's mission statement or literature. Beck asserts that sometimes (but not always) these are code words for Marxism or socialism. (On a lighter note, you can try commanding people to leave their house of worship mindlessly just because of a phrase it uses; I doubt that would be very successful!) As to whether this merits inclusion in this article, I think it is too soon to tell, because Wikipedia is not a newspaper. If a month or two goes by and there is some perspective that this episode is a significant component of Glenn Beck's notability, I would see no problem with a balanced mention. CosineKitty (talk) 03:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
In addition to CosineKitty's statement, this seems to be something that is more suited to be added to the article about his radio show. But again, it needs to wait until its notoriety has been better established. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 03:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Just wanted to add to this. I agree that we have to wait and see how this plays out, but in addition to the notoriety standard, it may be significant in the sense of explaining who Beck is. Whether you hold the view that Beck is important and sincere or that Beck is something of a charlatan who will grasp at whatever shocking idea will further his commercial goals, it fits into either narrative. People who are interested in Beck should be made aware that Beck thinks religion and social justice are, properly speaking, opposites. Having said that, I don't want to be dogmatic about it -- the notoriety standard does matter too. Priceyeah (talk) 11:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

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

Below are three excerpts from the above links ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FYI, the articles on this controversy have gotten enormous bumps - Jim Wallis from 100 to 2000 views per day, Fritz Julius Kuhn from 50-700, and Charles Coughlin from 500 to 3200. The only explantion for this would be coverage by Glenn Beck. I disagree with the policy that "nothing Glenn Beck says or does is notable until it hits the New York Times, and even then it's not notable" Bachcell (talk) 05:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
We have to consider things in the historical context. If we were to add every news story that comes out, we'd be adding lines to this article every week. There are only so many things we can cover properly in an encyclopedia, so we cover the things that are easily identified as part of his notability. That's not to say that it's not notable news, but that it's just insufficient to place it in his life's biography. Morphh (talk) 12:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Concur. And, again, all of these things are notable enough to put in the articles about his radio show and his television show, but different rules apply to BLP's, therefore we have to be careful about what goes into this article. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 15:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

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

This story ha made headlines. Needs more treatment. Not only has he angered large organizations like the Catholic church, he's angered Christians everywhere who believe in social justice (which is not code for socialism). Prominent people have accused Beck of libel over this, and it deserves to be known. It is so obvious this article is controlled by people with pro-Beck leanings. Every controversy gets watered-down or blocked. Where do I go to make a complaint about the content of a wikipedia article?NotWillFerrell (talk) 15:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Media controversies section, split into new article?

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

I think that would constitute a WP:POVFORK and has been struck down with WP:AFD in other articles like Bill O'Reilly. The solution, like they have done in the Bill O'Reilly article, is to reduce the size of the public reception and media controversies sections to comply with WP:UNDUE. We should not have a running list of minor controversies. WP:BLP states they should be relevant to his notability, meaning he's known in some part for the controversy itself. So we need to focus on the main controversies, and only mention other such controversies in a very broad single paragraph. Morphh (talk) 13:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Concur with Morphh. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 05:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

When did this become a "Media controversies" section? There was a huge debate last year that ended in a consensus that this would be rolled into Public reception, primarily for the very reason that it becomes a mess of fairly insignificant news events, which it has yet again. Morphh (talk) 20:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

"It is called Research"

Phrased in a less helpful and polite way than it could be, Diggity's advice is nonetheless good advice, and he should take it himself.

Page 30 of the Spanish alternative energy report, the only section that deals with 'destroyed' jobs rather than created ones:

" the reality is that for the plant to work, it requires consumption of great amounts of capital that would have instead created many more jobs in other parts of the economy."

Therefore, any time anyone spends money, it destroys jobs? Employers destroy jobs by paying employees money that could have created more jobs, and let us not get started on the employees, out spending that money.

Neither is there shown any standard by which this supposed job destruction can be measured. Some amount of money (not enumerated) spent in a particular industry (not named) by which all others must be measured (unfounded assertion) would create a certain amount of jobs (not enumerated), and this money can only come from the green job source (obviously untrue), but instead, is spent in this obviously unwise way (obvious to everyone that wants to believe, anyway).

I take it that some industries are more labor-intensive than others, and are therefore better at creating jobs. But this study is a farce. Hopefully this will urge, or failing that, goad, DIGGITY into looking a little more closely at sources he berates others to study. Anarchangel (talk) 06:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Page 2 of the report says,

5. Despite its hyper-aggressive (expensive and extensive) “green jobs” policies it appears that Spain likely has created a surprisingly low number of jobs, two- thirds of which came in construction, fabrication and installation, one quarter in administrative positions, marketing and projects engineering, and just one out of ten jobs has been created at the more permanent level of actual operation and maintenance of the renewable sources of electricity.

6. This came at great financial cost as well as cost in terms of jobs destroyed elsewhere in the economy.

...

8. The study calculates that the programs creating those jobs also resulted in the destruction of nearly 110,500 jobs elsewhere in the economy, or 2.2 jobs destroyed for every “green job” created

...

10. Each “green” megawatt installed destroys 5.28 jobs on average elsewhere in the economy: 8.99 by photovoltaics, 4.27 by wind energy, 5.05 by mini-hydro.

Page 28 says

Therefore, for every green job that is attempted to be created, there is a 2.2 destruction of the resources that on average the private sector employs per worker

Subdidy _ to _ renewables _ per _ worker / Average _ capital _ per _ worker = 571,138 /2 59,143 = 2.2

This is to say that for every renewable energy job that the State manages to finance, we can be confident that on average 2.2 jobs will be destroyed, to which we have to add those jobs that the non-subsidized investment would have created.

There may be others — I didn't look too closely. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, Wtmitchell, for pointing out those spots in the report. And nice try, Anarchangel, but even if that were the only spot in the report that talked about job destruction, it would still not be up to you to decide which studies are true and which ones are false. Sorry. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 13:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Anytime government spends money, they take money away that the private sector could have used to create jobs... PokeHomsar (talk) 20:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

This isn't a forum PokeHomsar. Take your political views somewhere else. This is supposed to be an objectively written article, not a place for defenders of Glenn Beck politics to stake their ground. LynnCityofsin (talk) 00:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

A Blp question.

Why are there no hyperlinks to the Youtube sights that show Mr.Beck in a less than positive light ? The ones that show him faking tears speak volumes. He claims to be a man who values integrity. Has this matter already been discussed ? Albion moonlight (talk) 06:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

See WP:YOUTUBE and WP:ELNEVER. Morphh (talk) 11:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
I see that wiki does not ban youtube sites outright and it seems to me that there is also no valid reason not to include such material. Perhaps a request for comment is in order. I think positive links should also be used to counterbalance things and to be fair to Mr. Beck. Albion moonlight (talk) 23:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Such videos are likely a copyright violation, and thus not appropriate. In addition, videos may constitute WP:OR if we're trying to imply or analyze something presented in the video. A video would most likely be a primary source for content and if it's the only source, likely fails WP:WEIGHT. We should rely on reliable secondary sources for content. That being said, if we have reliable secondary sources for a statement and a video is used as an additional reference for the reader, so long as the video is not a copyright violation, it would probably be fine. We'd have to consider it like any additional source. Morphh (talk) 1:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Crying has come up before. The only video presented do far was for a photoshoot. If someone has RS talking about him faking it on air then we have something to talk about.Cptnono (talk) 23:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Here is a reliable database of clips of Glenn Beck speaking during his show which you can link to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ink Falls (talkcontribs) 16:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, there's no real proof he fakes his crying sessions. The only "evidence" you have is his tear crying for pictures in a magazine, which involved him putting a tear-producing agent under his eyes for the picture. This is actually counter-evidence to the claim because if he could cry on demand, he wouldn't need the tear-producing agent under his eyes. PokeHomsar (talk) 20:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Point taken but who really needs to use tear producig agents other than an actor ?
The context of what appears on youtubs that he sometimes may use such agents on:: on his tv show. ::That certainly would be unethical of him would it not ? Albion moonlight (talk) 00:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Disagree completely. It is the same as a prop. And there is nothing pointing to him using it other than the photoshoot. Look at Stewart dressed up as an Arab on the cover of Entertainment. Does that make him an Arab?Cptnono (talk) 00:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Normally I would agree with you and give him the benifit of the doubt but Whoppi Goldberg and Barbara Walters confronted him on air as having lied about them on air. That is just one of many examples that make many people think that he is not to be trusted. With that said I still think that this is a very good article and I think that a few hyperlinks both positive and negative are called for.Albion moonlight (talk) 19:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

That's been disproven for the Amtrak point. An Amtrak representative came on his radio program. Of course, when you don't actually watch Beck or verify stories, you never hear about this stuff... PokeHomsar (talk) 19:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Removal of recent edit to "Media Controversies" section

I removed the statement again, and I will explain why. The first time, it was unsourced. I disagree with the wording of the phrase, but that can be fixed later. Now I am going to remove it again because the source used is an opinion piece, written in the "Public Editor" section. The piece looked fine, until I saw the word "Opinion" strewn across the top. On the New York Times website, under "Public Editor," it says this:

"Clark Hoyt is the third public editor appointed by The Times. The public editor works outside of the reporting and editing structure of the newspaper and receives and answers questions or comments from readers and the public, principally about articles published in the paper. His opinions and conclusions are his own."

Using anything he writes as an RS in a BLP would be a clear violation of WP:BLP. I am removing it again, however, this time I will try to find a source...and maybe a better way to word the statement. Anyone who wants to beat me to it, go for it. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 04:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I did a little research, and cannot find any actual news reports that claim that the videos were "heavily doctored" (the article here doesn't say anything of the sort, either). Therefore, in my opinion, the best solution is to leave a link to the wikipedia article on the incident, and let people decide for themselves. If anyone else has a better idea, please speak up. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 05:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Even if this NYT PUBLIC EDITOR opinion piece is acceptable as a supporting source, it supports the assertion that the videos were heavily edited, but not the assertion that the editing was done was to support an an agenda which the filmmaker had against Acorn. Quoted in context, the "heavily edited" statement reads, "The videos were heavily edited. The sequence of some conversations was changed. Some workers seemed concerned for Giles, one advising her to get legal help. In two cities, Acorn workers called the police. But the most damning words match the transcripts and the audio, and do not seem out of context." Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I give up. The piece, as stated, is currently giving erroneous information. It was reverted twice; each time I gave a new cite, and then decided not to bother fighting any more after that. I understand why the public editor cite was rejected, so I did three seconds of looking on google and found another one. And another one. I don't know why I was surprised that it got reverted again. I was only trying to make this article more accurate; I don't have an axe to grind. Someone else clearly does, which means that they're going to win this. At least this article links to the James O'Keefe page, which lays out - in much more detail - the problems with O'Keefe's videos. Hopefully interested readers will check that page out for an accurate description of the story. Simnel (talk) 02:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simnel (talkcontribs) 02:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The article on James O'Keefe or the videos is the best place for opinions about those videos. The biography of Glenn Beck is not the place to assert a pov one way or another about the videos. The relevant part for this article is Beck's impact on ACORN. Morphh (talk) 13:00, 05 April 2010 (UTC)
Again, I have no idea why I'm even trying to bother with this conversation... but you really think that Beck promoting videos that were, in significant aspects, a hoax, doesn't bear mention? (I'm not sure how it's a "point of view" that the tapes were edited. You might argue that they were edited poorly, or the extent to which they helped his cause... but it's not an opinion that the tapes as presented were edited. You obvious know that, because an OPINION about the tapes doesn't belong in the O'Keefe article any more than it belongs here.) That's just silly. If it bears mention at all, it bears ACCURATE mention - to say "it is only proper to give an inaccurate description of the events" is nonsense. If it's not noteworthy, remove it. If it is noteworthy, describe it accurately. Of course, if your goal is to make Beck look good, to gloss over even his most reasonable mistakes - and from reading this talk page, it seems clear that IS the goal of many of the contributors here - then, well, good job, I guess. Well done. Simnel (talk) 03:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware, the WP:WEIGHT of reliable sources does not describe these videos as a hoax or sufficiently edited to give an false picture. I also am not aware of any major controversy criticizing Beck for reporting on the videos. It seems to be an opinion with regard to the editing of O'Keefe, and I'm sure he has an alternate pov. Here is not the place to present a back and forth on O'Keefe's editing. Morphh (talk) 1:41, 07 April 2010 (UTC)
That is a... fascinating point of view. I'm not sure what you consider "reliable sources". The attorneys general of NYC and LA seem likely to be "reliable" to me. The NY Times and Post seem reliable, as does the WSJ and Washington Post. I'm not sure that "Morphh is aware of a controversy" is really a good standard for wikipedia to follow... but as I said, I'm not interested in getting into an edit war with ideologues. If it's not worth talking about the situation accurately, it's not worth talking about it at all. I would either take the section out or report it accurately.Simnel (talk) 03:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Here is what Wikipedia considers reliable sources. Those sources are reliable, but according to the information above, they don't describe it as a hoax or false (could be wrong.. haven't read through them). I did not state that I was a standard for inclusion. BLP does have a standard for inclusion, so I was discussing the merits of it meeting that standard in relation to Glenn Beck. I'm not saying the information is not noteworthy information. I was just questioning if it is an opinion, if the information meets weight, if the information is relevant to Glenn Beck's biography, or is it better left discussed in the article on that topic. Morphh (talk) 3:56, 07 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes. I am well aware that the sources I described are reliable... but thanks for the link. And no, they absolutely don't describe it as a "hoax" or as false... which is why I used, when I edited the section, the phenomenally neutral phrase "partially discredited". As for your other statements... Really? You were "just questioning"? Another interesting point of view. I think you should read your earlier posts again, and perhaps look up the definition of questioning. I also think that you should probably bother to read sources before you tell other people what's in them. Again, it's hard to see a way in which your opposition to this minor edit for accuracy is not ideological. So I challenge you again - reinstate the original edit, or, if the events were not important enough to report ACCURATELY, then remove the paragraph. Honestly, I have no idea why it's even in the Beck article in the first place - "Some dude made some videos. Beck, along with many, many others, played it on his show." Why bother? It's almost as if whoever is maintaining this page has some interest in the illusion that Beck, rather than O'Keefe, had some impact on national policy towards ACORN...Simnel (talk) 08:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Why should I care one way or another about your edit? Beck didn't edit the videos. Why would it be ideological? I only care that if it is included that it follow policy and is relevant to Beck's biography. There is a discussion about it so I'm expressing my thoughts. I'm not preventing it, I'm not reverting it, I'm not changing it. As per the definition of questioning, I'm using it in the sense of skepticism regarding its adherence to the policies. Part of the discussion is that you attempt to address those concerns. Is the statement "partially discredited" an opinion about the videos that would require us to balance it with another pov? Is this viewpoint sufficient under weight to merit inclusion in this biography, particularly if we have to add more for balance? If your unwilling or unable to address the comments, then that's your choice as the burden is on the user trying to add content. If there is a consensus on the wording and adherence to policy, then great. As far as removing it all together, I agree with you there.. I'd just remove it. I question (oh wait.. is that the right word?) the inclusion of the videos at all. Morphh (talk) 13:55, 07 April 2010 (UTC)
I took a stab at reducing the sentence and adding a bit for balance regarding the video content. "In September 2009, he broadcast a series of undercover videos by independent journalists James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles, which allegedly portrayed ACORN community organizers offering inappropriate advice." Morphh (talk) 16:36, 07 April 2010 (UTC)

FAIR ARTICLE

Why was my reference to the FAIR article removed under Public Reception. This is reasonable source to include under the "reception category" and it appears to reflect the feelings of many of his critics. Again, I am going to have to ask some mods to step in and help stop the bias that is present in the Beck Article. It is as if his fans step in every time sometime mildly critical surfaces. LynnCityofsin (talk) 01:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The person who edited the FAIR reference, stated that FAIR is "highly partisan", but I see how Stephen Colbert and JOhn Stewart are any less partisan (and both are mentioned in the Public Reception section). And I would dispute the claim that it is a highly partisan in the first place. Sure it tilts left, but it is reputable and a fair source when it comes to assessing how different segments of the population react to Beck. LynnCityofsin (talk) 01:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

It fails to meet the standard for criticism on a BLP, violates WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. It also is insufficiently sourced, using a single primary source with questionable reliability as a criticism reference. Morphh (talk) 1:29, 07 April 2010 (UTC)

None of that is true morph. You just don't like me putting up something vaguely critical. That's it. How do I complain to the editors, because this page is overun by people just trying to protect beck. I've had it. I am seriously tired of it. Anyone who doesn't see the editorial bias on this page needs to get their eyes checked. LynnCityofsin (talk) 01:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

If it's going to get left in the article, it needs to be phrased properly. However, I agree with Morphh that it violates several policies. And bias goes two ways, Lynn. Maybe you should pull the beam out of your own eye before you complain about the pebble in everyone else's. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 01:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Diggity: You know the bias here is predominantly in favor of beck. I wasn't born yesterday. I would be opposed complaining if all the contributions were critical of him. But they aren't. Because anything critical immediately gets vaporized and the pro-beck editors pile up on the person making the addition. LynnCityofsin (talk) 01:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Lynn, I specified particular policy issues. Don't wave your hands at the conspiracy and some cabal. Read the policy, discuss, and resolve the issue if you can. I don't believe a primary source from a political activist group qualifies as sufficent weight for a criticism BLP, which requires that "it be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." This is plain English. I'm not trying to be biased. I'm trying to write a quality encyclopedia based on the policies of Wikipedia. Morphh (talk) 1:47, 07 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not talking about a conspiracy or cabal. There are simply more Beck people storming the page than beck critics. And they wield the rules, like the one you site very selectively. You know it. I know it. Everyone knows it. LynnCityofsin (talk) 01:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Anyways, you know perfectly well that section is giving an overview of the criticism being leveled against the guy, and the FAIR article is a good representation of a common one against beck. And FAIR is not a political activist group. Like I said they tilt left, but they are still a reputable source of information and media criticism. LynnCityofsin (talk) 01:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

FAIR is not a political activist group? Do you even read up on these people before you start making claims about them? Under the "About Us" tab at fair.org, you will find these words:
"As a progressive group, FAIR believes that structural reform is ultimately needed to break up the dominant media conglomerates, establish independent public broadcasting and promote strong non-profit sources of information."
If that doesn't sound activist enough to you, you have several problems, Lynn. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 01:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Lynn, Selectively? These are the primary policies of the encyclopedia. The entry was not a secondary source, was not presented conservatively in a disinterested tone, and based on that single source is the viewpoint of a tiny minority. I don't see how you could claim that "None of that is true morph", but I'm open to the discussion. If this is a common criticism of Beck, than it should be easy to find it in reliable secondary sources. Also consider this needs to be taken in historical context. What if we added an entry for every group that criticized Beck on one issue or another? This is not a matter of pro or anti Beck people. Praise is also subject to this criteria. Morphh (talk) 1:59, 07 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they are being selectively enforced. They may be major policies, but they are enforced selectively. Have no fear though. CPTONO has lodged a complaint against me even though DIGGITY is the one who swears at users and attacks them). I probably won't be here to annoy you much longer. LynnCityofsin (talk) 02:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you have an example of where it is being selectively enforced? I'd like to review it. Morphh (talk) 2:22, 07 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Right here. Take a look at all the other entries on the public reception page, and count how many of them make the same "violations" my entry did. And this happens all the time on this page. Frankly I think the Beck page should be locked, and only edited by reputable editors (like they do with prominent political figures). Clearly Beck has a lot of fans (like so many public personalities) that check the page for changes and remove ones they don't like. And clearly he has many critics who try to do the same thing (though in my opinion the Beck fans have made way more edits than the critics). All I want is an accurate article. That isn't emerging here. LynnCityofsin (talk) 02:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems your idea of an "accurate" article is one that represents your minority, largely negative view of him, which you are either unable to or unwilling to provide sources to back up. It may seem like to you that everybody is against Beck because of the blogs you go to, because that is their agenda being left wing progressives, to portray everyone who isn't a loon as being against Beck, but given Becks' prominence and popularity the viewpoint that his is a crazy buffoon that no one takes seriously is a highly dubious one. Also, you claim the rules are being selectively enforced, but you haven't mentioned any rules of your own to be enforced instead. Why don't you find rules which back up your viewpoint before claiming they are being used in an unintended way. Ink Falls 02:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Lynn, could you be more specific? There are a couple sentences that I'd personally remove from that section.. the one on Stephen Colbert and the bit on Paul Krugman and Mark Potok seemed out of place, but for the most part, they seemed to be sourced to reliable secondary sources by large media publications. Morphh (talk) 3:01, 07 April 2010 (UTC)

You raise a key problem with that section. That is clearly inserting POV into the article. Not only that, but it is a misrepresentation of what Potok said about Beck. His criticism of Beck is two-fold: one that he actually engages in conspiracy theories about the president's "socialist" agenda and background, but that his ruminating about more hardcore theories (like the FEMA concentration camps), only to disprove them, is still destructive. Because he ruminates for an entire week.Stuff like that is allowed to remain in the article all the time. All I did was reference the FAIR article and point out what it said. I didn't editorialize myself. But that section you observed is clearly an editorializing. People who are fans of Beck may not like Mark Potok, but he is a reputable authority on hate groups and issues of domestic terrorism. LynnCityofsin (talk) 03:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Inkwell. I am not a liberal. I read many sources. I don't limit myself to left wing sources. In fact, I watch Beck's show and listen to talk radio. But there are lots of people on the left, who consider him a little on the paranoid and crazy side. The word dangerous comes up frequently regarding beck. That doesn't make him so. But to ignore the criticisms from the left is just as bad as ignoring the praises from the right.

And I have pointed out where the rules were selectively enforced. You can take it or leave it. But the bias is clear if one just looks at the history page of the article. LynnCityofsin (talk) 03:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of bias, you state "People who are fans of Beck may not like Mark Potok, but he is a reputable authority on hate groups and issues of domestic terrorism." Does this mean you think Beck is part of a hate group?Asher196 (talk) 03:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

No it doesn't. It means Potok made a statement about beck because he thought Beck's rhetoric was energizing hate groups. I never claimed Beck was part of a hate group, nor did Mark Potok. My point that people who are fans of Beck may not like Mark Potok, is because many conservatives accuse the the southern poverty law center of being too liberal. Not because they are in favor of or part of hate groups. LynnCityofsin (talk) 03:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't dispute that you read "many sources," Lynn, but if most or all of your "many sources" are progressive activist groups "thoroughly independent news agencies" that report the same misleading progressive-activist bullshit "stories," then perhaps you are a victim of inaccurate news reports. So, specifically, what are the "many sources" that you read? J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 03:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Not sure this is relevant or productive JDiggity. Morphh (talk) 3:58, 07 April 2010 (UTC)
What's unproductive about it? It's a simple question, and it would answer a lot of questions. I occasionally look at Media Morons (when I'm bored and feeling brave), and if that was my sole source of information, I would be making the same ignorance-laden arguments as some people have made. Likewise, if my sole source of information was NewsBusters or WorldNetDaily, I would make equally ignorant arguments, only from the other direction. It would just be helpful to know. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 04:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
It's unproductive, because it makes it clear for future people who might be trying to make good-faith edits... I don't know who I might be thinking of here, it might be me... that those edits are going to get reverted by people with political axes to grind. (And yes, I wish I had read this talk page before I accepted your assertion on MY talk page that you were acting in good faith yourself.) If you want to have a political argument, where you call people ignorant, call their sources bullshit, and ignore any point of view except your own, do it in a private forum. If you want to help make Wikipedia better, then grow up, be polite to people, and be willing to accept that sometimes other people might actually have something worthwhile to say. I feel like, if you and Morphh spent a quarter of the time you vigilantly police this article for anything that could be interpreted as sullying Beck's name actually reading the edits people are including, and trying to improve them, everyone - you included - would be a lot happier. Until then, though, feel free to keep shouting at people, I guess. It's more honest than what you did on my talk page.Simnel (talk) 08:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I have no problem with good-faith edits, none whatsoever. And, I will note, I have not been rude to you in any way, shape, or form. You want to know why? Because you walked in here and made a decent edit with a bad source. I informed you that I was removing it, and I showed you the specific policy that caused me to do so. Why did I do all this? Specifically because you seemed like you were trying to make a good edit. If you bothered to go back and look at Lynn's past edits here (which I don't suggest, because that would be a lot of conversations to sift through, but feel free), you will see a history of the same shit over and over. And, I will point out, I was perfectly nice to Lynn before he/she (I can't remember if Lynn is a he or a she...sorry, Lynn) decided to make a fool out of him/herself with dumb comments and blatant POV remarks.
I invite everyone to make good-faith edits. However, if edits made in the best of faith are not up to par, or do not follow the policies, then the edit will be modified, or, when necessary, removed. If edits are made that are blatantly wrong, or given a false context, will be modified or removed. I feel no qualms about that, and I will not be guilt-tripped about that. I do not think that all people with viewpoints different than mine are ignorant. I do not ignore viewpoints that are different than mine just because they are different. However, people that only pay attention to one kind of news are ignorant to some things. Some viewpoints are a waste of time. And giving people who only read news articles written in a negative light about a person free reign to edit said person's Wikipedia BLP is the stupidest thing I've ever heard of. People here can have whatever viewpoints they like. I don't give a damn. But if you...no, anyone comes in here and decided to make edits based on incomplete data, it will get reverted, and fixed. Not because of my feelings about Glenn Beck, but because of my feelings about fairness and accuracy. (No pun intended.) J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 10:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Calm down, dude. Again, there's no reason to go around yelling at people. You are absolutely right - you weren't rude to me. You did, however, present yourself as someone without an ideological axe to grind... but looking at the various threads on the talk page, that is clearly not the case. I'm not saying you were WRONG, either, about my cites being problematic - although I was a little bit surprised that you claimed you "couldn't" find a better source for what I was saying, when I was able to find a bunch more in about six seconds using the magic of Google. (Or just going to the O'Keefe page and cribbing cites from there.) And then, of course, I put it up with - thanks to you - a bulletproof cite, after which... you took it down again. Which was when I gave up, and started visiting the talk page to see what was up with this article, rather than bothering to continue fighting a revert war that I was already massively bored of. That's what I mean by you were acting in bad faith. Polite? Absolutely, and extremely useful; if I ever edit a biography page again, I'll have a much better idea how to source it. Good faith? I think it would be really, really hard for you to make the argument.
I feel like... do you not get how arrogant your last post is? Insulting people who disagree with you, saying that they are making edits based on "incomplete" data... Do you have the "complete" data then? Why don't you just write the whole page yourself, then, and we can lock it completely because we'll have the whole story! I don't think that's what you really meant, was it? But even when you're trying to explain your actions, you don't stop insulting Lynn. While it's quite possible that some viewpoints are a waste of time... pretending that you're sitting on high as the ultimate arbiter of worthless vs. worthwhile viewpoints is just ridiculous.
I'm not trying to guilt-trip you, dude, and I'm not sure where that came from. But you really should take a look around and try to decide what you're trying to accomplish, with your language and tone. If you're trying to make the page your own fiefdom, where only the edits that you approve get through? Well, I feel like you're doing a good job. But I don't think that's the point of wikipedia, and I don't think that's what you came here to do. So I say again - calm down. It's just a celebrity bio page. You are getting way, way too worked up about it.
Come to think of it... I really, really need to take my own advice. I gave up on trying to correct the actual page... I need to give up arguing on the talk page, too. When I tell my friends that I tried to make some edits to the Glenn Beck page, but apparently there are ideologues there, so I spent an hour discussing it on the talk page... I am going to get laughed out of town :-) Good luck! Simnel (talk) 10:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
First, I'm not sure at which point I gave people the impression that I was in a rage, or yelling. "Calm down?" Was I going ¡¡¡¡¡CRAZY!!!!! or something? I'm sorry if I gave that impression.
Second, no, I did not present myself as someone without a political axe to grind (although I would disagree that I have a political axe to grind), I presented myself as someone who wanted to get the article right.
Third, yes, I did come across a multitude of stories that stated that O'Keefe had manipulated the tapes. The only problem was they were all blogs and articles that did not meet the standards of WP:RS, therefore, in my opinion, they might as well have not existed. And your "bulletproof source" was actually a good one, one that I personally was okay with. If you will bother to look at the edit history, I had nothing to do with the removal. It was a user called E2a2j, whom I have never heard of, nor did I notice its removal, else I would have disputed it. Every dealing I have had with you specifically has been in good faith. Had it actually been me that removed that a third time, yes, I would not be able to make that argument.
Fourth, as to my last post coming off highly arrogant, I have to say that you are absolutely, 100%...correct. After looking it over again, yeah...I actually read it twice, and double-checked to make sure that I actually wrote it. My defense is the time stamp. 10:00 UTC translates to 5:00 AM in Missouri. I admit that I fucked up. However, I will offer up that argument again. Am I a victim of ignorance? Of course. If you don't believe me, ask my wife. Do I get the "complete" picture on every issue? Of course not. However, before I read or watch anything from any particular, I check out their background. If I'm reading something from Media Matters, I know they are an ultraprogressive activist "watchdog" group, and double check the context and accuracy of their reports. If I'm reading NewsBusters, I know that they are an ultraconservative activist "watchdog" group, and do the same thing. But when someone tells me that a group that proudly proclaims their progressive activism on their website is only "leaning left a little," do I assume they are more ignorant than I on that particular issue? Hell yes! And if that's wrong, I'm sorry, and I won't apologize for it. If I do the same thing, please assume that I am more ignorant than you. Every time. And no, I don't think I'm the ultimate arbiter of worthless vs. worthwhile viewpoints (which was a really effective turn of phrase, by the way), and I apologize to anyone who thought I came off that way. My viewpoint is getting the article right, based on the facts and in line with the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. Aside from that, I don't have a viewpoint. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 12:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Diggity: If you are going to use that kind of language with me, I will NOT answer any of your questions. have a nice day, and I hope you don't talk to people like this in real life. And you've been swearing at posters long before I did anything that upset you. Besides virtually all of my criticisms were directed at wikipedia itself, and any directed at posters like you were not personal attacks. You are engaging in vitriolic personal attacks here, and using other posters to justify your own behavior.

And just so you know. FAIR is hardly my only source. In fact, I barely ever read it. Most of my sources are conservative. In this case, I thought the FAIR article represented a common view I felt the left articulates frequently. But I read everything, the new york times, the wall street journal, the counter terrorist, the economist, the week, forbes, etc. My politics are not liberal on most issues. In the Terrorism articles people accuse me of being a wingnut. So don't judge me, just because I think the Beck page suffers from right wing bias. LynnCityofsin (talk) 14:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

FAIR Revisited

I don't understand the difference between some agency reporting something and some agency reporting their opinion of something. If you are making the distinction that they say he is promoting a paranoid view of politics vs. Beck actually promoting a paranoid view of politics that's not a cogent distinction. First off I take exception with the scare language that declares they are "attacking" Beck, but we can step past that for now. They are reporting what they are reporting, right wrong or indifferent. If you are suggesting that they are not a reliable source then we can ask and get an answer to that. What, exactly are you suggesting is their opinion vs. what they are pointedly reporting? Padillah (talk) 18:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I have started a thread asking if www.fair.org is a reliable source and where we can go to establish this. Padillah (talk) 18:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The "attacking" word choice was that of Lyn's which I was going to change but felt it would get debated. Go right ahead and change it, I feel it is unnecessarily characterizing FAIR stance towards Glenn Beck. It is their opinion that Beck's views are incorrect, not a fact. How is the current wording? Feel free to change the "attacked" bit to something better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ink Falls (talkcontribs) 18:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I was leaning more towards: "The progressive watchdog group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) reported that Beck was promoting an increasingly paranoid view of the progressive politics." Plain and simple, "they said this". No "attacking", no conjecture, just repeat what they said. Padillah (talk) 18:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
"Reporting" implies that what they say is true, i.e. they are objective and simply reporting the facts. When in reality what they are doing is stating an opinion, making a claim. We could say that FAIR is making a claim, but we can't say that they are reporting. Arzel (talk) 19:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Have you read the article? I ask because the issue I am having is FAIR is not saying as much as they are quoting and it makes it quite difficult to point at one statement and establish what their point is. The article is full of quotes with very little in between. As for the definition of reporting, you may have a point (there's some fine lines in there but we'll deal with those when we have to). This is obviously an editorial article. With this in mind we need to come up with the phrase that signifies the outlook is the result of editorializing, not a poll or market research. How about: "FAIR.org Activism Director Peter Hart, in an editorial dated April 2010, suggested that Beck was consciously promoting an increasingly paranoid view of progressive politics. Even raising the irony that Beck whips his listeners into a fury and then worries that someone might hurt the President because they are in such a fury." That's got the author, his title, the piece is an editorial, and the gist of the article. What say yee? Padillah (talk) 19:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
"FAIR.org Activism Director Peter Hart, in an editorial dated April 2010, suggesteds that Beck was consciously promotinges an increasingly paranoid view of progressive politics. Even raising the irony that Beck whips his listeners into a fury and then worries that someone might hurt the President because they are in such a fury."

Date of editorial is irrelevant. Use of present tense when discussing what an article is saying. Took out the last half because it gives undue weight to his opinion, e.g. his opinion only matters in-so-far as it represents the views of other Beck dissenters which are not expressly conveyed by the last bit. I prefer this one of yours just changed slightly "The progressive watchdog group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) reportedopines that Beck was is promoting an increasingly paranoid view of the progressive politics." Anyone else want to run with this? I put it up for now, you can take it down if you don't like it. Ink Falls 20:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I can agree with Ink Falls edit (I prefer the first one above, though I would probably change FAIR.org to FAIR and wikilink it)... I was about to write something similar. In my view, one sentence is already undue weight for Mr. Hart's opinion, but whatever.. if your going to include it - make it concise. Morphh (talk) 20:18, 07 April 2010 (UTC)
I think his view accurately reflects the view of FAIR though, so its inclusion is noteworthy, and that's why I went with the one I did. Ink Falls 20:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
The article states: "Much of Beck’s rhetoric is garden variety red-baiting." Reading the entire article, I believe this statement sums it up. I tried to incorporate it, which has since been reverted. Any thoughts? TETalk 20:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree about Hart, I only mention him to bring the author into the statement. Mention of him can stay or go. I do like the idea of mentioning the irony that was the articles main point. If we are using this article the use has to be critical of Beck, we can't site the article and neuter the criticism. I'm good with mentioning the "red-baiting" criticism, either/or is fine (I didn't revert out of dislike I reverted because we were discussing here and felt this was more appropriate). Also, "opines" is weak and awkward, the structure "In an editorial on ..." flows a bit better. Or "FAIR has stated they believe..." I've seen that used too. Padillah (talk) 20:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Agree that opined is light and attacked is too heavy. Criticized seems like a winner to me. I would avoid using more space to explain the author/FAIR than on their actual criticism, though. TETalk 20:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I changed it to "argued." I've also moved stuff around throughout that section in an effort to reorganize. Hopefully it's an improvement but it still needs some work, and ideally the "reception" section would consist of paragraphs with more formal topic sentences and specific details to follow, e.g. first a paragraph on his popularity, then one on "this guy is important per the media" (a la Barbara Walters and Time), then one or two paragraphs which are more critical, one or two which are more positive, one or two which are evaluative in some sense but neither positive nor negative, etc. The section would read a lot better if paragraphs began with sentences like "many liberals [and maybe add moderates, leftists, whatever] have criticized Beck because of X, Y, and Z" with specific examples to follow. The paragraph about humorists is actually a good model for what I have in mind. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Okay, how about, "FAIR Activism Director Peter Hart has criticized Beck for perceived red-baiting and promotion of an increasingly paranoid view of progressive politics" Ink Falls 21:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
That looks OK but they blatantly criticize him for red-baiting, not for the perception of red-baiting. That we can state out-right, they say his statements are red-baiting. Padillah (talk) 21:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Okay then, "FAIR Activism Director Peter Hart argues that Beck red-baits political adversaries as well as promotes an paranoid view of progressive politics" Feel free to write some sentences of your own Ink Falls 21:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
rewritten "The progressive watchdog group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting's (FAIR) Activism Director Peter Hart argues that Beck red-baits political adversaries as well as promotes a paranoid view of progressive politics" Ink Falls 22:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for working with me guys. Let's see what else we can improve. Padillah (talk) 11:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Forbes article

FYI to editors of this page, Forbes magazine has a new profile up of Beck which could be useful for this article. It focuses more on Beck as a businessman and a "brand." At the least it could update some of the earnings information in this section that's currently cited to a Forbes story from June of 2009. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Mark Potok and Krugman Criticism in Reception

The statement that krugaman and potok misrepresent Beck's treatment of conspiracy theories as support for them needs to be removed. It is overly POV, and it misrepresents the statements of Potok. Potok said that Beck's exploration of FEMA concentration camps, though he later debunked them, served to inflame hate groups during the period leading up to the debunking. He was also attacking Beck for employing anti-government, anti-socialist, rhetoric that he felt stirred up these sorts of groups. Also, while Beck has investigated some conspiracy theories only to debunk them, on other occasions (such as his shows dealing with secret progressive agendas for socialism) he has promoted conspiracy theories.

Here is a story on Potok's statement: http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/32337/

If you go back and actually listen to the interview, Potok clearly points out (as does the article) that Beck debunked the FEMA conspiracy theory. His point was the period leading up to that, served to inflame: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124906766 LynnCityofsin (talk) 15:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this should probably be removed. I have to disagree on the point of secret progressive agendas. I think Beck states often that their pretty overt about it, nothing secret. haha Morphh (talk) 16:07, 07 April 2010 (UTC)


Well, it is secret, because he claims no one is talking about it, that it is part of an organized movement based on deception, and that you need to put the pieces together to see the big picture when it comes to it. He does say it is all there for anyone to see, but that is after he creates an elaborate scenario on the chalk board that involves putting together lots of disparate components. LynnCityofsin (talk) 16:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I removed the Krugman/Potok bit without even seeing this section on the talk page. I hope it was not there long, it is utterly unacceptable to casually accuse people of misrepresenting facts as that could damage their credibility. The argument that they "misrepresented" was not even sourced to anything, the only sources were to pieces/statements by Krugman and Potok, so even drawing any conclusion about what they said was WP:OR. If anyone knows which editor added this material please let me know—they need to be informed that the material added was completely inappropriate. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I added it. I was trying to address an important point, but I shouldn't have been phrased as I phrased it. I reworded it, saying that Krugman and Potok accused Beck of hate for bringing the topic up, and thus in their opinions spreading it even as Beck said he was debunking it. Hopefully that should meet WP:RS and WP:NPOV while still addressing a point that needs to be addressed: A lot of people know Beck only as "the guy who said FEMA would round people up into camps" and would be a bit confused to see the only mention of that in the article lauding Beck as the guy who debunked this rumor. Hopefully the new edit will highlight these different perspectives without taking sides. Calbaer (talk) 07:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Incidentally, I added it after hearing Potok's interview on my local NPR station. He did indeed start it by accusing Beck of spreading the FEMA rumors, inciting others, which Potok tied directly to violent militia groups. If he did indeed later walk it back after I stopped listening, then he did precisely what Beck is generally accused of: Presenting a shocking accusation and then later clarifying the exact nature of what he's talking about. But honestly I expected more of an anti-hate charity spokesperson than of a provocative television personality. In any event, it is a good example of the difference in perspective over Beck/FEMA, and I'd hope that any problems with my wording could be worked out so as to preserve it. Calbaer (talk) 07:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Calbaer: Potok made the same statement on Fresh Air with Terry Gross on March 25th, about 5 or 6 days before he appeared on Diane Rehms. In the Fresh Air interview, he made clear that Beck pulled back, but his point was by that point he had already been stoking the topic for a week, seemingly taking seriously. He also made the point that in his opinion Beck's general posture on the air is one that feeds the extremist fringe. I assume he may have felt less need to qualify his statement on Diane Rehms. Here is the Fresh Air Interview: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124906766. LynnCityofsin (talk) 21:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I heard the Rehms episode the day of airing, and the Fresh Air episode via podcast, so I heard them in reverse order. You seemed to have confused them in your initial post in this section and are clarifying this now. However, even on Fresh Air, he accused Beck of spreading hate via addressing the FEMA camp rumor first, but there he actually addressed what actually occurred, like you say. I believe, however, that this does not change the article. (Not that I'm saying you want it changed; I assume you shared the Fresh Air link for my benefit.) It does show that "Beck inspires hate because of FEMA camp rumors" is a talking point for him and the SPLC in general, but I don't think it's that important to distinguish between accusations and repeated accusations for this comment. Calbaer (talk) 17:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I put it there for your benefit, but also because I believe it is the better source to site. Potok was a phone guest on the Diane Rehms show, and the main gues on Fresh Air. Also I believe on fresh air he was better able to articulate his position. There it is clear he isn't ignoring the fact that beck later debunked the FEMA camps, Potok's complaint was he carried on with it for several days, feeding the extremist flames during that time, before debunking it. I think it is also clear from the episode he thinks Beck, while he rejected the FEMA conspriacy theories, promotes conspiracy theories about Obama being a socialist who is secretly waging a war against capitalism. The important thing to distinguish is that Potok wasn't making the same claim as Krugman. Potok clearly understood that Beck talked about the FEMA camps with the intent of debunking them. LynnCityofsin (talk) 13:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I changed it. On a second look, it appeared inaccurate to lump Potok and Krugman together on the FEMA issue (especially since Potok's criticism was far broader than that). I also think that as it is written now, it just doesn't work very well. Potok and Krugman each had a specific set of complaints against beck, and I think both were quite different. They really need to be treated seperately and not artificially positioned against the newsweek article. Further, while the FEMA think is fine to mention, it is being used by Beck fans as a short hand for false accusations against beck (because he ultimately debunked the FEMA conspiracy). If it is going to be included, we should give guys like Potok a fair shake and not lump them in as critics who thought he was being serious about FEMA camps and used that as the basis for their criticism. Particularly with Potok, the FEMA thing was one example among many used to illustrate Beck's ability to stir up outrage among extremists. You are reducing Potok's talking point in a highly misleading way. I listened to the fresh air episode many times. He was very clear that beck ultimately debunked the FEMA rumor, and his criticism of Beck went well beyond that example. LynnCityofsin (talk) 23:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Satire/Parody needs reference to South Park

Resolved

In Season 13, Episode 13 ("Dances with Smurfs") Eric Cartman plays a commentator in the Beck mold. Studio logos, details, and physical appearance are directly from GB. See http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/255332 for details. Bjmckenz (talk) 19:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Dude, we already know about this. I would argue for its inclusion, but at the same time I don't think it's really notable enough for this article. Perhaps his TV show...? J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 08:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
SNL and Stewart are already mentioned in the Satire section. Might as well add a single line along the lines of South Park too. It needs a secondary source... or does it? ;) [41][42] Cptnono (talk) 16:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Paleoconservative?

Rachel Maddow referred to Beck as a paleoconservative on her show. Is this worth mentioning? Stonemason89 (talk) 17:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

No. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 18:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I think that is exactly how Glenn would describe himself. Although I think unless it comes from him it shouldn't be included, but keep your eyes peeled for info on his own political views(as expressed by him). Ink Falls 21:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
But isn't Wikipedia, as a rule, supposed to rely more on secondary sources (that is, how other people would describe Beck) rather than on primary sources (that is, how Beck would describe himself)? Stonemason89 (talk) 00:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
One mention from one commentator is probably not sufficient to apply a label.Cptnono (talk) 00:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
You use secondary sources to describe the commentator, but you use the commentator to describe the commentators' views. ;) Ink Falls 03:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Times top 100

I think it's worth mentioning somewhere that Glenn placed in Time's 2010 Top 100 most influential people list under the "Leaders" category. I'm not familiar with Glenn's article though and would rather someone else putting it in where appropriate. Ink Falls 22:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

NPOV issues in subsection title

Having a subsection titled "Comments on Obama's hatred for white people" is POV because it implies that President Obama actually does hate white people. The title should be changed to "Claims that Obama hates white people" or something like that. Stonemason89 (talk) 01:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Well spotted. Dougweller (talk) 05:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

KC101

(moved and added header)

I would add a link to the radio station that he worked for in CT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KC-101 (I got this info by searching through source #21 - the Salon article). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.11.74.233 (talk) 01:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

It is in under the "Radio" section.Cptnono (talk) 02:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Worldwide fame

Glenn Beck is becoming well-known and very controversial the whole world over...a recent Christian Science Monitor article (which I added a link to in this article) mentioned that political commentator Zaid Hamid has been compared by some of his fellow Pakistanis to....Glenn Beck. Stonemason89 (talk) 01:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

In the opening paragraph Glenn Beck is described as a climatologist and a historian, if this is true it should be cited where he received his degrees in History and Climatology. If he has no such degrees, these inaccurate descriptions should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.110.5.23 (talk) 09:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Please add the following text to the "Public reception" section.

Honorary degree

(--Cf.: Sir Dr. Stephen T. Colbert, D.F.A..) Thanks. --71.187.173.34 (talk) 02:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Lol, that made my day, it was the first time I saw positive vandalism on wikipedia, but it was vandalism nonetheless and has already been removed. The "prophet" tag should've been a clue the guy wasn't serious. Ink Falls 16:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Should be removed

"It has been speculated that Beck's criticisms may have been motivated in part by Jones' prior involvement in Color of Change, the organization that had previously convinced advertisers to pull their support from Beck's TV show"

Considering that Glenn Began his attack on Van Jones before the boycott this is as likely as the bombing of Hiroshima causing Pearl Harbor.

It should be removed for being superfluous and leading to obviously false conclusions to readers without the prior information to see the mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.9.147 (talk) 21:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

True - in fact the first source states "Mr. Balfe emphasized that Mr. Beck had spoken about Mr. Jones’s background before Color of Change “began targeting Glenn.” Then goes on to say "As the advertiser campaign heightened, Mr. Beck devoted more time to Mr. Jones’s past remarks." The second source states that Beck "Fox News Channel host Glenn Beck launched the drive against Jones and all but declared war on him after a group Jones founded in 2005, ColorofChange.org, led an advertising boycott against Beck's show to protest his claim that Obama is a racist." This also states that Beck's criticisms were prior to the boycott, and states that they were stepped up after the boycott. Both imply a relationship; however, I don't see that either supports the statement in our article. The statement also does not attribute the opinion - who speculated? It would also seem an opinion of tiny minority (undue weight). So, I agree, it should be removed. 198.4.104.128 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC).
That last edit was me.. stupid thing logged me out. Morphh (talk) 16:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

False balance

In the introduction, equal treatment is given to the views of Beck's supporters and his detractors. This is out of keeping with the neutral point of view. Many reputable advertisers have removed their custom because of his manner of expression. He is well outside the mainstream precisely because of his manner of expressing his views. To place the criticism which has placed him in that position alongside the views of his dedicated supporters, and on equal footing, is misleading.

The biography of a fringe figure should describe his views and his reputation, certainly, but it should not by placing the views of fans alongside the views of non-fans create a false equation which has the effect of promoting the minority view. That's why we call it neutral: it seeks to discover and reflect the balance of views, not to affect that balance. Tasty monster (=TS ) 14:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

So, if I understand you correctly, the lead is not negative enough? There should be more of an emphasis on his detractors? We should use WP, in essense, to malign people that we don't like...or at least we think many other people don't like as well...Hmmm...interesting concept to say the least. I suppose we could also add that he likes to eat babies, I know I have seen Beck haters make that comment. Arzel (talk) 15:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Fringe? He's NYT bestselling author, has a large national radio show, and one of the top tv shows on news. He gave the keynote at CPAC... He's not fringe. He's one of the leaders of conservative politics. We're already giving undue weight to certain criticism in the article. Morphh (talk) 16:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
You are completely wrong. Beck haters are in the minority, not the other way around. Ink Falls 16:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

No, you completely misunderstand me. We must not malign the subject of any Wikipedia article. You correctly state my opinion on the inappropriate weight given to Glenn Beck's fans, however. Our introduction certainly makes a false equation between Beck's fans and his detractors. That is the problem which we must remedy, and most probably the outcome of removing the inappropriate advocacy will be to present a picture of Beck that fans will like even less than they like the current introduction. Tasty monster (=TS ) 16:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that the introduction makes a false equation between Beck's fans and his detractors based on reliable sources? Morphh (talk) 16:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Good question. Look at the introduction and you will see a statement of the form "on one hand his supporters say...and on the other hand his detractors say..." This makes a false dichotomy that equates the views of the fans (a limited number) with the standards of the communities that have led to a number of advertising boycotts by reputable businesses. We should certainly report that (for instance) Glenn Beck has some weight in his constituency. That does not mean that we should promote him, or his constituency, to equality with the mainstream that comprehensively rejects him because of his behavior. Tasty monster (=TS ) 16:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
It's an interesting concept – weighting the presentation of plaudits and criticism in a person's biography based on how editors perceive their popularity. Of course, a Gallup/USA Today or similar poll to make the determination would be wonderful. Absent that, maybe we should use published ratings in the case of media personalities. We can establish a cutoff point (and maybe a "lag margin") by consensus, then evaluate the ratings of O'Reilly, Beck, Olbermann, Matthews... anyone else who wants to play. If their ratings lag substantially below others, or are below the established cutoff, we'll describe them as fringe figures and downplay anything their supporters say. That work for ya? Fat&Happy (talk) 16:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't follow the conclusion of a false dichotomy or that fans are a limited number. I also don't follow that moving advertisements (based on an opponent campaign to do so) from a controversial public figure equates to lack of fans or an overly negative public perception. A business staying out of the political mix is usually good business even with less controversial figures. The assumption sounds like original research. On the other end, he was selected as one of the "Top 10 Most Fascinating People" of 2009 by Barbra Walters, and was one of Time's 2010 Most Influential People. I wouldn't think you would get those honors by having a limited number of fans. Morphh (talk) 17:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
He also ranked #4 as the most admired person in the world by Americans, right in between Nelson Mandela and the Pope, that isn't a fringe figure. You are correct in that we shouldn't be equating Beck's fans to his detractors, but what we should do is downplay the detractors who make up a serious fringe minority. Ink Falls 19:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

External links

The sites in the "multimedia" list can be used as inline citations so not needed as external links. None are needed per WP:ELYES and I would go as far as to say that the Salon site is not neutral.Cptnono (talk) 02:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Cptnono, if you believe the Slate piece violates WP:NPOV then I would just remove that one, however I believe the other video links add to the overall article and constitute the kind of thing that someone interested in Beck would be curious to view. Moreover, their value as an EL (for a novice reader to easily find) I believe outweighs their value as an inline citation. Thoughts?   Redthoreau -- (talk) 02:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I am big on reducing external link sections. It is backed the guideline and I tend to focus on it. I totally understand what you are saying with the new reader thing. If others agree then I'll be happy to go along with it. And if you revert now I'm not going to make a stink. The Salon one is not good enough, though.Cptnono (talk) 02:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm one for a clean EL as well, and would remove them all personally. IMO, they're better suited as references, but if they are included, I'd suggest placing them in a "Further reading" section, rather than EL (see WP:GTL). Morphh (talk) 2:36, 02 June 2010 (UTC)
They fall into the section of rich media EL to be considered. They could be included in the Reception section under Interviews with major media or Major Media Coverage. How about: Katie Couric did an in length interview with Mr. Beck and covered several points...? Alatari (talk) 02:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
While I know this is done once in a while, I don't care for including external links in the body of an article. Use it as a reference for the statement, not embedded into the text. If included, I think a Further reading section is the best place for it. Morphh (talk) 2:43, 02 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 71.251.199.163, 2 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} please change word 'legit' to 'legitimate' in this context: "... a legit case that global warming..." 71.251.199.163 (talk) 11:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Thank you very much for pointing this out. NW (Talk) 12:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually, the sentence is a cut/paste from the USA article. I had quotations marks around the sentence, but looks as though someone removed them. Was concerned about WP:COPVIO. Don't know if that really matters which word is used, but since it was a direct quote figured I'd point that out. Akerans (talk) 15:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Bio by Alexander Zaitchik out

Common Nonsense: Glenn Beck and the Triumph of Ignorance. See (excerpted) piece. --71.187.173.34 (talk) 23:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

David Weigel of The Washington Post interviews Alexander Zaitchik here.--71.187.173.34 (talk) 18:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC) [I wish to post this at the bottom of the talkpage.]--71.187.173.34 (talk) 20:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Wow, that was just about the most hateful, sincerely evil description of another person I have ever heard, and completely speculative. Ink Falls 19:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

new content

Should this be included? [43], [44], [45] -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 22:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Not yet, the CBS source does not mention Beck, only the child's comment. If multiple reliable sources report on it, then maybe we could consider it as notable controversy. Aside from Media Matters, it's a synthesis of sources. Morphh (talk) 23:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
"Hmm, I'll give it a day or two. -Stephen Colbert" - ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 00:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I seriously doubt this story is going to get picked up. Besides, it wasn't just Beck who made fun of Obama's story, Laura Ingram also did. Besides, this isn't really a "controversy". Ink Falls 01:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

CNN, Gawker, Huffington Post, Mediaite, National Leder, News Oxy, NY Times. Actually, there's about 60 sources for this story. I'm not going to link them all. Akerans (talk) 23:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah but I think that's more a matter of Recentism and because of Beck's status than actually being particularly notable. Let's see if this lasts more than a week. Ink Falls 04:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The story clearly has already been "picked up." Define "lasts more than a week." In the 24/7 news cycle, esp. Jimintheatl (talk) 14:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
We need to stop this cycle of debate fighting about if it's been "picked up" sufficiently or not. Let's think about this as a whole. Not saying it should stay or go, but there is a limit to the amount of criticism we should place in the BLP per Wikipedia policies. At a glance, looks like we're reaching about 30% of the article. Praise - not sure about what % we're at there, but suffice to say, comparatively it's pretty low. The rest of the article is more descriptive about his life, profession, etc. Beck's biography should not be a list of criticism, even if each new story has sufficient coverage from reliable sources for inclusion. We need to pick his major controversies, and then summarize the rest into a paragraph or two. We should not be adding a new paragraph every month based on the recent news. It's the same debate over and over again here with the latest thing - we have to stop this cycle of recentism. The article should reflect a historical perspective over the life of Glenn Beck. Now, this may be one of those controversies.. fine, but we need to adjust the article to roll-off or summarize something else. We need to maintain some balance to the article. Let's pick the major stuff, come to consensus, then any new "controversy" is weighed against replacing an existing controversy, otherwise it goes into the summary paragraphs. The summary paragraphs should be very limited in detail, so that we don't run into npov issues that add length - something generic and balanced where the latest sources can be applied. This may be worth including based on coverage, but that doesn't mean it justifies an entire paragraph. For example, that paragraph could be summarized and included in an existing sentence. Glenn Beck has been criticized for A,(source)(source) B,(source)(source) C,(source)(source) and mocking Obama's daughter Malia.(source)(source) Done, it's included, it's succinct, it doesn't give it undue weight over the other major controversies of Glenn Beck's life. Morphh (talk) 15:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Well said Morphh. Totally agree.Boromir123 (talk) 16:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Also, not sure at what point this was agreed too, as we had past consensus on this point, but the article structure violates WP:STRUCTURE with all these sub-headings. Again, a sign that we've gone off the rails, where we have to start creating sub structures for the criticism. Morphh (talk) 16:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
No Stephen Colbert comment. Fuck. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 21:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Summarizing the content is an excellent idea. I think the section should be moved into reception as well. Technically, it is how the public is receiving him and "reception" doesn't have negative connotations. Akerans (talk) 02:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
It raised an eyebrow when those subheadings were included ([46]) This is an example of why it is bad. The daughter thing does not pass any sort of 10-year test (I ignore that typically) let alone a 10-day test. It borders on scandal mongering. However, it is interesting. If there was not a giant subheading for it there would be reduced prominence and it wouldn't be so bad.Cptnono (talk) 23:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
When I condensed the section to two sentence, I had considered moving it to the Obama section. Better that way? Akerans (talk) 00:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
That might work better. Go for it.Cptnono (talk) 00:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Support. Ink Falls 00:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The "Descriptive Quote Box"

When not to use quotations

Try to avoid quotations in the following circumstances: Where the same quotation has been used elsewhere in the article, avoid duplicating it, which is regarded as in poor style. Where a quotation presents rhetorical language in place of more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias, it can be a backdoor method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia's narrative on the subject, and should be avoided. Nuff said.Jimintheatl (talk) 01:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

"...to spend your way out of debt defies common sense." I interpret the quote as financial, not political. Removed per WP:PRIMARY. Needs a secondary source to interpret it's meaning. Akerans (talk) 02:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
The primary focus of conservatives is financial. It doesn't get much more political than government finance (taxing and spending). Morphh (talk) 13:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Ahh. I thought the quote was about parenting. Teaching youth financial responsibility. But, isn't that the point of not using primary sources? So, people don't misinterpret quotes? There's actually quite a few primary sources in that section, and not a lot of secondary sources to put them in the right context. Akerans (talk) 14:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Conservatives have been running their entire campaign against big spending and trying to spend your way out of debt. If a reader doesn't get that then they probably aren't living in the Western world and probably aren't interested in Glenn Beck anyways. This is the most clearly political statement I could find that he has made, he wrote it basically to sum up his political views in a single statement. You're assertion that you thought it was about parenting only makes me question whether or not you are qualified to be assessing things on this article. You should try familiarizing yourself with U.S. politics before trying to edit political pages. If you find a better, more descriptive quote then by all means present it, but until then this is the best I could find. Ink Falls 19:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
"neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias" are you seriously asking me to find a quote by Beck asserting his political views in a neutral, dispassionate tone? He is prized by the right for the passion with which he holds his beliefs, not by how encyclopedic he sounds. Anyways it's all moot as that is not for quotes by the subject about the subjects views, but rather for secondary sources describing the subject. Ink Falls 19:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Point being, asserting your interpretation of the quote constitues WP:OR. More specificially, it violates WP:PRIMARY. If you want to insert the quote, then I ask you provide a secondary source to interpret its meaning; insteading of the editors of Wikipedia interpreting its meaning. Otherwise, it, along with all the other primary sourced quotes, should not be included. Akerans (talk) 19:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
According to your view, nothing in this article should be allowed because it's all original research. The Forbes quote reading "Glenn Beck has managed to monetize virtually everything that comes out of his mouth.", let's remove that from the Media career and income section since it's clearly our interpretation that it has to do with his Media career and Income. Let's remove everything in fact from the Media career and income section that doesn't have a secondary source backing it up saying that it pertains to to his Media career and income. Then let's blank the all the sections for that same reasoning. Sheer ridiculousness. Ink Falls 20:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I just realized(and this should end all further discussion), the title of the section is "Viewpoints" not "Political Viewpoints", therefore this quote doesn't need to be political to be included. Thus, it's inclusion. Ink Falls 20:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't get the WP:PRIMARY argument, but this is still a "back-door method" in violation of WP:QUOTE.Jimintheatl (talk) 21:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Jim, you can't exclude the opinions of the subject because the subject isn't neutral towards what he is talking about. See WP:COMMONSENSE. IOW while it may be inappropiate to insert this quote into the article about the stimulus bill because it isn't neutral, it's definitely appropriate to insert it into an article of Glenn Beck's views. Ink Falls 23:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
"According to your view, nothing in this article should be allowed because it's all original research." No, sorry, you have it wrong. I'm asking that you, "Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source." A book from Beck is a primary source, and you're claiming that a section of the book asserts a viewpoint. If, on the other hand, Forbes Magazine said, "Beck holds the following viewpoint, "You cannot take away freedom to..."", then it could be included since a secondary source (Forbes) made that claim. Does Forbes say that? No, you're the one saying it. And, doesn't really matter what the section is called, an editor is making a claim based on a primary source. Ergo, it's wp:primary. Furthermore, it wasn't added to describe anything already in the article. It was placed in a box by itself. That said. The entire article is not based on primary sources, so I'm not sure what makes you think I'm suggesting the article be blanked? Anything using primary sources should be removed. There's enough secondary sources out there on Beck that this article shouldn't be using any primary sources, with editors deciding for themselves what that information means. Its disappointing the article has degraded to this point, and editors wish to degrade it further. It has to stop. We need to make the article better, not worse. (Jimintheatl, I hope that better illustrates to what I'm referring.) Akerans (talk) 00:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
The whole argument that you can't use a source's own words to describe their own viewpoint is absurd. Even if your interpretation of that rule was correct, that is not clearly not what the policy was intended to do making this an excellent case of WP:IGNORE. If you could explain to the rest of us how using Beck's own words to express his views is degrading the article then please feel free to explain. Ink Falls 00:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Because, editors can misuse primary sources. Thought Wikipedia was clear on that. For example. "Conservatives have been running their entire campaign against big spending and trying to spend your way out of debt." That's not exactly what the quote says, but the reason you added it. If the point of an article is to educate people about Glenn Beck, how does that quote lead people to that conclusion? Akerans (talk) 01:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
The point of the quote it to say that Beck believes "You cannot take away freedom to protect it, you cannot destroy the free market to save it, and you cannot uphold freedom of speech by silencing those with whom you disagree. To take rights away to defend them or to spend your way out of debt defies common sense." If you actually did infer that I am placing this to say "Conservatives have been running their entire campaign against big spending and trying to spend your way out of debt." then that's idiotic, if you are just pretending to be stupid to annoy me then piss off. Ink Falls 02:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Another example of misuse. An editor was advancing a certain position of global warming, while a secondary source was providing another position. In response to your last reply, I'm inferring that you're providing vague and/or meaningless quotes that serve no purpose, based on original research. Akerans (talk) 02:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Vague and meaningless quote? It's a rant against the Obama administrations practices, it doesn't get much more specific. As for original research, we have already established that this is not original research, the quote is from his book. Ink Falls 02:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

A rant against the Obama administrations practices? That's not in the quote. How do you expect readers to know that? Regarding original research, its not a question of whether or not its from his book. Rather, its a question of you analyzing the material yourself and determining its meaning. WP:PRIMARY says that's original research: "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." I'm sure you have good intentions, but Wikipedia editors are not secondary sources. Akerans (talk) 04:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't see analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the quote being put forward in the article that would make this an issue for primary or original research. I do think that quote covers several areas: freedom, free market, debt, and the bill of rights, which seems to make it a better quote than others to "sum up" some of Beck's core beliefs. I think what Akerans seems to be hitting on though is more about undue weight - what makes this quote more important than another quote, and does adding a quote improve the article. Is it right that we just pick a quote for the viewpoints section, instead of relying on a secondary sources to provide us with a quote they say sums up some of Beck's beliefs (if there is such a source). I think that's a fair concern. Perhaps as a compromise - we could consider the quote for the Author & Publication section for his book Common Sense. That would be a much narrower scope that is more descriptive to the content in that publication. Thoughts Morphh (talk) 16:39, 01 June 2010 (UTC)
I would accept that, that seems reasonable. Ink Falls 17:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
The analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claim about the quote is that it is a viewpoint. That claim is made by a Wikipedia editor. If, however, the New York Post called it a viewpoint, then there would be a secondary source making that claim; that would not be considered original research. My concern is not undue weight, or where exactly the quote should be placed. My concern is primary versus secondary sourcing. In this case, there is no secondary source. Already, 70% of viewpoint section is composed of primary sources (one of the secondary sources doesn't support a primary source, I haven't removed it yet). So, the quote should not be added. In addition, the primary sources should be removed or the article tagged {{primary sources|section called "Viewpoints"}} so people can help replace the primary sources with secondary/tertiary sources. Akerans (talk) 18:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Looking at the Authorship and publishing section, I don't see how adding the quote there would improve the section. There's already an illustration of book there, wouldn't further additions clutter the section? Otherwise, if done neatly, I'm sure it could go there. Akerans (talk) 18:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I've tried to include it without cluttering the section. We have quite a few different quotes throughout the article, not sure how any of them really improve the section, but I find them nice... sort of like a picture I guess. Morphh (talk) 19:23, 01 June 2010 (UTC)
I think it looks quite nice.(I agree that they're like pictures, which is why I've been trying to add them to articles) Good job placing it Morph. Ink Falls 19:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
There is no consensus for including the quote box at this time.Jimintheatl (talk) 00:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
It'd be a lot more helpful if you included a reason you don't consent rather then just stating you disagree. Ink Falls 01:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I generally enjoy relevant quotes and think that they add to the overall quality and aesthetics of an article. As for this quote, I think it encapsulates the sort of statements that Beck is known for making - however if others fervently object, maybe it could be added to an article on the book in question (i.e. Common Sense)? I see that Arguing with Idiots has its own article but Beck's Common Sense (which is notable enough to warrant it) does not.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 02:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Just pointing out, Jimintheatl already cited WP:QUOTE as a reason not to include it (see point 2). Akerans (talk) 15:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah but everyone's just ignoring that because it doesn't make any sense. You can't exclude Beck's opinions on Beck's page because they aren't neutral and encyclopedic. Ink Falls 21:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

No one is saying to exclude Beck's opinions. Rather, we're saying to exclude Beck's quotes (because quotes can be misinterpreted and send the wrong message). Beck's opinions can be added via secondary/tertiary sources. Akerans (talk) 22:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
There is no "we" between you and Jim. Jim is arguing that this is a backdoor way to introduce controversial material, but it isn't, it's just what Beck thinks. You think this can be misinterpreted, but I and most others do not see how this quote can be misinterpreted. It's perfectly straight forward, and really express the tone and themes for Beck's Common Sense. Ink Falls 04:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
@Akerans - I don't think you are reading WP:QUOTE from the proper point of view. It says "Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source."... we are not. Beck is. Assume we take your outlook and wait for a secondary source to declare what his POV is. Well, there are several secondary sources that feel his POV is to get as much money as he possibly can with little or no care for whom he has to step on to do it. Is that neutral? It came from a secondary source, like you want. How about Jon Stewert as a secondary source, he thinks the man is Mad as a Hatter. Can we use that to declare Becks opinions? Using secondary sources to establish POV is dangerous and leads, inevitably, to NPOV situations and arguments about WP:WEIGHT. If Beck has said "I like chocolate" we are pretty safe adding that as a point of view of the subject. We are not doing analysis, interpretation, or evaluation to determine this POV, we are being told outright. Now the quote in question is brief for the sake of brevity, not to mislead. We could include the larger quote Ink Falls provided above (and, IMHO, we should) but to place the quote in complete context we would have to quote large portions of the book it came from and that's just unwieldy. Padillah (talk) 13:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Did Beck say, "This is my view. You cannot take away..."? No, he did not. Rather, an editor made that interpretation. The statement sounds more like a lecture, or an order, than a declaration of views. Do lectures or orders constitute views? No. Again, editors are making that interpretation. Just because Beck says something, that doesn't mean that's his viewpoint. Otherwise, everything he says will start appearing on this page as his viewpoint. Beck has made some pretty choice comments in his books, radio and talk show. Do we really want to open the door for them? That's how I'm reading WP:PRIMARY; to prevent editors from using the subjects own words and making claims about them as they see fit. Again, do you really want to open that door? Plenty of secondary sources state Beck's viewpoints and can be added without NPOV or WEIGHT. John Stewart, "Beck is a right-wing, gun control supporting nut job!" Wikipedia entry, "Beck is a conservative supporter of gun control." Neutral entry and zero weight. Akerans (talk) 16:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I must admit to not having read the book in question but, what makes you think the book was not written in that context? Who in their right mind would write a book promoting beliefs they don't agree with? I have no problem opening the door that allows public figures to speak for themselves. I see no reason why we can't add mention of Beck's belief that Obama hates white people. That I have heard and he most assuredly says "I feel Obama hates white people...". So according to some of your logic this would be OK to add because he comes right out and states this as a belief of his. On the other hand I get confused when you change the argument (almost mid-sentence) to one of mis-using quotes out of context and OR. Then go on to present a blatant example of cherry-picking. A quote is a quote. It needs to remain in tact to be called a quote. There is no replacement for first-hand knowledge (which is why WP:BLP and the appeal system are there). You cannot use second hand sources to define a persons feelings. There is no way for me to know how another person feels other than to hear them say it. We can turn to secondary sources to report factual information - how many guns Beck owns - but not for his feelings on guns. That should come directly from him as much as possible. We don't want a gossip article and that's what we'd get using secondary sources for viewpoints. Padillah (talk) 18:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
[W]hat makes you think the book was not written in that context? Because, there's no secondary source to say the book was written in that context. Sorry, the source making the claim is a Wikipedia editor. If an editor makes the claim, is that not original research?

Who in their right mind would write a book promoting beliefs they don't agree with? People do all sorts of things for money these days. That aside, who said it was a book about beliefs? Some people say the book is Beck's look at Thomas Paine's Common Sense (pamphlet). I'm not sure how examining the work of somebody else constitute personal views? Unless you want to say the views presented are of someone else's work, which would be a more accurate assessment. So, is the quote Beck's views or Paine's views? Is Beck using Paine's views on the Obama administration?

Not sure what sentence you were having an issue with, but misusing quotes out of context and original research are not mutually exclusive. An editor can use a quote of Beck to make a claim not stated elsewhere. Meaning, I can quote Beck as saying, "The sky is green." The sky is not green. But, Beck said it, and it's true Beck said it. Based on the logic presented to me, I can add this quote to the viewpoint section as it is something Beck said; and since the quote is by Beck from Beck it can not be disputed. It's an original concept, and placing the quote in a viewpoint section means it is something Beck believes. Even though he may not truly believe "The sky is green" he said it and it belongs there, right? A quote is just a quote?

And, no one is saying to exclude Beck's feelings. There are plenty of secondary sources that demonstrate quite clearly how Beck feels about certain subjects. That is, aren't Beck's views on Obama already in the article? How many different ways do you want to say the same thing?

Also, do we want an encyclopedic article about Beck, or should we just delete everything and use Beck quotes to tell his story? That seems to be the consensus everyone is pushing for.Akerans (talk) 22:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Have you read the book in question? What does Beck say the context of the book is? If it is a teaching aid and he is reviewing other's work than fine, drop it. If it is a polemic then we have every right to quote the book to establish context, in this article, about what the book says. Yes, you can quote Beck as saying "The sky is green". Hopefully you would do it with proper attribution and in context "Beck stated that right before there is a tornado 'the sky is green'". That's a properly used quote. Attributed and placed in context. Yes, we can misuse quotes... so don't. Make sure any quote we are using is properly attributed and placed in context. Very few statements can stand on their own as quotes, but there are some that can. So if your argument is that we have too many quotes and we don't need this one which is not pertinent - say that. Present that argument and we will address that argument. But, if your argument is that the quote might be misused - don't misuse it. Ask that the user adding the quote place it in the proper context and attribute it correctly. In other words WP:MOSQUOTE. Padillah (talk) 12:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
My argument has been that (A) we're using too many primary sources and (B) the quote is being misused. Different editors have cited different policies regarding how the quote is being misused, but we all agree its being misused. So, put it in the proper context or leave it out. Fair enough? Akerans (talk) 14:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, that's fair enough. If it's being misused then by all means get it out of there. Padillah (talk) 20:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Doesn't seem misused to me. I don't see where it is in improper context. While differnt editors have cited different policies, that doesn't make their interpretation of that policy correct as others have debated otherwise. That's the point of the discussion. Morphh (talk) 22:12, 04 June 2010 (UTC)
Not one editor other than Jim and Akerans have argued the quote is being misused. They have stated, however, things like "I think it[the quote] encapsulates the sort of statements that Beck is known for making".
Just because Beck says something, that doesn't mean that's his viewpoint.
You're arguing we can't trust Beck's own words because he might be lying? Why can we trust other's words about him then? Or, under your view, do we need sources saying "Source X is telling the truth when it says "Y"", before we can include source X's opinion on Y.
Even if Beck was just lying it is definitely his purported opinion thus should b treated as such.
Lastly, your missing the obvious point of the quote(as it currently stands). It stands to represent the major themes and ideas of Beck's work Common Sense, so it doesn't even matter if it is representing Beck's viewpoint(which it clearly is). Ink Falls 23:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
You're arguing we can't trust Beck's own words because he might be lying? No. I'm arguing against Wikipedia editors interpreting the meaning of his quotes. Granted, you did not literally write, "these are Beck's views" and reference the quote, rather you did so indirectly by inserting the quote into the viewpoint section. Call it original research, misuse, backdoor, quoting out of context, or whatever. Either way, it's a cheap tactic to assert your position regarding Beck. A quote is just a quote, and there's no context to say otherwise. The quote is self-serving and should be removed. Akerans (talk) 02:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

First off, you suggested that Beck was only saying these things for money, implying that you thought he is lying(which there is no evidence of). Secondly this quote accurately reflects the tone and content of the book Common Sense, it is no longer in the viewpoints section, so people can read this quote and decide for themselves whether or not they believe such things like Beck is only saying this to make money. There's nothing backdoor about this, this is a clear, transparent, front door effort to describe the content of the book with a quote from the book. Ink Falls 04:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The answer was to a question about why someone would write a book, not about whether they were lying or not. I did imply anything, you interpreted incorrectly. This is why I question your interpretation of his quotes. Akerans (talk) 16:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
You said he may be saying something which he doesn't believe because he wants to make money, that is called lying, but it's unimportant. If you cannot come up with a reasonable or compelling reason as to why this quote does not accurately portray the tone and content of the book Common Sense then we have nothing more to discuss. Don't reply unless you are going to address how this quote misportrays the book Common Sense. Ink Falls 20:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
It's not called lying, it's call entrepreneurship. Beck writes (and says) stuff he may not believe for money, because Beck is an entrepreneur. Beck knows what sells. Thought that was obvious enough it didn't explaining. Sorry if that wasn't transparent enough for you. If you want a better portrayal of the book, then a review or synopsis would do a much better job than a quote from the book. I believe the summary from the publishing house would suffice. Akerans (talk) 22:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Saying things you don't believe in to make money is lying, and your conception of entrepreneurship seems immoral to me(although I believe Beck believes what he is talking about so I am coming from a different angle then you). As for your suggestion, I think a generic review might not do as well of a job demonstrating all the views expressed by the book as encapsulated by this quote. If you think otherwise, please place an example of a review for comparison. Ink Falls 23:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
The following is Simon & Schuster's description of the book, which more accurately describes what the book is about. The description is rather long, but I believe the last sentence sums up the book.

In any era, great Americans inspire us to reach our full potential. They know with conviction what they believe within themselves. They understand that all actions have consequences. And they find commonsense solutions to the nation's problems. One such American, Thomas Paine, was an ordinary man who changed the course of history by penning Common Sense, the concise 1776 masterpiece in which, through extraordinarily straightforward and indisputable arguments, he encouraged his fellow citizens to take control of America's future -- and, ultimately, her freedom. Nearly two and a half centuries later, those very freedoms once again hang in the balance. And now, Glenn Beck revisits Paine's powerful treatise with one purpose: to galvanize Americans to see past government's easy solutions, two-part monopoly, and illogical methods and take back our great country.

Akerans (talk) 04:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
It's pretty boring, no? I doesn't quite reflect the impassioned nature of Becks views(like the other quote does), and which I would argue is a generally acknowledged trademark of his. In short I don't think it adds as much as the current quote. A general rule of writing is to show rather than to tell. With the current quote we are showing the reader what the book is like. With your quote we are telling them. In the case with the current quote, we are showing the reader and letting them decide for themselves what to think of it, something the latter quote doesn't quite give the reader a chance to do. Ink Falls 04:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
An encyclopedia is suppose to boring. But, informative. Illustrations are nice, and we can still accomplish that with a more informative quote. On another note, the book credits two authors: Glenn Beck and Joe Kerry. Attributing the quote to Glenn Beck alone is inaccurate. Akerans (talk) 20:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Accusing Glenn Beck of "incendiary rhetoric" (in the opening section) is itself incendiary rhetoric.

It should be in quotation marks at least. That is, even if it should be there at all. GeorgeSorrows (talk) 12:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I also don't care for the matter of fact tone, which doesn't portray it as an opinion. I don't like that we're using media matters to support something in the lead like this. The lead is intended to summarize the entire article with the most important points and should be quality secondary sourced, not some political organization who's mission it is to trash conservative media. Morphh (talk) 15:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

He uses rhetoric, and in a very incendiary manner, particularly in one famous skit where he acted out the pouring of kerosine over a man (the can contained water) and lighting a match. There actions were supposed to represent some action of federal government. This was rhetoric and it was incendiary in every meaning except the one which would have involved bold blooded murder. So where's the beef? Tasty monster (=TS ) 16:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

You didn't address either concern. Bad sourcing and opinion presented as fact. He didn't commit arson, so that form of definition is not what is intended. As for the other definition, a person who excites factions, quarrels, or sedition. That is a matter of opinion, one which could be applied to many commentators, comics, and politicians if loosely defined. What one considers incendiary, others may consider political entertainment. We do not represent opinion as fact, we attribute the opinion and do so in line with the policies of blp, weight, and verifiability. So there is the beef. Morphh (talk) 18:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
The kerosene skit was intended to be humorous, only far left zealots consider it to actually be suggesting violence(which of course it isn't). Also, I don't think Media Matter can be used to express the typical kind of dissent Beck faces(unless your discussing the dissent of the blogosphere). Most people who disagree with others don't label them things like "fear monger in chief" or even have such categories to label their opponents. Media Matters disagreeing with their opponents is always incendiary, always becomes personal and nasty, and their opinion isn't even mentioned in other articles on their opponents (like Bill Oreilly) for just that reason. Let's just leave the hate mongering blogosphere out of Wikipedia. Also, the way it is presented does make it appear to be a fact(which is not later proved in the article). Ink Falls 19:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
The "humor" card is a convenient out for Beck. "Oh, he was only joking when he said X was a Nazi, Maoist, Stalinist, etc." Sorry. Doesn't wash. In addition, it ignores the obvious fact that humor can be as incendiary as straight commentary. As for sourcing, there are plenty of other sources which describe his rhetoric as (take your pick) incendiary, irresponsible, inflammatory, hateful, on and onJimintheatl (talk) 12:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
An out for him? First off if you ever actually watched the show you would know he has never said anybody was a Nazi, Maoist, of Stalinist, but go ahead and keep making stuff up to support your argument. If there are so many other sources, then list them, although most are liberal blogs and well the Huffington post possibly. The types of attacks leveled on Beck are leveled on all conservative (and other nonliberal) commentators, but aern't mentioned at all in their leads(check Bill Oreilly and Rush Limbaugh), I'm changing Beck's controversy to something more like Rush's, and leaving the illegitimate far-left criticism out of the lead.

Limbaugh is a controversial figure in American politics and media. He frequently accuses the American mainstream media of having a strong liberal bias, criticizes liberal policies and politicians, and promotes conservative positions. (this is more like how Beck's should be written)
The only one using incendiary rhetoric and making things up is you, accusing Beck of labeling people Nazis, Maoists, and Stalinist, and as typical with no evidence to back it up. Ink Falls 16:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you listen very closely, or you only hear what you want to hear This was just yesterday. http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201005170011 Jimintheatl (talk) 17:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

First off, I don't listen to radio Beck, so there's no way I could've heard that, [offensive comment removed] Secondly Glenn Beck was just making a reference to Anita Dunn who called Mao one of her "favorite political philosophers" and then certainly sounds like she worships him as her eyes light up when discussing how he went his own way, took his own path, and never minds the left that his "own path" included ignoring the advice of his own advisers who told him for 5 years of all the millions dieing and starving to death under his policies, he just kept going straight forward, and that is what Anita Dunn says she admires, that he just kept going on his path, never mind that his path resulted in the most deaths in human history. He still though did not seriously call anyone there a Maoist or a Stalinsist or a Nazi, so I stand by my original assertion, you may believe that saying someone "worships Mao" and that that is the same as calling them a Maoist, but you can't deny that you just made up completely that he calls people Stalinist or Nazis and that you just said that to be inflammatory. Ink Falls 19:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

You accuse me of ad hominem attacks and call me an asshole in the same sentence? Your Beck bona fides are intact (it's one word, by the way). And that was just one clip. It's easy to find more, but I'm not sure you'd accept them either. In any case, you don't have anything like consensus to water down the existing article.Jimintheatl (talk) 19:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Oh, what the hell. Here's one from your favorite TV show, Sparky. It's so FUNNY when he compares Obama to Hitler...It's a joke, right? http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200908270036 Jimintheatl (talk) 19:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't call you an asshole, I said your comments make you look like one, but if details don't matter to you then whatever. "It's easy to find more, but I'm sure Beck fansc couldn't accept them", that's just what you tell yourself when you don't have any evidence to back yourself up. If it were actually easy you would just bring it up when in reality to find something to back up your claim that he calls people Nazis and Stalinist would require you to dig through tons of smeary articles on Media Matters and even then you'de have to stretch one of them to sound like it's backing your claim, anyways if you aern't going to back up what you post then don't bother posting it like a fact because people here actually care about proof. Ink Falls 20:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

As for your more recent comment, Beck isn't comparing Obama to Hitler, so I that post of your doesn't mean anything. That post of yours was a joke right? Ink Falls 20:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
So when Beck says "this [Obama's supposed civilian national security force] is what Hitler did with the SS" he's not comparing Obama to Hitler? How's that workin for ya? And if you watch his TV show, maybe you've seen him talk about Obama's administration while playing with swaztikas and photos of Stalin and make "connections" that nobody wants to talk about. See, in the reality-based community, that's called drawing comparisons. He doesn't have to literally say "Obama is Hitler" to make the comparison.Jimintheatl (talk) 20:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

So when Beck says "this [Obama's supposed civilian national security force] is what Hitler did with the SS" he's not comparing Obama to Hitler?" No, the closest that comes to is comparing their polices, in which it is an accurate assessment, one which the fellow person on his show first made the connection to. You don't seem to understand, when Glenn Beck says something like "People in this administration are sympathetic to the failed communist regimes, seeing this as some sort of failed experiment but with good means" he is not comparing them to those people. A comparison is more like when one blogger took the words of Beck's book and of Mein Kampf and using it to argue they have similar personalities and rhetoric. Of course you would not be against that because it's against Glenn Beck, nor were you ever aginst the comparisons of Bush to Hitler, you are completely hypocritical and that is fine with you. Ink Falls 21:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Amazing. First you see Anita Dunn's Mao-worship in her eyes "lighting up." Then you claim to care about "proof." The proof in Dunn's twinkling eyes? Then, without a shred of evidence claim I never objected to Bush/Hitler comparisons. Your, ahem, proof? On the larger point of comparisons, I'm glad, I think, that you realize that Beck is comparing Obama's policies to Hitler's. That's the point, isn't it? What did you think I thought he was comparing: personal appearance? Sexual orientation? Age? It's the political/policy comparison that matters and is at issue.Jimintheatl (talk) 00:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
You both are way off topic. Editors at the top of this section dispute "incendiary rhetoric" as it is in the lead. Is it being adjusted or not? And Jim, if you do hit submit on that edit warring report you will more than likely be blocked also.Cptnono (talk) 00:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, Capt. Finger-Wag. I'm just trying to stress to the Beck fans that the very things they admire him for: his willingness to challenge history, to see things /connections that no one else is willing to articulate, to confront accepted wisdom, to suggest that he might be deep-sixed for speaking these unspeakable truths, to rail against, well, take your pick, make him a slightly more controversial figure than someone who claims the media might have a liberal bias, esp. when none of the critics cited mention that issue. But cooler heads seem to be intervening, so I'll hold my tongue for a bit. Jimintheatl (talk) 00:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I'll apologize for being so argumentative(without backing down from anything I've said), anyways, I like my version because it gives a much less incendiary outlook. Ink Falls 01:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's avoid anything that remotely resembles an insult, please. Don't call people names directly or indirectly. "You look/act/appear like" insult x is the equivalent of insult x and will be treated as such. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 19:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

In regards to the article content, I think much of the above discussion is besides the point. I think both versions of the contested content are flawed, but I think Ink Falls' version is inappropriate because it inaccurately portrays the substance of the objections to Beck. The objections listed are so generic they could apply to any conservative. Gamaliel (talk) 19:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Most partisan sites toss around ignorant generalizations pretty freely. Maybe we could find better sources for this than that? --Tom (talk) 19:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Media Matters is clearly inappropriate for the lead, lest we start using other partisan websites for loaded statements for liberal talkers like KO. I don't think that is a battle that WP should be playing. Arzel (talk) 20:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Obviously we are required to document the range of opinions regarding Beck, but I do share your reservations to an extent regarding how we do so. I see Jimintheatl's latest edit as a step in the right direction; restoring the unsourced generic language would be a step backwards. Gamaliel (talk) 23:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
It's unsourced because you typically don't add references in the opening. Ink Falls 23:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
You are absolutely right, though on controversial articles like this one the intros are often sourced out of necessity because the most basic of facts are hotly disputed. Perhaps we can reach the point on this article when we can all come to an agreement and we can dispense with the footnotes. Gamaliel (talk) 23:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
So Matt Osborne a hyper-partisan blogger is acceptable for the lead? I thought blogs were not acceptable as sources within BLPs. Arzel (talk) 01:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
"Incendiary" is too soft a word for a man that called the wife of a rival talk show host on air and mocked her for having a miscarriage.Osiriscorleone (talk) 19:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. I'm actually surprised this is being debated. What else can you label his obvious demagoguery in a relatively unbiased manner? Hell, it's what he's known for. 98.168.192.162 (talk) 16:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
I think it's hilarious that this article supports the assertion, "his detractors say he promotes conspiracy theories and uses incendiary rhetoric" by citing a supporting Huffington Post article titled, "Glenn Beck, Cult Leader". Compare with the assertion "To his supporters, he is a champion in defense of traditional American values from secular progressivism" by citing a St. Petersburg Times article titled, "Glenn Beck fans say he represents their American values". Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Beck-v-WaPo w/regard Overton Window

[Note: I've crossposting the following here, from The Overton Window's talkpage.]

As opposed to Time's backhanded compliments wrt the novel ("For Beck's millions of acolytes, however, the one-dimensional characters and half-baked plot will be less important than his message, which will channel their anxieties about perceived assaults on our freedom.")--the WaPo reviewer's allegation/observation that the book may encourage domestic terror has resulted in some back and forth between Beck and the reviewer, with the usual sources have chimed in, as well (Media Matters, the NatReviewOnline, Newsbusters).

Yet in our article on the book at the moment, this contention of the WaPo's remains unrebutted and Media Matters' review is posted in external links. I might not the best person to address this because I'm a Democrat but, IMO, if somebody could, I think it would bring in a little more balance to the article.--75.45.143.44 (talk) 20:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

New Book

This upcoming book is covered in secondary sources Huffington Post and the Colbert Report in addition to Beck's own website. That makes it notable and not self promotion.

August 28th 2010, on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, he is to unveil his upcoming book The Plan. [18]This day and place happens to be the same as the I Have a Dream speech.[19][20] Alatari (talk) 09:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Beck publishing a new novel is notable for his biography and having been sourced from elsewhere than his blog you'll need to come up with a serious Wikipedia guideline reason why we should not list his next book and the controversial way he plans on releasing it. Alatari (talk) 09:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball. Manufactured criticism months before something is to occur from partisan websites is not notable enough for a future event. There is no evidence that this event, should it happen, would be much of a story. Arzel (talk) 15:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
We're not stating when the book will be released, just that it is currently planned to be released. The current plans to release it are in the present, not the future. Ink Falls 18:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry but, a notable person, like Beck, releasing a book would be a notable event. Almost regardless of the sales numbers. The statement in question isn't "he may release a book". That would be speculation on future events. The statement is "It's been reported that he plans to release a book", the reporting of it is in the past. It can be verified that Huffington Post has reported that Beck will release a book. That statement should stand. Padillah (talk) 18:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Statement that he is releasing a book is fine. Statement that the release will be controversial because he might do something in the future is a future event. Huffington is nothing more than a partisan attack on Beck on a possible future act. Arzel (talk) 19:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
What part of the above has any of the HP criticism in it? I didn't see any criticism, I saw notation on a date and time that may not be notable, but the statement didn't criticize him for it. Padillah (talk) 21:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
The location and anniversary of the I Have A Dream speech is a bit notable. Alatari (talk) 21:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
If Beck were pointedly drawing a parallel then yeah, it would be notable. But the simple chance occurrence of something on some date in some place is not notable. Are we going to tag everything that happens that day with a note saying it happened on the same day as the I Have A Dream speech? If Beck draws a parallel then that deserves to be pointed out (and any criticism of that parallel needs to be included as well) but simply having it on that day in that place doesn't mean anything.Padillah (talk) 01:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
He is unveiling the book at the actual feet of the Lincoln Memorial and a secondary reliable source MADE the connection. Secondary sources are what Wikipedia is primarily based upon. Use of primary sources is harder and you are right, Beck doesn't make the connection in his source. A secondary source exists (Huffington Post) making the connection. Alatari (talk) 15:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I would argue that a secondary source may have a right to criticize but not to create criticism out of thin air. You can't make an observation and then criticize someone for it. Having the book release in that place and time does not mean Beck is trying to draw a parallel between him and Dr. King. Huffington is drawing an inappropriate parallel and then criticizing Beck for it. If we present it then we should present it that way - not as a parallel Beck was trying to draw but as criticism created out of whole cloth by others. Padillah (talk) 16:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Oh, sorry I was misunderstood. I never meant to record in the article that Beck made the connection. Colbert's persona (or writers or person) made the connection. Huffington Post may present it as a criticism but I'm thinking there are sizable numbers of people who would believe it's a great idea to unveil his book there and then. If you read my original entry to the article it was worded neutrally that the time and place coincides with the time and place of the speech. Leftist, liberal, progressive, whatever you call Huffington Post they accurately male the connection. If you want to add a section under controversy over the release date you could but I don't believe there is a major controversy yet. Alatari (talk) 18:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I searched again for Beck + MLK and found the leftist Media Matters making a strong criticism of Glenn Beck adapting MLK to his on-air persona. So maybe there is a section for the controversy section? It wasn't my plan to go this far. Alatari (talk) 18:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Uh-oh, we may have created a monster. I think we need more about the sources in the prose, like so:

It is reported on Becks official website that he is to unveil his upcoming book, The Plan, on August 28th 2010 on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. Beck has been criticized for using the release to draw parallels between himself and Martin Luther King Jr. with the anniversary and place of the famous I Have a Dream speech.

...but with better phrasing and prose. Padillah (talk) 18:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict!)This isn't the first time the connection was made. A local paper, the Saint Louis Examiner, made the connection in Nov. 09. Here is a successful Google search on the topic which turned up several sources. I think there maybe 1 or 2 more reliable sources which make the connection between the time/place of the two speeches. I think politifi.com or the Philidelphia news source philly.com are probably reliable enough. It seems a hot topic on the left and it would be nice to find a right leaning RS. Alatari (talk) 18:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I'd be ok with the original wording though I don't see that it's that important to Beck's biography. If you attempt to write it as criticism, then we're entering a different discussion for BLP and NPOV criteria. I don't believe we have the weight or relevance to notability to make this anything worth including as directed criticism on Beck. If it's just a statement of fact regarding the time and location, that's different - your providing details in relation to the event. Morphh (talk) 18:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
IF he is being criticized then we are simply reporting the fact that he is being criticized. We are merely presenting the sources as they pertain to the subject. From the list of criticisms Alatari is finding we may have reason to bring more light to Beck's comparisons of himself to King. It looks like something he has done on several occasions and has been called out on it. We are obligated to provide proportional coverage to a subject. Padillah (talk) 19:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
It's not that simple. Beck is criticized every day from numerous sources. You have to look at criticism over Beck's life and include the significant points that are part of his notability. This criticism is part of a tiny minority when compared to the main criticisms against Beck, and therefore should not be included on those grounds or in that context. We're not news - it's speculation on their part and WP:RECENTISM on ours. We can not synthesize a pov based on random comparisons to King. Proportional coverage in this case, with regard to Beck's life and criticism, is no coverage as it's insignificant at this time. Morphh (talk) 19:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but that sounds like a rephrase of what I said - we would need to find more to make it significant. I'm not sure I agree that we need to measure the each criticism over the course of Beck's life, that's a little steep. If he has been criticized then we should report it but not make it more important than other criticisms he has received. I don't think many other criticisms in his life will measure up to the "Obama hates white people" but we can't just not report the various criticisms because that one had more coverage. There's also a question of whether the criticism is harsh or the coverage of the criticism is extensive. Which one of those make a criticism more or less important? It's a question of balance - will one note mentioning the comparison be out of balance with the rest of the article? Right now, yes. If we were to find many more outlets taking up this same criticism, depends on the outlet and the novelty of the criticism (rehashing old criticism isn't worthy of noting here, new criticism is). Padillah (talk) 20:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
As the release date draws nigh and if he stays his course I think we'll have plenty of new material down the line. I agree with the WP:RECENTISM suggestion and just state the fact of date and place and plan to unveil. Alatari (talk) 09:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Nowhere in my sentence did I say anything about controversy. I stated where he planned on releasing it and when. Colbert is a satirist and not affiliated with any political party so I'm not sure where you get partisan attack and Colbert's statement that the release date coincides with the MLK's speech is also a past statement. How is using Colbert's statements a violation of WP:BLP when it allows for criticism? Maybe Colbert's statements should be moved down to the criticism section. Alatari (talk) 19:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

To say Colbert is not affiliated with any political party is a complete fallacy. He has spent the last 5+ years lampooning the Republican party 4 days a week. Besides, the "partisan attack" comment was about Huffington Post, not Colbert. I don't know what they said but it wouldn't surprise me if it was indeed a partisan attack at Becks overblown self-importance. Padillah (talk) 01:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

He lampoons the Democrats too and he has Republican and conservative guests on his show regularly. From a Washington Post interview Colbert, whose office is adorned with a 1972 Richard Nixon campaign poster, admits to being a Democrat. But, he says, "I'm not someone with a particular political ax to grind. I'm a comedian. I love hypocrisy." So like I said before he wants to be a satirist attacking hypocrisy wherever he can find it. Besides attacking Beck, who is such a high rated personality, gets Colbert a Beck ratings bump. Alatari (talk) 15:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

'Cause Colbert needs the help, right. Beck's almost universally incoherent and bumbling rants aren't reason enough to lampoon him, it has to be for the ratings. Anyway, that is not what you put forward earlier. You said he was "not affiliated with any political party". By his own admission he's a Democrat. That affiliates him with a political party. You may want to check out the difference between Stephen Colbert and Stephen Colbert. The part he plays on the show is a farce. He has Republican and conservative guests on his show to attack and embarrass them. None of which makes the "attack" referred to above come from Colbert. Padillah (talk) 16:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm differentiating between a card-carrying donating member of the Democratic Party, an employee of the party or a voter that votes Democratic. I agree he embarrasses them some of the time but they keep showing up. Your distinction on character vs. person is noted but I haven't seen another article differentiating between a critic and a critic's persona. I'll be interested in how you would handle that. Alatari (talk) 18:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

That's because, to your original point, most critics are not entertainers too. He's been pretty clear about the distinction between his person and the character on his show. I would leave any reference as "The Colbert Report said..." and leave it at that. This way we don't have to worry about attributing the wrong outlook. Padillah (talk) 18:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Colbert (the person) admits he more than just "leans" to the Left. He said he "found out" he was a liberal during his work with John Stewart. (Of course it was just "found out"; Stewart had no influence on that at all, no. He's also just an objective guy who makes fun of both sides equally, I'm sure. Yeah.) Not that any objective person who is informed on the subject would need such an admission to see something so obvious. There are valid distinctions to be drawn between "the character" and "the person," but some of the distinctions his defenders draw are not supported by the evidence. -- Glynth (talk) 22:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Continetti of The Weekly Standard additions

I reverted some changes from this morning. Some of the content may be fine, but as a bulk addition, there was too many core policy violations. So I'll start a discussion so we can work through some of it. The obvious.. WP:STRUCTURE and WP:UNDUE. 4000+ sourced to Matthew Continetti of The Weekly Standard - major undue weight here. Maybe worth a sentence or two for the opinion (which is heavy on synthesis) or might be useful as additional sourcing for facts, but can't be used to source paragraphs of opinion content. The quotes add even more undue weight to this source. Morphh (talk) 13:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I thought the added material was excellent! Perhaps it could be cut a bit though.
Since there have been a number of other pieces of serious political commentary about Beck's leanings and their sources at various Progressive and Conservative venues, perhaps Continetti's analysis could be compared and contrasted with that of other scholars, as well?--72.76.35.108 (talk) 17:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Morphh, [1] You have yet to demonstrate any specific examples of how these additions were "WP:NPOV or WP:BLP" as you state in your edit summary. [2] Per WP:Weight, all of Continetti's views can easily be supported by additional references (and should be). Moreover, Wp:Synth would not apply to Continetti himself. [3] If you find the source to be undue, then a better solution is for you to address the matters specifically with edit summaries, rather than one sweeping revert i.e. (a scalpel rather than a sword). [4] Per your weight concerns, I have --> removed the large Continetti quote as an attempt at WP:Collaboration. [5] Continetti is a conservative himself, writing for the conservative Weekly Standard and does not have an ideological (pov) axe to grind against Beck. In fact, Continetti just published an entire book defending Sarah Palin. [6] Beck's number one stated "nemesis" is what he deems "progressivism", why would there not be a limited section devoted to this overarching hypothesis of his?   Redthoreau -- (talk) 01:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
It is not up to me to demonstrate. Per policy, it is up to the person adding content to the BLP to demonstrate that all the criteria are satisfied when objections are raised, which you haven't done before reverting it back. At this point, Continetti's opinion is a tiny minority viewpoint in the life of Glenn Beck - violating WP:UNDUE. I don't care what side he's from - praise or criticism must be relevant to the persons notability and not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints - WP:BLP. I never stated that Continetti's views were subject to our Synth policy - I was commenting on his opinion and the weight given based on the body of content. I also think the headings added violate WP:STRUCTURE by segregating content into subsections based on the apparent POV of the content. We should not have a sub-section where the main article points to Progressivism in the United States. It's also seems bias to call it his "Crusade". And what basis do we have for quoting "Glenn Beck is a Skousenite." Why is it give weight as to deserve a quote over Beck himself or any other major media publication. It seems it is placed solely as a backdoor method to forward an opinion (and one that is due questionable weight) - WP:QUOTE. Morphh (talk) 1:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Removing the large quote helped, but I think there are a few more things to address. Morphh (talk) 1:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Morphh, I have further tried to accommodate your concern's above by --> placing Continetti's quote into the text body and by --> adjusting the "crusade" title and see also. I didn't intend "crusade" to be pejorative and if anything saw it in euphemistic terms that I feel Beck would personally endorse. Additionally, I believe that if you continue to be specific with your objections, that we can reach agreement.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 02:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks - looks better. I'll take another look tomorrow, but you got the major things that were causing me issue. Morphh (talk) 2:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

As it turns out, the high-brow political blogosphere is relatively aflame with back-and-forth analyses/commentary w/regard Beck's so-called Skousenite & Quigleyan tendencies. E/g, follow the links put up by the social-libertarian and self-indentified eco-conservative pundit Andrew Sullivan here. Interestingly, Skousen was the patron of Utah's senior US Senator, Orrin Hatch's, entry into national politics and also had been one of the LDS religion teachers for Mitt Romney during Romney's undergraduate days at Brigham Young University in Utah; whereas Quigley had been a professor of Bill Clinton during Clinton's freshman year at Georgetown--and Clinton famously had quoted Quigley in his speech accepting the Democratic nomination for president in 1992.--173.63.107.126 (talk) 20:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Mormonism

Of possible relevance w/regard the article's "Influences" and "Public reception" sections?: I note that commentator David Weigel predicts that the material in the unauthorized biography of Beck by Alexander Zaitchik about Beck's religion will spark some controversy.[47]. My own take, from excerpt[48] published on-line, is that Zaitchik is maybe a bit hamfisted in his tone here and there and could have erred more on the side of delicacy when making generalizations about his subject's faith...but, that said, Z. nonetheless appears to have done quite a bit of research about Beck's background and philosophical underpinnings and does make some interesting--if, indeed, overtly polemical--observations.--71.187.173.34 (talk) 20:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Beck as "Skousenite": "Of Beck and the Birchers", 25Jun2010 National Review Online--71.187.173.34 (talk) 03:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
A rebuttal, of sorts: "I would love too invite Cleon Skousen to dinner"----71.187.173.34 (talk) 06:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
What exactly is the news here? Weigel, disgraced profane conservative-hater, predicting ill tidings for Beck? An unauthorized biography published by a Beck-hater is going to spread "controversy"? The Left doesn't like Skousen? Anti-Mormonism is alive in the 21st Century? All seems old hat to me. -- 76.27.73.7 (talk) 22:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

--More

  1. OpEdNews (28Jun2010): "Beck may be the only non-straight-jacketed individual on the planet to find the works of discredited Mormon historian W. Cleon Skousen to be of any value at all, let alone central to his very being."
  2. Nat'l Review (again; 28Jun2010): "(...A) few famous conservatives(...)wrote me in defense of Skousen's 5,000 Year Leap, which by their accounts is a worthy love letter to the Founders and free of the paranoia that marked much of his other work."--151.198.55.103 (talk) 22:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)FrancesHodgsonBurnett'sTheSecretGarden (talk) 22:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
  3. Alex Zaitchik in the HuffPo (5Jul2010): "Beck has repeatedly, respectfully, and recently played audio of men like Ezra Taft Benson, a Mormon apostle who thought the civil rights movement was a dastardly communist plot." (Wlink: Ezra Taft Benson.)--FrancesHodgsonBurnett'sTheSecretGarden (talk) 22:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Yale

Enrolling at Yale for one class is different than being "admitted" to Yale. The current language is misleading and should be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.199.170.166 (talk) 21:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Woodrow Wilson

Wilson "influenced" by various Progressives, and how this was the foundation for the New Deal of FDR.

The article states that Woodrow Wilson was "influenced" by various people that Beck is careful to state worked with Wilson or supported him. The difference is important - because most of the people mentioned in the article are younger than Wilson and Wilson came to his ideas long before he became President (see such Wilson works as "The State"). Also it is misleading to imply that Wilson's ideas came to their conclusion in the New Deal - both because (as Beck himself admits) President Franklin Roosevelt (although a Progressive) was a man less driven by ideas than Wilson was, and because what President Wilson actually wanted for the future. (as shown, for example, by "Philip Dru: Administrator" written by his "other self" E. M. House) was a lot more radical than the New Deal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.107.238.164 (talk) 17:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

"Beck University"

--(according to CBSNews, Wonkette, el al) has courses "Faith," "Hope," and "Charity" 101, 201, and 301, with instructors David Barton (author), James Reist Stoner, Jr., and David Buckner.--FrancesHodgsonBurnett'sTheSecretGarden (talk) 13:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I have created an article about it; see Beck University. Stonemason89 (talk) 16:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
It's not a university, and it doesn't deserve its own article. Viriditas (talk) 22:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
If it deserves an article or not is a mater of WP:NOTE and WP:AFD unless your suggesting the information get rolled into this article. Morphh (talk) 1:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
That's exactly what I'm suggesting, and it should never have been created as a separate article in the first place. Viriditas (talk) 04:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Error in Malia-attack section

Some weisenheimer decided to have Beck imitating Malia and asking her daddy why he hates black people. The line, according to the reports linked from it, was, 'Daddy, have you plugged the hole yet?'. I don't have an account; could someone please fix this semi-protected article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.118.253.101 (talk) 21:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Read all the sources, especially the ones that contain transcripts. Fat&Happy (talk) 22:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Early Years: needs to include his higher education, if any

Does he have a college degree or a high school diploma?  uriel8  (talk) 21:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

A highschool diploma yes. He attended a few classes at Yale in a special program but then dropped out due to not being able to afford it. He has since then received an honorary doctorate of humanities from Liberty University.208.53.73.131 (talk) 00:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Van Jones / Czar Controversy

Isn't it worth mentioning under this section that Glenn Beck repeatedly stated (both before and after Jones' resignation), that he was not calling for the dismissal of Jones? He would prefer the Obama administration not "cover up" the controversy instead of dealing with it. The popular response noted implies that Beck somehow succeeded at getting the administration to do something. --64.149.36.27 (talk) 23:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Social justice and Rev. Jim Wallis section

I have concerns about the way this is worded and the fact it depends on blogs by one guy in the dispute and Becks radio show transcript on the other. Also "The media reported Beck was asking Christians to leave their churches ..." needs more clarification.

What do others think about this section? Ive just added the tag for the time being, rather than attempting to remove content. (except for the final sentence which was sourced from an unreliable blog responsible for a misleading quote mentioned in the above section about the Jews. BritishWatcher (talk) 02:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I've added a link to a NY Times story which should be able to replace a couple of the other cited sources. I've also made some changes intended to add clarifying information. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
"As Beck continued his attack on churches" - is not neutral and there is no neutral source for that whole sentence.
"The media reported Beck was asking" - is that the whole media?
I still have concerns about this section BritishWatcher (talk) 09:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Edited to address those concerns. Better? Worse? Akerans (talk) 17:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
That seems much more balanced thanks. Have removed the POV tag. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Faithful America

In response, the multi-faith justice organization Faithful America[179] began taking out ads in local media to coincide with Beck's appearances to refute his position.[180]

This is written in clearly biased language in favor of the group. Compare with=

In response, the multi-faith group Faithful America[179] began taking out ads in local media to coincide with Beck's appearances that criticize his position.[180]

Implying that the group "refuted" Beck is loaded language. We would never say in an article about Islam-- "Christian apologists refuted Muslim claims". Also, the group is not referred to as a "justice organization" in the source provided. We cannot make up words to label someone's position if they don't say that. 129.120.4.2 (talk) 19:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

You're right, refute is too strong a word. Can change to criticize. Regarding the second concern, the Time source does refer to Faithful America as a justice organization. Akerans (talk) 20:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Notable public disputes

Can a registered editor please bold and title the first paragraph ADL and remove the last sentence from that paragrapgh which seems out of place? Thank you, --68.9.117.21 (talk) 20:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Created bold title. Last sentence looks file with the context since that is one of the things ADL charged him with. Morphh (talk) 20:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. But the last sentence talks about far left bloggers making the accusations? Did Beck respond to the ADL? If so, that would be better to include there. I am glad you tagged that section since I am not sure how notable some of those sections are, especially the ADL. --68.9.117.21 (talk) 21:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

As part of the effort to clean up this section, what are the thoughts on moving the Eiland-Hall paragraph (without a sub-heading) to the "Satire, spoof and parody" section? Morphh (talk) 13:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

If we were discussing the content of the website I would agree with you. However, since the majority of the content is about a lawsuit I think it would be out of place there. In the interest of trimming down the section, perhaps that can be removed altogether and add Beck v. Eiland-Hall to the see also section. Akerans (talk) 15:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

See Also section

I noticed the Dances with smurfs article in the See Also section. Is a single parody even remotely notable enough to warrant inclusion in this article's See Also section? Maybe his television show, but seriously it has nothing to do with Beck himself.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 22:30, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Notability dictates article creation not content. And is is related (according to the sources) so WP:SEEALSO makes sense. However, if it is presented in the prose then it needs to be removed per MoS.Cptnono (talk) 22:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
It's not nearly related enough to Beck to be included in a section that only includes 4 other things.
  • Beck v. Eiland-Hall: Highly relevant because it was a major case with Beck involved
  • Beck University: Founded by Beck
  • 9-12 Project: Also founded by Beck
  • Tea Party movement: a movement he's heavily associated with
  • Dances with Smurfs: a typical South Park episode mocking someone.

Can you find one other article on a person where a South Park episode that mocked that person was mentioned in the See Also section?Wikiposter0123 (talk) 22:51, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't need to because we are discussing this article. If you have a problem with South Park episodes being used or not used in other articles you need to take it to a more centralized discussion. Did you notice that I mentioned if it is in the prose it does not need to be in the See Also section? May be ti is time to go through the section and start removing things if they are not in the body.Cptnono (talk) 22:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Done. If it wasn't in the body it would have been in compliance with the MoS. If you don't like that you need to go mention it there. The only See also remaining is Beck University which probably needs to be moved into the body as soon as someone gets to it.Cptnono (talk) 22:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Well I don't really understand the workings of Wikipedia so I'll just nod my head in agreement.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 23:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Ahhhh! Now I feel like a dick. Basically the See also sections just need to be relevant. Unfortunately, this sometimes gets all screwed up since things in the prose are so relevant that they don't belong and the things left in the See also section get this weird prominence issue since they are plopped right at the bottom of the article. It is even worse when there is no explanation as to why the See also is related (this article does that). After thinking about it I assume that the potential in your face nature of having that link at the bottom was part of what you were getting at since one episode of a show is not nearly as important as other aspects of the guy's life. I personally don't like See also sections at all for that reason and tend to use the main body if something is relevant but many many articles do it incorrectly and go too far (10 links or some ridiculous number like that, links that are duplicates of those already in the body, or links that even the sources don't connect). It should be all fixed now so in the end it all worked out. Apologies if I came across short or like an asshole.Cptnono (talk) 09:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
No no no that's fine. I just wasn't quite sure what your were saying at points. Thanks for explaining it to me.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 18:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Make the Jews Pay quote

Beck's statement reveals a deep seated hatred of Jewish people. Can we please make note of his anti semitism. As a Jew I am very troubled by his statements.173.48.16.187 (talk) 00:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

What Beck actually said was: This is kind of complex, because Jesus did identify with the victims. But Jesus wasn't a victim, he was a conqueror. Jesus conquered death. He chose to give his life. Jesus didn't come back from the dead and make the Jews pay for what they did. That would have been an abomination.

This is the exact logical opposite of what this article currently, falsely, claims that he said. This must be corrected immediately. 129.120.4.2 (talk) 01:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Well spotted. I have removed the sentence. If someone wants it readded they need to put it into context, its questionable if that belonged there at all. Spot any other inaccurate statements like that, dont hesitate to mention them here. Anything that may be inaccurate or misleading on an article about a living person should be removed. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Right. 129.120.4.2 (talk) 01:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Just looked through the actual source, in no way is it a reliable one and its contents were grossly misleading compared to what was actually said so there is no justification or need for anything relating to that Jew quote to be readded. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Wanted to point this out, since I disagree with the notion that Time (magazine) is an unreliable source. The web transcript is incomplete. The transcript does not quote the entire video. Beck did in fact say what Time quoted, starting at 6:39 in the video (which the transcript omits). That is not to say the information should be re-added (as it needs context), only that the transcript itself is incomplete (and does not prove what Beck actually said) and should not be used as a basis to claim the Time article is false, misleading or an unreliable source. Akerans (talk) 03:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Time magazine may be a reliable source, its questionable if their blogs are but after watching the video i accept the point the sentence Time quotes is accurate, its questionable if its balanced on that page, and the sentence that was added to this page certainly had no context or balance.
The same thing goes for the other sentence that i removed last night, about him continuing his "attack on churches that preach justice" which was also sourced from a Time blog. If either thing is going to be re added to the article it needs to be in a more balanced way that put things into context. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Haven't read in the article yet what the discussion is over here, but if we're debating about transcripts and a single source, and what the context is, then it's already undue weight for Beck's biography and should not be included. Morphh (talk) 14:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The Jew quote was this which i removed from the article and has not been re added.

"In July, 2010, Beck stated on his radio show that “[i]f Jesus was a victim he would have come back from the dead and made the Jews pay for what they did." with this source [49] .

The second sentenced sourced by the same Time blogs (which has now been readded again because the editor did not see my above comment in this section on it). The aricle currently says:

"As Beck continued his attack on churches who preach justice during a 2010 summer tour, both alone and with Bill O'Reilly, the multi-faith justice organization Faithful America began taking out ads in local media to coincide with Beck's appearances to counter his verbal assaults." with this source [50]

I do not think blogs should be used in these sorts of cases ever when on a biography, but if such sources are justified the actual sentences need to be balanced. So i simply removed both, rather than rewording. (the second sentence is now back in though). BritishWatcher (talk) 14:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

They should both be removed. We can't cherry pick quotes like this to present a pov WP:QUOTE, without putting it in full context and several secondary reliable sources showing that this is due weight (WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE). In this case, I don't see this at all. Morphh (talk) 14:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

You idiots are missing the point. THE JEWS DID NOT KILL JESUS!! Beck used the phrase "pay for what they [the Jews] did," thus implying that he sees the Jews as having responsibility for the death of Jesus. To some people, this is not only historically inaccurate, but deeply offensive. The only famous person who agrees with this position is Mel Gibson. This is clearly relevent information about Glenn Beck, and to bowdlerize it from the Wikipedia article cheapens the site.

I'm putting it back in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fielding99 (talkcontribs) 20:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Beck says a lot of stupid things.. you going to put it all in his biography? That's not the way it works Fielding99. Regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, it has to follow the policies of the encyclopedia. At this point, it does not meet the requirements of weight via reliable secondary sources that makes it something historically notable in Beck's biography. Also, in response to your comment - if I remember correctly, Pilate did not want to crucify Jesus. JOHN 19:6 When the chief priests and the guards saw Him they cried out, "Crucify Him, crucify Him!" Pilate said to them, "Take Him yourselves and crucify Him. I find no guilt in Him." The Jews answered, "We have a law, and according to that law He ought to die, because He made Himself the Son of God." Now.. I'm not a theologian and don't study this stuff, but seems like they had some part. But again.. It's irrelevant. Morphh (talk) 20:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Fielding99 may also like to read Sanhedrin Trial of Jesus, Pontius Pilate and Crucifixion of Jesus. The idea that the Jews had no role in Jesus's death simply is not backed up by the "history" books. They may not have carried out the deed but that does not mean they lack responsibility. (not that i believe any of these religious stories anyway)
but to get back to the point, the sentence does not belong in the article, its mention is clearly giving it undue weight and also any inclusion is likely to be out of context.
Oh and thankyou Morphh for removing that sentence again earlier. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Are we including Joseph, Mary, the disciples and Jesus himself? Or does JOHN 19:6 only apply to certain Jews? And what of the Romans? Why would Jesus want to make the Jews pay, when the Romans actually nailed him to the cross?

Rather then debate theology, why not let Wikipedia's readers make up their own minds? Or is that what you are really afraid of?Fielding99 (talk) 21:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I agreed, I actually was watching the show when it was first aired and was pretty shocked when I heard Beck say this. I thought it would get a lot of media attention, but the fact is that for whatever reason it really didn't seem to make much of a splash. If it hasn't had a significant impact on Beck's career or legacy it doesn't belong in the article. --Leivick (talk) 21:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It's getting a lot of press. Time Magazine is pretty prominent, and its on Roger Ebert's blog.Fielding99 (talk) 21:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

As Glenn Beck said on his show tonight context matters. It is very clear the sentence you are trying to add fails to provide context, gives undue weight, lacks balance and neutrality, and there for does not belong in the article. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree, Time is prominent. I also believe their blogs have the same integrity as the magazine itself. However, I agree with BritishWatcher and Morphh; the phrase lacks context and is undue. Akerans (talk) 22:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

If I can try to simplify this (as I'm not well-versed). Has there been any thought to:

  • Adding this to The Glenn Beck Program, where it might belong since it happened there and due to an apparent lack of notability?
  • Try to sneak it in elsewhere other than a BLP section titled, Viewpoints? Almost seems like this is being used to promote some kind of conspiracy theory. The term in which, rather oddly, finds itself in the lead.
And just a side note, while looking for a somewhat acceptable place to add this I came across a section titled Satire, spoof and parody. Is this really normal, or has Beck been made fun of more than every other commentator? I remember an SNL where Ben Affleck did a badass satire of Keith Olbermann. I guarantee it would never be allowed in his WP:BLP. We might reconsider the importance of that material here. TETalk 22:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's review the issue. Beck said something which inadvertently revealed his true feelings about whether the Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus. He said this on national radio, and was quoted in Time Magazine. There was an internet uproar, especially on Twitter. Nonetheless, Beck's defenders don't want Wikipedia readers to know about the quote, and are using absurd logic to defend the bowdlerization of the Beck page.

I am powerless against the mob. Do what you have to do.Fielding99 (talk) 22:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The fact remains that it went largely unreported by mainstream sources (I'll repeat that I find it a little surprising, but Beck says a lot of nutty things). We need to write a biography of Beck not report on every thing he says. This has nothing to do with defending Beck. The editora who oppose this inclusion cover a broad range of political ideology, but the common thread is that at this point this is a very minor thing to cover in a overview of Becks career. --Leivick (talk) 22:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, the Huffington Post was kind enough to place the entire video and the context of the quote which Beck said and I believe I can clarify to most of you why this hasn't been getting a lot of media coverage. Beck was discussing Black Liberation Theology and how they see the Jews and the oppressors that killed Jesus and that (by Beck's words) "If he was a victim, and this theology was true, then Jesus would've come back from the dead and made the Jews pay for what they did.". It seems pretty clear that he is talking about Black Liberation Theology's views of the Jews killing Jesus and that he does not believe they killed him. Furthermore after reading the Huffington Post article and watching the whole video of what Beck was saying it seems fairly clear to me that this was a dishonest attempt by the Huffington Post to present the views of the Black Liberation Church as Beck was explaining them as Beck's own views.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 23:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence for your claim that Black Liberation Theology churches teach that the Jews are responsible for the death of Jesus? Or are you just blowing smoke? Stonemason89 (talk) 04:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
First, read my post:
Beck was discussing Black Liberation Theology and how they see the Jews and the oppressors that killed Jesus and that (by Beck's words) "If he was a victim, and this theology was true, then Jesus would've come back from the dead and made the Jews pay for what they did.". It seems pretty clear that he is talking about Black Liberation Theology's views of the Jews killing Jesus and that he does not believe they killed him.
You should notice that I am not arguing that Black Liberation Theology preaches that the Jews killed Jesus(I'm not knowledgeable enough to make that assertion) but am pointing out that Beck is arguing that they are. However you should know that Black Liberation Theology is drawn largely from Marxism which carries strong anti-Semitic undercurrents(Marx was an anti-semitic after all). As for if they are actually anti Semitic just take a look at some of their leaders: Louis Farrakhan, Jeremiah Wright, Malik Zulu Shabazz. Anyways, if you watched the video of Beck's discussion on Black Liberation Theology provided at Huffington post you would see he provides quotes from them discussing how the Jews killed Jesus, although whether or not you trust Beck not to make up quotes is up to you.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 05:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
(commenting in haste -- I'm too rushed to spend much time on this right now) I didn't hear any assertion about Black Liberation Theology (BLT) teachings re who killed Jesus. What I heard suggests to me that Beck believes that the Jews killed Jesus (but not, i should go on to say, that they need to made to pay for that). Beck is a Morman, and I don't know what the LDS church teaches about that. Beck may or may not be less than fully informed about LDS teaching on that point. Also, Beck's point had nothing to do with what group did the killing but rather was about whether or not Jesus was victimized by the killing. As I hear him, Beck said that BLT teaches that Jesus was a victim, and that BLT teachings on this point are incorrect. I don't know what Beck's beliefs might be about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin but, whatever they are, they probably wouldn't belong in this article except, possibly, as part of a larger matter which does belong in this article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I am baffled by how people can come away from that thinking he believes the Jews killed Jesus, and I believe if anybody else in the mainstream felt as you did then they would have gleefully presented it. Later on in the episode Beck goes on to again state that BLT believes that Jesus should've come back and destroyed his oppressors(as Beck states again, The Jews in their case). Beck has repeated this 3 times, twice in that episode and once on radio and is clearly under the belief that people knew he was talking about BLT's doctrine not his own. To take it any other way seems a blatant smear attack. Secondly I think it's bigoted to leap to the conclusion that Beck may think that way because the Mormons might teach that the Jews killed Jesus. For future reference taken from the lead of Mormonism and Judaism "The doctrines of the Latter Day Saint movement commonly referred to as Mormonism teach that its adherents, Latter-day Saints, are either direct descendants of the House of Israel, or are adopted into it. As such, Judaism is foundational to the history of Mormonism; Jews are considered a covenant people of God, held in high esteem, and are respected in the Mormon faith system. The LDS church is consequently very philo-Semitic in its doctrine."Wikiposter0123 (talk) 05:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
1. I disclaimed that I was posting in haste, and I'm still pushed for time. I'll try to go back and listen to the clip again, but I may not get to it for a few days because I presently need to fry other fish.
2. A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices. I am not a bigot. A bigot defines himself by his intolerance and obstinance, not by the specifics of his beliefs.
3. I did not conclude that Beck may think that way because the Mormons might teach that the Jews killed Jesus. I said that I don't know what LDS teachings are in that area (thanks for the info about that), or how well Beck understood those teachings.
Further discussion about my beliefs and how they may or may not be bigoted would not contribute to the development of this article, and I suggest that that not be discussed further here. If you believe that such discussion might be helpful to WP in general, I'm open to a brief exchange on it in another venue. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I probably am jumping the gun here but it is simply because I see a lot of bigotry against Mormons. Sorry if I've offended you. As for the death of Jesus I feel it should be mentioned that I asked my uber liberal, progressive brother who also leads Bible study on why anybody may or may not believe the Jews killed Jesus and he told me that the Jewish leaders wanted to kill Jesus but they did not have the authority to do so, that they eventually convinced the Romans who were like "Why kill him he hasn't done anything" and that some Roman leader named Pontius or something said "I wash my hands clean of his blood" or something stating that the Jews have Jesus' blood on their hands. He further more said that for centuries Christian leaders would criticize the Jews for their part in killing Jesus. Considering the BLT churches have a tendency towards the image of the "Evil Jew" and given the actions of the Jewish leaders in the death of Jesus it's not hard to see why they would view the Jews as being responsible. Hope that has clarified things a little more.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 01:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

(direct response to the foregoing inserted here out of chronological order) I wasn't offended. WP does have rules against personal attacks, but I wouldn't have pushed that. Thanks for checking further, learning more, and acknowledging the mistake. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Np. ;)Wikiposter0123 (talk) 20:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
The long and short of it is this - to include a single, out of context, indeterminate statement is giving undue weight to that single, simple statement and not acceptable in WP. If we have issue with determining whose point of view was being opined how can we expect to convey anything useful to the reader? Padillah (talk) 14:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm concerned that editors seem to be trying to parse the comment itself rather than deferring to views expressed by reliable sources. We shouldn't be giving our own opinions of the meaning of this quotation, and instead should rely on published statements. When I looked at it a while ago there didn't seem to be enough statements in reliable sources to bother with, though that may have changed. This is a biography of a pundit who makes his living by stirring controversy. We shouldn't rush to add every utterance that we think might be controversial, but instead should only add those items which have actually received significant attention in the non-blog mainstream media (or scholars).   Will Beback  talk  23:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikiposter's comment about Karl Marx being antisemitic is totally ridiculous, as Marx came from a Jewish background. Also, to describe Louis Farrakhan and Malik Zulu Shabazz in the same breath as Jeremiah Wright is equally ridiculous, as the former two are Muslims, while the latter is a Christian. Black Liberation Theology itself is Christian, not Muslim. Also to state that you find it "bigoted" to make judgments against Mormonism is disingenuous, since you have no qualms of making far worse accusations against historically black Christian churches. Stonemason89 (talk) 21:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

"Wikiposter's comment about Karl Marx being antisemitic is totally ridiculous, as Marx came from a Jewish background."
He was a well known self-hating Jew, and I'm wondering if since you linked me to Karl Marx's page if you noticed the section Karl Marx#Marx and antisemitism. Although someone seems to have whitewashed his anti-Seminitism and coatracked it with critics who argue that he wasn't an anti-Semitic I wouldn't say such a view is exactly mainstream.
"Also, to describe Louis Farrakhan and Malik Zulu Shabazz in the same breath as Jeremiah Wright is equally ridiculous, as the former two are Muslims, while the latter is a Christian. Black Liberation Theology itself is Christian, not Muslim."
Black liberation theology may be "Christian" in name, and presumably black, but many radicals draw heavily from it, black or not black, Christian or Muslim. If you notice in Farrakhan's article in the see also section they list Black liberation theology. All three subscribe heavily to it, so the comparison is apt.
"Also to state that you find it "bigoted" to make judgments against Mormonism is disingenuous, since you have no qualms of making far worse accusations against historically black Christian churches."
Mormons are heavily attacked, and claims that they may be anti-Semitic are completely with no evidence and offensive. Most people haven't even heard of Black liberation theology, and too state their common anti-Semitic beliefs and Marxist concepts is completely honest. As for "historically black churches", what makes you think historically black churches subscribe to black liberation theology. Most were formed before the concept was created and are just fine. See Christian Methodist Episcopal Church and African Methodist Episcopal Church for real "historically black churches" that don't subscribe to BLT's modern radical thought.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 00:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

It indeed were the Romans who set the law used to crucify Jesus. Mr. Beck asserts many historically inaccurate views. Some are deeply offensive.

The article points out he makes inflamatory statements. It gives little attention to the inaccuracies that are often the basis of his controversy. The neutrality of the article would be improved if the author included one or two examples.

The article says he took up a substanial study of religion; parochial education as a youngster, a class in Christology, reading books from a book store, and taking on a conversion to the Mormon faith. It does not point out he came away with a knowledge of events presented in the Bible that differs signifcantly with Biblical scholars. The article focused on his personal search, yet also carries a section on the sources of his beliefs. This section implies he might be a serious thinker about matters of religon. This stance is not neutral and tends to overly favor Mr. Beck and ignores his limitations as a scholar.

Mr. Beck recently loosely quoted the events of the exodus from Egypt and left the impression he was comparing himself with Moses. This is a good example of his controversy. Through his loose use of these events he again offended many Jewish people. Discussion of this controversy could broaden further our understanding of this individual and add to the neutrality of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.6.213.103 (talk) 15:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Becks chief political influence believed President Eisenhower was a communist operative. He praises this man as inspiring him. This places Mr. Beck on the far right. In tracing this influence I found William F. Buckley thought they were too far out.

When one thinks about this assertation, one is drawn to the conclusion that Ike, everybodys grandfather, was a communist spy. The man who complained regularly about the amount of spending government does, a commie red. The mind boggles.

The article does point out Mr. Becks tendency toward Libratarianism. This places him on the far right spectrum of political thought. It errors in this way by failing to point out his views are not those of most who are Republicans or call themselves conservative. Although it points out his controversy, it fails to point out this controversy is rooted in his extreme positions. I got to think this ommission leaves open the chance he might be seen as a middle of the road conservative.

To the subtopic regarding Mr. Beck reportedly referring to "making the Jews pay" for what they did to Jesus... The Jews were under the strict law of the Romans. They were not slaves as they were in Egypt, yet their status was not much above slaves. They were not allowed to make their own law. Failure to carry out Roman law had serious consequences. Sorry, but the Romans were responsible for his prosecution and crucifixion.

Carrying forward this notion of Jewish responsibility is anti-semetic and historically inaccurate. It is odd most who carry forward this notion consider themselves Christians. Christians who apparently did not read the story of the crucifixion in the Bible.

At any rate, the article article calls his views controversial and his manner of presenting his views controversial. It does not label his views as extreme and this is not best in neutrality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.6.213.103 (talk) 04:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

  1. ^ Brooks, Joanna (2009-10-07). "How Mormonism Built Glenn Beck". Religion Dispatches. Retrieved 2009-10-08. 
  2. ^ The Communist Attack on the John Birch Society by Cleon Skousen, 1963
  3. ^ a b c d e f g h Meet the Man who Changed Glenn Beck's Life by Alexander Zaitchik, Salon Magazine, September 16 2009
  4. ^ a b The 5000 Thousand Year Leap [51] Accessed: 2009-06-24
  5. ^ Brooks, Joanna (2009-10-07). "How Mormonism Built Glenn Beck". Religion Dispatches. Retrieved 2009-10-08. 
  6. ^ The Communist Attack on the John Birch Society by Cleon Skousen, 1963
  7. ^ a b c d Cite error: The named reference Time09 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  8. ^ a b c "Fox News's Mad, Apocalyptic, Tearful Rising Star". The New York Times. 2009-03-31. Retrieved 2009-07-31.  Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  9. ^ "[[The View]]". 2009-05-21. ABC.  Missing or empty |series= (help); URL–wikilink conflict (help)
  10. ^ Stossel, John (2009-06-10). "Glenn Beck on Glenn Beck". 20/20. ABC News. Retrieved 2009-07-31. 
  11. ^ a b Poniewozik, James (2009-04-08). "Glenn Beck: The Fears of a Clown". Time. Retrieved 2009-07-31. 
  12. ^ Knickerbocker, Brad (2009-09-26).