Talk:Glenn Beck: Difference between revisions

Category: Anti-illegal immigration activists

The person who removed it is right that he's not quite an activist level opponent of illegal immigration like Tancredo, Buchanan, or Malkin, but he's as opposed to it as Rush or Coulter, and they're listed under this category. J390 (talk • contribs) 05:30, 18 October 2010

Malia Obama

The article is surprisingly low on bias but I would have to say this appears to be a seriously lacking paragraph which speaks about his off color joke about Malia Obama. It should be noted that his comment went unnoticed and uncriticized until he apologized and the statement that he apologized online is misleading as he also spent the next day's television program apologizing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.152.237.126 (talk) 22:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Pun intended?

In the future, please add new comments to the bottom of the page and sign your comments with 4 ~s.

I don't think it had much impact on the guy's life. It was an interesting but quick news item. Not sure though and won't oppose it if multiple editors agree that it is a good idea.Cptnono (talk) 04:54, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

In the overall context of Beck's life, it seems like a very small incident and would probably be WP:UNDUE weight. Morphh ^(talk) 13:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, we're already covering it, so maybe we should cover it accurately. Dylan Flaherty 15:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm sure it's obvious haven't done much with wiki in years and that wasn't even standard wikipedia. I have to say I think there is concurrence on my suggestion. Although maybe it isn't worth noting in an encyclopedia entry I think we should simply change it to make it more accurate. 141.152.237.126 (talk) 23:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Honors

It looks like the only source cited for whatever award he received at Liberty University is a press-release from the university its self. Considering how many universities and organizations bestow awards, degrees, and honors like this, it is necessary to establish WP:WEIGHT — this means third party reliable sources (Liberty University press releases being first party in this case). For example, many news outlets documented Beck's "Time 100" award, so it is appropriate to include. 173.12.48.254 (talk) 08:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Some other places mentioning it: huffingtonpost.com[1][2][3], salon.com[4], mediamatters.org[5], pjmiller.wordpress.com[6], theexpositor.wordpress.com[7], enterthecircle.wordpress.com[8], motherjones.com[9]. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

provable errors in article per glen becks own statements

glen beck is NOT a conservative.

he is a self avowed NEOCON -- as he stated on his show 7 dec 2010.

the article needs to make that change to properly identify beck.

neocons are NOT real conservatives. they are a cancer that is trying to destroy true conservatism to suit their own agenda.

originally ex-democrats , but now including RINOs, the neocons have hijacked the republican party to bring about a one world government for the benefit of a cabal of uber rich businessmen and those who consider themselves part of the chosen elite.

beck may be a mole or a dupe or both but he is not a real conservative. while he talks a good game at times, he makes enough mistakes to show his true colors. while appearing to try to help the people, he appears to be doing the opposite.

208.103.155.175 (talk) 15:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

That reads more like a political rant than a legitimate suggestion for change. Please read up on WP:BATTLE and consider rewording your request in light of it, otherwise you'll get nowhere. Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Clarification of Time Article quotation regarding Glenn Beck

In the section "Public reception," Instead of just Time magazine, could it list the author (James Poniewozik) of the article as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Izzi Silver (talk • contribs) 23:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Believes 10% of Muslims are Terrorists

Suggest adding a 'controversy'section, having just a disputes section limits the range of controversies that can be included in the glenn beck article (and he is a controversial figure so major controversies, not just disputes, must be noted. 2) Beck recently claimed he believes the number of muslims who are terrorists is close to 10%. This was newsworthy enough to be discussed on Fareed Zakaria's GPS (here: http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2010/12/10/gps.witw.glenn.beck.cnn?hpt=T2). 3) Am I the only one who suspects this article was crafted mainly by pro-Beck editors. The "disputes" section is an obvious attempt to obfuscate his numerous controversies. Suggest major, major reworking of entire glenn beck article. No mention of the serpent mounds controversy. No mention of his on air melt-down. No mention of his penchant for conspiracy theories. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 20:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

1) Do not attack other editors by assuming they are doing something like that. 2) Controversy'section are frowned upon so the info needs to be neutral with a neutral section header. 3)start your comments at the bottom of pages not the top. Cptnono (talk) 20:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. But I've been reading this article for some time. The bias is clear. Hide behind whatever pretend-editorial rules you want to. I've worked in an editorial office. Omitting major controversial statements by a figure, and instead pushing them into a category called 'disputes' implies both sides are equally valid. That isn't neutrality, that is the golden mean fallacy. Neutral would be describing objectively how controversial the statements were, how true they were, and how they were received. Do not take that tone with me as though you were a real editor. I maintain there are serious problems with this article and it is obvious they stem from the bias of the editors involved. I suppose you will just have me banned though to shut me up, instead of addressing the problems I've addressed.

Serpent Mound needs inclusion (it is a known hoax, he tried to present as legit. on Television). Melt-down needs inclusion (it went viral and was mentioned on a number of news sources). His use of bad logic and penchant for conspiracy theories need mention. His logic is flawed in many instances (that is fact, not opinion), and he uses it to promote convoluted conspiracy theories.

Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 20:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

You need to stop making those accusations. You need to provide sources.Cptnono (talk) 21:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, where amateurs beat up professionals. Nothing about the crazy rules stops us from reporting Beck's less glorious moments, so start with getting links to reliable sources. Dylan Flaherty 21:59, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

1) I haven't even edited the actual article, I am just raising legitimate concerns on the discussion page. I have noticed when I viewed it as a reader, that there are major omissions in terms of controversies, and that the article appears structured to help keep these controversies from ever being on the page. The serpent mound controversy is well known, and it is a proven hoax. It should be on there. He made factually inacurate statements about the mounds on his program. This is not opinion, it is scientific fact. The Serpent Mound tablets are hoaxes, and he put them up on his program as legitimate. I can tell you as a former history journal editor, his statements were incorrect. But I guess until fox news or CNN covers that fact, you won't allow his factually innacurate statements to be labeled as such, because that would be "POV". I guess if someone claims that the sun revolves around the earth and no major news outlet comments, we can't point out falsity of the statement?

Here are some links to the issue: http://dancingfromgenesis.wordpress.com/2010/08/18/glenn-beck-show-081810-phoenicians-hebrew-block-style-writing-lost-civilizations-archaeology-archaic-epigraphy-serpent-mound-ohio-great-pyramid-giza-slope-angles-navition-astronomy-censored-native-a/

http://savageminds.org/2010/08/20/glenn-beck-archaeologist/

Conspiracy theories:

http://www.pfaw.org/press-releases/2010/12/the-violent-consequences-of-glenn-beck-s-dangerous-rhetoric

http://blogs.jta.org/telegraph/article/2010/11/15/2741750/glenn-beck-and-the-limits-of-soros-bashing

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/glenn-beck/transcript/george-soros-warns-fox-news-dictatorship

http://www.opednews.com/Diary/Glen-Beck-s-Guy-W-Cleon-by-Steve-Klingaman-101209-910.html

I already posted a direct link to the CNN coverage of his Muslims are 10% terrorist statement and it is a matter of public record since he said it on film and on the air for his radio program. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 14:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

But to the topic of this discussion thread. Here are links regarding his statement that 10% of muslims are terrorists. Would anyone deny this statement is controversial, and would anyone deny it is unsupported by available evidence?

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/fareed-zakaria-calls-out-glenn-becks-math-skills-on-muslim-terrorist-claim/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/06/glenn-beck-ten-percent-muslims-terrorists_n_792726.html

http://www.newser.com/story/107016/glenn-beck-estimates-10-of-muslims-are-terrorists.html

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201012060007

http://www.wisepolitics.com/glenn-beck-10-muslim-are-terrorists-2655.html

http://www.urbanliteraturemagazine.com/glenn-beck-10-muslim-in-the-world-are-terrorists/2391/

Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 15:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Blah blah blah. You took such a good step in attempting to find sources. But we all know the Earth revolves around Mars. Also, double check what "reliable source" is just because a couple seem off. And if you really really ant something to change in the article, start providing some drafts. Cptnono (talk) 15:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not your pupil, Cptono. I am making valid suggestions. The guy said 10% of muslims are terrorist in his opinion. That is a fact. It was noted on a major program on CNN, and has been the subject of discussion on many of the internet news sites I posted. Plus, it is a factually incorrect statement. A visibly racist statement, and clearly a controversial statement. Further he made historical claims about the serpent mounds that are objectively false. There is no debate any longer on the serpent mounds. You can choose to attack me and ignore these suggestions. Or you can absorb my criticisms to help improve the article. The choice is yours. But don't attack me, when I make a valid observation about the quality of the article on its discussion page (isn't that what the discussion page is all about). Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 16:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

What you need as a first step for inclusion in the article are reliable secondary sources which discuss this statement by Beck. Blogs, etc. are generally not acceptable, especially for controversial claims about living people. If such sources are found, the incident/dispute would then be weighed by the editors on this page to determine if it's significant enough for inclusion, and then it would have be worded in a neutral fashion. Kelly ^hi! 16:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

And this is the problem with the "Dispute" category. Unless he enters into a public dispute with another major figure, anything extremely unusual, bizarre, incorrect or dangerous he says can't be included in the article...it has to be part of a dispute.

GPS on CNN isn't a reliable source? Or if he says something (as he did about the serpent mounds) that are factually incorrect (and blatant attempt to legitimize the mormon view of history) we can't point that out. He held up a hoax as evidence. It is a noted hoax. Only bloggers picked up on it. It is still demonstrably false. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 22:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Generally speaking, things that only bloggers pick up on aren't considered notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Kelly ^hi! 22:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

SO you don't think its significant that he argued the ancient Hebrews traveled to the Americas and he used the Serpent Mound tablets, a confirmed hoax as evidence? Either way, the 10% of muslims are terrorist thing was picked up by CNN and other news sources, not just bloggers. I agree, we can't call something a controversy if it isn't noted as such by a reliable source, but surely we point out when someone makes a major claim based on something factually incorrect. And surely if it is lighting up the blogosphere, that is worthy of mention. It just seems to me, like there are people here, using policy and their status as veteran editors, to insulate keep out negative facts about Beck's life. Again, I point to the golden mean fallacy. This is a clear case of it. We shouldn't skew articles on controversial figures by turning editing into a consensus building exercise. If we did, how would articles on Pol Pot, or Stalin look? Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 23:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not interested in contributing to this article by the way. I don't want to get wrapped up in one that clearly has been a focal point for partisan disputes. I just wanted to bring problems with the article to users attention. And I thought the statement that he believed 10% of Muslims are terrorist worthy of inclusion. People can heed my advice or not. Have no interest in wrangling with usersDeliciousgrapefruit (talk) 23:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Grapefruit, my take on this is that articles shouldn't be packed full of dirt and shouldn't be dirt-free: they should just report the reality, which tends to be mixed. The issue, as you may have noticed, is that public figures with a fan base can wind up with their articles defended against all possibly negative additions, in direct contradiction to Wikipedia rules about neutrality, reliability and ownership.

What makes this more difficult for outsiders is that the rules are strange and, quite frankly, hostile towards expert knowledge. Because we can't tell whether you have a PhD or you're 12, we treat both types of editors the same way, leading to absurd results.

Raising an issue and dropping a few links is very unlikely to have any net effect on an article. You have to stick around and work to have them integrated. Dylan Flaherty 02:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

AFAICS, the heading of this talk page section, and Fareed Zakaria's analysis on CNN of a portion of Beck's remarks taken out of context, and most of the discussion about that here and elsewhere, distort and misrepresent the thrust of what Beck said. With a just a tiny bit of surrounding context, what Beck said (per, e.g., the Huffington Post [10]) was, "What is the number of Islamic terrorists? One percent? I think it's closer to ten percent but the rest of the PC world will tell you, 'oh no, it's minuscule.' OK, well, let's take you at your one percent. Look at the havoc one percent of Muslims causing in the rest of the world. You don't think one percent, half a percent here in the United States of radicals, of people who want to violently overthrow the government, is a problem?" His point was not that he believes that ten percent of the muslim population of the world are terrorists (what he actually said -- offhandedly -- was that he thought the figure is closer to 10% than to 1%), and presenting it as that is misrepresentation. His point was that whatever the figure is, even if it is miniscule, it's a problem -- and that was in the context of a rant about lack of media coverage of this problem which he perceives. There's a link labeled "LISTEN:" on that Huffington Post web page I linked earlier -- take a listen to what Beck actually said, starting a minute or so into the audio, and compare the focus of that with the focus of the discussion about that. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, we should omit all mention of this because he actually said it was over 5%, not 10%? Dylan Flaherty 06:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

This discussion opened with a suggestion about adding content pointing up "Beck recently claimed he believes the number of muslims who are terrorists is close to 10%". FWICS, that point came from media hype over a passing comment which was taken out of context while Beck was talking about something else. Listening to Beck's actual audio, I see that it was a portion of an offhand remark. It seems to me that anyone listening to the actual audio (via, for example, that link I gave to the Huffington Post article) would have a very difficult time coming to the conclusion from what Beck actually said that he believes the number of muslims who are terrorists is close to 10%, or 5%. In fact, he went on to say, "... let's take you at your one percent ..." and went on to develop the point he was trying to make using that figure. In doing that, he said, "... You don't think one percent, half a percent here in the United States of radicals, of people who want to violently overthrow the government, is a problem?" He was talking about the problem, and about under-reportage of the problem. He wasn't talking about the percent of muslims who are terrorists. No, I don't think this belongs in the article. I don't think that it "was newsworthy enough to be discussed on Fareed Zakaria's GPS" (as is claimed above), I think that Fareed Zakaria's discussion of it is what made this small tidbit of a snippet taken out of context newsworthy ^[sic]. I can't really argue that trumpeting it here would be giving it undue weight because WP:DUE measures weight by prominence, and this analysis and reportage of this tidbit of a snippet lifted out of context has certainly been given a lot of prominence. I do, however, believe that the prominence which it has been given is unwarranted and presents a highly distorted picture. The picture presented is one which sources with POVs differing from Beck's paint of Beck's views and beliefs, not Beck's picture of Beck's views and beliefs. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't your analysis/opinion of the what/why constitute original research? Shouldn't we simply stick to what is published about this incident in reliable sources (both supportive and critical)? I take your point, and I'm not saying that this has enough weight to be included at all (my opinion is still being formulated), but I don't think that an editor's analysis should be a consideration when discussing if this should be mentioned in the article. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 13:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The quote wasn't taken out of context. GPS played the whole thing, and his statement was essentially that he thought the number of muslim terrorists was close to 10%. Not only is the statement very unusual, and an example of text book racism, it made it onto reliable sources like GPS. Why shouldn't it be included. Again, it seems to be, that there are people rushing to prevent any legit. negative coverage of beck on this article because they support him.

Listening to the audio, he clearly asserted he personally thinks the number is closer to 10%. He agreed to use the 1% number as a point of disucussion (a rhetorical concession). That doesn't eliminate the fact that he stated very clearly he thought the number was close to 10%. He may well have been talking about another issue when it came up, that doesn't change the meaning of the originally statement he made.

Just because a statement is wedged in between other points, and just because someone says I think the number is x, but lets take your number of Y, that doesn't remove the fact that they still said they think the number is X. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 13:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

He never said the number was "close to 10%" he said it was closer to 10% than it was to 1%, not that it matters. As stated above, the actual number has little to do with what he was saying. That a bunch of hyperpartisan websites like MMfA and HuffPo are making hay out of this is no suprise at all. Also, in response to an earlier statement, this is not racist. Islam is not a race. I must say I find absolutely amazing how quickly a minor statement is taken out of context and then republished into supposedly MSM souces like CNN. Especially compared to some of the other things that Beck dislikers get so riled up about. Arzel (talk) 14:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

No, he didn't say closer to %10 than 1%. He said closer to 10%, which means he thinks it is in the vicinity of 10%. If he thought it was 5% he would have said he thinks it is closer to 5%. If he thought it was 8% he would have said closer to 8%. The man specically chose the number 10% as an example, and since he was talking about Islamic Terrorism, it was absolutely related to the topic (not that it matters, if someone is talking about cherries and makes a side comment that he thinks the number of black people who are in gangs is close to 10%, that is still newsworthy). You are right, racism isn't the correct term. It is text book prejudice, possibly bigotry, and absolutely islamophobic. Clearly, the beck fans are coming out in numbers to keep this off the article. Which just reinforces my initial point. The man said it. They are trying to parse the meaning as much as possible. I give up.

This was not a minor statement. This was a significant statement about a religion, and it was noted on major news channels. You can disagree with the meaning of what he said, or dispute what his intentions were. You can't dispute that he said it, and that it was mentioned and challenged by CNN. If he said this about any other group, it would be in the article.

Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 16:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

If you ask me, I wouldn't trust CNN that much on something like that. Of course they would say stuff like that about a rival. − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷

So now we can't use CNN as a reliable source? Should we only use FOX? This is just more evidence that my original claim about the article being bias, because of beck fans, is true. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 16:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

And they didn't need to say anything about him. He said it himself. He claimed the number of muslims who are terrorists is close to 10%. That is a significant statement. Put the full original quote in (I don't care) "I think the number is closer to 10%". People who want to know about Beck's position on Islam and Muslims, deserve to know about that statement. If you exclude it, you are painting an incomplete picture of the man's attitude and beliefs about the faith. Which is relevant because he talks frequently about religion and faith. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 16:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

No CNN is reliable. It's just that them claiming this, is a opinion. I don't see a big deal of this, really. People seem to take things personally that Muslims are considered terrorists. Even Muslims wouldn't take that personal, to some it's a compliment because they were raised that that's a good thing. Anyways if Glenn Beck said this himself, then I would say it could be reliable. But it's got to be his exact words. − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 16:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

No it wasn't just an opinion. Their interpretation of his words was much more accurate than yours. We can include what he said exactly, which was "I think the number is closer to 10%". That doesn't mean he thinks it is between 1-10%. it means he thinks it is in the 10% range. People can quibble over the specifics, claim it was taken out of context, and try to parse as much as they want. He said it. It was reported on a commentary program on CNN and elsewhere.

Why would you think muslims wouldn't take offense at that? I am sure some wouldn't, but my hunch is most would. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 16:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Because I kind of know a lot about Islam and what they believe. You read the book Qur'an and it will teach you that people that don't believe in their belief should die. Now I didn't mean all, I even used the word SOME in my comment. The only reason why they wouldn't is because in their mind (the radical ones), they wouldn't use the term, terrorist. Now to get out of this subject becuase Wikipedia is not a forum. If you have a source saying that he said it, then it's a definite maybe. I wouldn't revert you. And I never had an interpretation of anything related to CNN's interpretations. ;) − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 16:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

My area of expertise is Islamic Terrorism. I know Arabic. You're analysis is off, and belongs under the article on what Muslims believe not what Glenn Beck believes. There are also passages in the Old Testament, which encourage killing of non believers. And likewise there are passages in the New/Old Testaments and Koran, instructing people not to kill. Yes there are Muslims who believe killing in the name of the faith is justified, and there are those who don't. And I am open to discussing the topic broadly under Islam or Terrorism. But no one, would support the claim that 10% of Muslims are actually terrorists.

Why should I get out. I have numerous sources saying he said it, and you are quibbling over what it means exactly. Trying to massage it into a harmless phrase, not deserving of any attention. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 17:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Why are you arguing with people about this. I am not even trying to disagree with you and I did not mention anything to do with the Old Testament. I know the Bible as well but I never talked about that once. I am not biased on any station or any religion, If Fox News explained their own belief on someone who works on CNN, I wouldn't consider it a reliable source either. Yes my statement was off concerning that the main reason why I explained it is because worrying about what he said about Muslims is my opinion is not important enough for Wikipedia. Some Muslims are terrorists and some aren't, everyone knows that. Durr! As of how many Muslims are believed to be terrorists, who cares. That's debatable and shouldn't be so controversial. − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 18:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am arguing because you were debating with me about the the beck quote. YOu went on to assert that you believe the Koran does in fact teach people to kill infidels and you were using it to somehow support beck's position. I mentioned the old testament to demonstrate that violent passages are in most holy books. Doesn't mean they are the core of the religion.

Actually the raw math just doesn't support Beck's claim. And it is worthy of inclusion because it came up on GPS as a major issue, and because it is a very controversial statement. It also is an important part of beck's world view. If he believes the number is in the 10% range, that's important enough to include. I don't see why you are putting up such a fight over it. He said it. That is a fact. It came up on a major CNN commentary show. That is a fact. And this also caused a stir in other places like the Huffington Post. Fact. This is the typical ploy used by partisans to keep wikipedia from including negative facts about their heroes. Wikipedia isn't a political platform. It is a reference source for people who want info. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 18:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

There's no good reason for arguing, at all. And I am not supporting Beck's claim, I am just thinking it's ridiculous to be controversial and important. And I said something that the Qur'an says, big whoop. I am not saying it's good or bad for I don't despise any belief. I am just trying to be neutral and you take everything I say with a grain of salt. Sounds like someone needs a hug. − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷

Sounds like you are trying to have it both ways: arguing while claiming you aren't. The statement was notable. It was clearly offensive to Muslims. You tried to suggest it wasn't. You tried to downplay the statement. Then you brought up the koran to make your point. Sounds like you are claiming neutrality to keep something negative (and 100% relevant) off the beck page. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 19:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

And what you seem to be arguing is that Muslims should take Beck's claim that about 10% of them are terrorists because "People seem to take things personally that Muslims are considered terrorists. Even Muslims wouldn't take that personal, to some it's a compliment because they were raised that that's a good thing" In your own words. I am not really interested in arguing the finer points of Islam. But I do know a lot about the faith and its holy texts. However, what is relevant here, is that most people would agree, Muslims wouldn't take that as a compliment. Most would be offended. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 19:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I am the one who said that you could put it on there if there is a source of him stating it. So why are you arguing at me. And quit bringing up the Koran like it's your mom. That was stupid of me. I am sorry I brought it up. Will you please stay cool. − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 19:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I have already said, I am not going to edit this page. It is the target of too many edit wars, and the product of too much ideological feuding. I am just pointing out some flaws, and things that should be added. I've provided links. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 19:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I am being cool. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 19:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Well I am not sure of how to word it or where you put it and you're right, an edit war might happen. That's why you might want to take it to an administrator if you want it on there. ;)− Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Instead I've done this: http://wikipediawatch.wordpress.com/2010/12/13/glenn-beck-page/ Expect future articles on problems with wikipedia articles. Contributors are welcome to send me blog entries. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 20:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I was asked to take a look at this by Jhenderson777 as he thought it might need admin intervention. I don't see anything for an admin to do. Deliciousgrapefruit, leaping straight to the "Beck supporters control his page" meme was quick by any standards. Stay calm, and stick to using reliable sources. Not random blogs, but actual sources with a reputation for fact checking. The reason we don't like mud being flung around willy-nilly and every little controversy going in is not because we're all Beck fans (we're not), it's because we have rules like our biographies of living people policy and our neutrality policy, which includes a note that we must give due weight to issues affecting the subjects of articles. You've not shown so far that the "Serpent mound tablets" thing has any coverage in reliable sources, so there's no way that's going to be included. As for the "10%" thing, propose some balanced wording that takes in the context of what he actually said, and we might be able to have a reasoned debate. Fences&Windows 23:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes, another reason to be careful about news spats like this: recentism. We do not want to end up writing about everything that in currently in the news, drowning out all the actual important things in our articles. In a little while we'll have some perspective to judge whether Beck's comments deserve inclusion and in what manner, once they've been analysed in a somewhat calmer fashion than the current blogosphere response. Fences&Windows 23:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Agree re WP:Recentism. Incidentally, I've stumbled across some comments by Beck about all the hullabaloo over this at [11]. It's not entirely clear to me there, but he seems to say that he based the "closer to 10%" comment on a poll he had seen, apparently a poll by worldpublicopinion.org. I grubbed around a bit on their website and couldn't find a poll asking what percent of muslims are terrorists. I did come up with info on some possibly related polling results from February 2009 at [12] which reported the results of polling on (for example) the percentage of populations in muslim countries who approved of attacks on civilians in the U.S. as, overall, over 8% approval (the range in the table I looked at there was from 4% to 24%. In the article I linked re Beck's comments, there's some confusion over the range which seems to settle down at 10% to 39% -- I'm unable to relate those range figures to the range figures of 4% to 24% which I see in the table which I looked at in the article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I did present real sources. See my blog for further criticism. Contributors welcome :)Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 23:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Approving of violence isn't the same as committing violence. And there are a number of significant problems with that study, plus studies which reached entirely different conclusions. This is a subject I know a great deal about, and there are misconceptions about it both on the far left and the far right. But honestly it looks to me like the editors here are trying to justify Beck's statement and give it legitimacy, which only amplifies the relevance of my initial points: editor bias is a problem in the Beck Article. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 00:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Consensus appears to be to not include. Anyone mind if we close this discussion out or is it still needed?Cptnono (talk) 00:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Raising issues with a wikipage, and reporting editors that attack you on that page, is wikihounding? Okay. See where this is going. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 00:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Cptono: Your last comment is a perfect example of why consensus is a bad way to build articles. The majority of editors here appear to be sympathetic to beck. I post something that qualifies as a significant statement by Beck, and consensus is to ignore. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 00:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

No, there's on wikihounding. I don't know where Jhenderson777 got that impression from. I don't think starting your blog is going to help you, but hey. I see no rush to close this - we can continue with reasoned debate with reference to sources, no? I've not said I oppose all mention of the 10% remark, just that it needs to comply with our policies if it does go in and I'm not sure if it does fit yet. "Qualifies as a significant statement" according to whom? Btw, Deliciousgrapefruit, you do realise that mostly Wikipedia is accused of having a massive liberal-left bias, and that I myself identify as a socialist gasp on my userpage? Fences&Windows 00:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

When the discussion turns into sayibng it isn;t included because others are biased it has run its course. But if you want it open then I see no [problem with it as long as personal attacks are blanked. Enough is enough and since I was giving the reminder to not tell him off in return I am going to do the better thing and simply remove the accusations.Cptnono (talk) 00:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

According to Fareed Zakaria, who is one of the top Muslim commentators on CNN and a well regarded Islamic Scholar. I think his opinion on this is worth something.Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 00:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I realize wikipedia is thought of as liberal. I personally am not liberal, and I am not a conservative. I believe that the structure of wikipedia, lends itself to having seriously diluted content due to leftwing and rightwing partisans duking it out. I have no major issue with Fox News or other conservative sources of information. I do have an issue with not reporting prejudicial statements made by a major news commentator on his biography page. Hey, I think the in this case, there is too much of a rightwing editorial precense. But looking at the wikipedia terrorism articles, the left wing editors are really hindering any meaningful progress on articles. Again, truth and accuracy should be the guiding principles, not consensus. Until truth and accuracy are what shape wikipedia entries, it won't ever be a truly reliable source for anything. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 00:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Zero chance of that receiving any traction. Anyways, take to the Village Pump since this is not the right place to discuss changing something like that.Cptnono (talk) 00:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I was going to say Wikihounding doesn't fully define what's going on. Except for the discussion page portion of it. But you don't seem to be very civil when it comes to discussion some times. And this discussion is getting quite unconstructive. It's getting to be more of a forum where we can debate, and I am partly to blame for it. − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 00:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

(PLease don't delete my comments)Perhaps the village pump is the place to discuss Consensus,but the 10% comment certainly should be discussed here. I have laid out clearly why it needs inclusion. I provided reliable sources. Noted it was commented on by a highly regarded commentator (who is also a Muslim). Why shouldn't it be included? Deliciousgrapefruit (talk)

I am trying to be very civil. I just disagree with you on this point, and am advocating for the 10% comment to be included. Again, why shouldn't it be included?Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 01:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so let's get back to the article. I think it's clear that Beck suggested some unrealistically high percentage of Muslims are terrorists and that this gaffe was picked up on by various reliable sources. What's stopping us from including it? Dylan Flaherty 01:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

1) There has still not been a proposal. 2)I am in agreement with Jhenderson and Arzel's reasoning so it looks like there is not consensus to include it.Cptnono (talk) 01:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

1) We don't need a specific proposal in order to determine whether the topic is to be included.

2) I am in agreement with Deliciousgrapefruit and Blaxthos's reasoning, so it looks like there is a consensus to include it. Hmm, wait, that looks just like your statement. Maybe it's premature to declare a consensus. Instead, you should be speaking of concrete reasons. Dylan Flaherty 01:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense, DF. There is not consensus to include it is not the same thing as consensus is to not include it. I misspoke originally when I interpreted it as the later but my recent comment was clear enough. And although it is not required, a draft would be appreciated and assist in the consensus building process. So far, I cannot think of anything worth putting in but if someone else wants to try that would be fine.Cptnono (talk) 01:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the reasons are solid. Zakaria is a noted commentator, muslim and scholar. He reacted strongly on his CNN program to Glenn Beck's statement. Glenn Beck himself felt the need to respond to Zakaria on his own program. And it also was mentioned in a number of partisan but prominent internet sources like the Huffington post. Adding to that it is very relevant and important information. Beck frequently makes statements regarding religion and terrorism, and questions about his attitude toward muslims are often asked. This being part of the article on Beck, gives a concrete quote from him regarding Islam and Terrorism. Frankly, why shouldn't it be included Cptnono? Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 01:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I've already answered that up above.Cptnono (talk) 01:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

No you didn't. It doesn't violate any point of view policy. It was significant enough to be mentioned by a major commentator on CNN, and it is clearly relevant to the article. I see no reason not to include it. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 02:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Right, so this has nothing to do with consensus, as such. In my experience, I've found that consensus is all too often invoked, in either direction, to stop discussion. This is self-evidently counterproductive.

What this comes down to is that, if there are no strongly-supported objections, but there are good reasons posited, we should move forward. The next step is to propose specific text. Dylan Flaherty 02:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I have removed that last bit after multiple warnings, DG.

See 01:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC) where I already answered.Cptnono (talk) 02:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I believe there is a term on wikipedia for that: editor bullying (or some such).

The New York Daily news just picked up the story as well: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/12/13/2010-12-13_glenn_beck_claims_10_of_muslims_are_terrorists_cnns_fareed_zakaria_blasts_him_fo.html

Suggest something to the effect of:

"On his radio program, Beck rejected estimates that 1% of Muslims are terrorists, saying "I think the number is closer to 10%". This prompted criticism from CNN commentator Fareed Zakaria, pointing out that 10% of the Muslim population is 157,000,000 people."Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 02:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Cptono, now you are just bullying me again. I am free to find you answer unsatisfactory. Please stop singling me out just because I reported you. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 02:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

See WP:RPA. If you make a personal attack I am going to remove it. And I am not singling you out and it has nothing to do with you reporting me. Although it was funny since you are continuing to base your argument on people being biased. Please also note the discussion before you made the report.Cptnono (talk) 02:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't make a personal attack. And please stop belittling my positions. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 02:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Moving on, and back to the point. I've made an initial proposal (which I believe needs work but its a start), and there seem to be very good reasons for including it. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 02:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Please let's focus. I'm fine with the proposed text. What location in the article would you recommend? Dylan Flaherty 02:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Also, a rebuttal to the reasoning being because of one report on CNN has been provided by someone else. Of course, feel free to make a draft and editors can go from there but repeating arguments is not getting anywhere. And Cptnono (talk) 02:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The person made a rebuttal and I responded. I don't the the argument the poster made was a good enough reason to ignore the GPS commentary on Beck's statement. I made a draft already. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 02:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see it in all the mess above. Timestamp please? And I don;t believe your response was good enough.Cptnono (talk) 02:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest it go into Political Views, Public Reception or Disputes. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 02:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

What specific wording?Cptnono (talk) 02:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Here it is again:

"On his radio program, Beck rejected estimates that 1% of Muslims are terrorists, saying "I think the number is closer to 10%". This prompted criticism from CNN commentator Fareed Zakaria, pointing out that 10% of the Muslim population is 157,000,000 people."

And you are honestly suggesting the Zakaria commentary doesn't belong because CNN is a FOX News competitor? Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 02:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Why don't we start if off in the "Notable public disputes" ghetto? We'll need to pick some citations, first. Dylan Flaherty 02:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec)03:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC) and 14:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC). Your draft doesn't tell that much about any "notable dispute" save an out of context line and a rebuttal to it. If this blew up into news with multiple RS discussing any such dispute then I could understand. It would need and actually deserve more space that way. Just appears to be a short lived news item that was barely picked up. And there is not consensus still, DF. Since this is a BLP and multiple editors have raised concerns I will remove it. If you want to change/expand on the draft or even open an RfC it wouldn't hurt my feelings.Cptnono (talk) 02:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

An alternative option would be to find additional sources discussing his views on Muslims /terrorism/."Islamofacists" (or whatever he considers them) and add that in the political views section. I assume there is some decent sourcing (some of it might even be "juicy")Cptnono (talk) 02:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how it is out of context. He said it. Zakaria made an issue out of it. Others picked it up, including the New York Daily. I don't see why you are removing it. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 02:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Cptono, another reason his statement and Zakaria's response was important, is because no figure of his stature has so far said he believes the number of muslims who are terrorist to be that large. This is a very major step in the discussion on Muslims and Terrorism. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 02:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Cptono: please tell me how this is not accurate: "On his radio program, Beck rejected estimates that 1% of Muslims are terrorists, saying "I think the number is closer to 10%". This prompted criticism from CNN commentator Fareed Zakaria, pointing out that 10% of the Muslim population is 157,000,000 people."Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 02:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

It was already explained to you and after listening to it as suggested by someone else I see it as being blown out of proportion by some bloggers. No one said your line was not factually accurate. It just isn;t important to the overall biography of the guy. Like I suggested, he has said multiple things about Muslims so a paragraph encompassing more than just this incident is something to consider.Cptnono (talk) 02:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

You might not. You aren't the only person who gets to make the call here. Other editors agree with my conclusion. Sure he has said multiple things about muslims. This is, so far, the most radical thing he has said about them. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 02:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Fareed Zakaria is not some blogger. Nor is the New York Daily News. And the huffington post is a major blog, not some minor one like wikipedia watch. By any measure, this is a reaction. It deserves inclusion. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 03:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I might not what? And if you think this is that been then you should listen to right wing radio more. He has said many things about terrorism and muslims so a paragraph on that would be far superior to a couple lines about a small news item. And note that there is still not consensus so yes, I will remove it if you add it.Cptnono (talk) 03:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

If you revert it on the basis of this obvious falsehood, I will revert it back and then report you. Don't threaten the fruit. Dylan Flaherty 03:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

You are being an editor bully on this. This is so clearly a relevant story. I haven't included it, but saying you are going to remove it if I do, doesn't make whole lot of sense. Given that two major news sources covered it, and Beck himself decided to weigh in on the controversy. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 03:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

So you are saying every single editor who happens to wonder in here, has to agree on it for it to make it. This is just silly. I am not going to even bother contributing to wikipedia at all in that case. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 03:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Fruit, since he has not been successful at supporting his view on the basis of policies, we do not need to engage with him further. Consensus gets to ignore the editors who ignore the rules. Dylan Flaherty 03:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring the rules. Three editors have disagreed and provided reasoning. This is a BLP and it will start an edit war so it is best to seek consensus through an RFC or other methods. I have also started another discussion based on my propsal to add an entir paragraph on his views on Muslims instead of a single incident. And I am not the one collapsing the page so please do not have a knee jerk reaction to it.Cptnono (talk) 03:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's a BLP, but BRD applies. Dylan Flaherty 03:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

BLP is a policy. BRD is an essay and common practice. Anyways, if you are bold and add it then I will revert so you can discuss it more which is what BRD means.Cptnono (talk) 03:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

It also means that, if you boldly delete it, others can revert your error. Dylan Flaherty 03:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

No it doesn't.WP:BRD. Anyways, this is a BLP which is policy. IF three editors think that adding the line gives undue prominence then an RFC or alternatives should be considered. BLP edit wars seldom end well for those adding the information.Cptnono (talk) 03:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Googling around, I came up with this article at glennbeck.com containing a (radio show?) transcript dated December 13, 2010 - 15:30 ET wherein Beck speaks about all hullabaloo about this. That transcript indicates that Beck's percent number came from a poll. World Public Opinion is mentioned. I looked at their website, and didn't find a poll about what percentage of muslims are terrorists, but I did find a February 25, 2009 article titled Public Opinion in the Islamic World on Terrorism, al Qaeda, and US Policies which gives poll data from some muslim countries. One of the charts of poll results was on the question of whether respondents approved, disapproved, or had mixed feelings about attacks on civilians in U.S. The percentage who approved in the eleven countries listed averaged over 8%, ranging between a low of 4% and a high of 24%. The article on Beck's website which I mentioned gave range numbers of 10% to 39% (it says 4% to 56%, then says that was a different poll, then says 10% to 39%), and I can't relate those numbers to the poll article I looked at. Hopefully, though, that throws a bit of light on this. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I see that the info immediately above duplicates info which I posted in an earlier comment. Apologies for the duplication -- I missed seeing my earlier comment and thought that it must have gotten lost in an unrecognized edit conflict. Anyhow, I found a bit more info about the definition of "terrorism" for purposes of Beck's "closer to 10%" comment, and some clarification re the 10% to 39% range numbers I mentioned above (those numbers include "mixed feelings" respondents as well as "approve" respondents). See this. So, now that we know and can support where Beck got his info, should this be mentioned in the article? Has it now lost whatever weight it previously had? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe if combined with other info but it just doesn't appear to be a "notable dispute" so giving it its own subsection seems like too much. I also still listen to it as an off the cuff remark with some tone of hyperbole while the main point of his comment was that he thinks a percentage, which even if small, of Muslims are causing trouble. The only reason the math comes into play is because it is a funny and makes a great mocking news story. But we are not news and we have tighter neutrality standards then one guy's program on CNN. Cptnono (talk) 11:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

If Beck actually said it, then maybe it could work on the Viewpoints sections . Frankly I don't care much which way it goes, but doing something is better than to keep debating about it. − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 15:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The math comes into play because Beck claimed he thought the number of Muslim terrorists was close to 10%. He was serious and you can't deny he said it. Zakaria's math shows how outrageous the statement is.

Cptono, you are acting like you are the managing editor of this page. It sounds to me that at least half of the editors want this included. And you are rejecting our reasons simply because others have produced responses to them (none of which are very compelling---one users response was muslims should have taken the 10% comment as a compliment because they are raised to be terrorist and the koran instructs them to kill non believers). Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 13:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

This is still going on? I hope you guys had a good sleep. ;) − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 15:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't label what you are doing neutrality. Consensus is not neutrality. See Golden Mean. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 17:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Let's please focus on content, not people. We all have our biases, and this does not automatically disqualify us. Editors with very different backgrounds can still work together if they give each other due respect.

On the matter of Glen Beck's 10% claim, do we still have anyone who believes we lack reliable sources that confirm he made the claim? If not, I'd like to move on to the next question, which is about how it fits into the article. Dylan Flaherty 18:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree on moving on to the WP:DUE question but, if there is due weight, there's still no consensus about what, or how much, to say. There are transcripts showing what Beck said (I haven't found one from Beck, but there are quotes from other sources, e.g., HP1, FZ1); FZ1 also covers Fareed Zakaria demolishing a strawman ("A figure made up by Glenn Beck with absolutely no basis in fact", some math, and a narrow definition of "terrorist"); there's HP2, summarizing that and pointing out that Beck said the same thing in a 2003 book; there's Stu Burguiere, executive producer of Beck's radio show (SB1), explaining where Beck got his info (opinion polls not based on FZ's narrow definition of "terrorist"); there's Jon Bershad accepting that (sort-of) but quibbling about narrow vs. wide definitions of "terrorist" (JB1). That covers events and sources, I think. Other sources no doubt exist covering the same stuff. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The DUE thing is why I think other information should b added and I opened up the conversation below. A line about the comment could be in with a few of the sources provided but it isn't worthy of its own section.Cptnono (talk) 22:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not suggesting it go into its own section. I am suggesting it go into his political views, or into disputes, etc. Clearly the guy has opinions on Islam, and a whole section on that could be put together down the road. But it is going to take time to track down his major statements about the religion. I say for now put the 10% thing in another part of the article, and when there is enough stuff for Beck's Views on Islam, we shift it into that. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 13:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Wmithchel: getting into what Beck meant by the word terrorist, is something we should leave for them to say themselves. I will say though, the "narrrow definition" used by FZ is the standard one. And the "broad defintiion" used by Beck appears to be a new defintion to help him backtrack from a very offensive statement.Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 13:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes. POV views of WP editors should not be injected into the article. Re them saying for themselves, SB1, linked above, says in part:

What is a terrorist? From dictionary.com, definition number one:

a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.

(note there, "or advocates"). About this, Zakaria said ("... well, the dictionary.com definition of a terrorist includes people who advocate or support terrorism. Of course, the FBI, the State Department and most other organizations define terrorists in the more common sense that they are well, terrorists, but never mind." (see FZ1, linked above). Zakaria wasn't using the same definition of "terrorist" which Beck used. Given that, it's not surprising that Zakaria came up with different numbers than Beck. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

W: You are inserting your own point of view here. We don't know whether Beck was really using that definition intially, or whether he he found that dictionary definition after the fact and used it to backtrack. But most of what I've seen in response in the media has been deep skepticism. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 13:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Also there is a difference between a person saying they believe violence against the US is justified when responding to a poll, and an advocate of terrorism. Beck is clearly bending the meaning of the term to suit his argument, and once again, the beck fans are able to have their way on wikipedia because they know how to use consensus as a weapon. Deliciousgrapefruit ( talk) 13:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me? I've been trying hard here to stick to source-supported info and to cite the sources for the info I've presented here. Where is it that you perceive that I have inserted my own POV?

If you can cite a credible source arguing that Beck is clearly bending the meaning of the term to suit his argument (either as a statement of fact or as a credible opinion), and feel that point is important enough to be mentioned, feel free to present that assertion — please try to give WP:DUE weight to sources which differ, though. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Here is some fun gaming for you: WP:RECENTISM. In the long term view it is not a big story (although we might find out differently if sources are provided down the road sowing continuing coverage) and since Beck has a modified definition that he made, RECENTISM is compounded with a BLP. Disregarding the "long-term, historical view, thereby inflating the importance of a topic that has received recent public attention" and "Articles overburdened with documenting controversy as it happens." is a problem if we are going to give space to the original comment, the rebuttal to it, and then the rebuttal to that. See the section below for an alternate idea.Cptnono (talk) 01:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but perhaps you have me confused with someone who has been advocating inclusion of this point in the article. Re recentism and the content of Beck's assertion, HP1 pointed out that Beck used the same statistic in a 2003 book (I haven't seen the book and don't know whether or not he cited a source there). Also, Cal Thomas said in 2007, "... But even if only ten percent, which is the reigning percentage that most people accept, of the world's 1.2, 1.3 billion Muslims are, in fact, jihadist terrorists, that's more than 100 million people. It's something we better watch out for." (see FN1. I haven't done much grubbing around on the net, but I would guess that other on-point sources exist. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Whatever. Like I said, I am not going to wrangle. The 10% statement deserves inclusion for a variety of reasons, and it is clear becks fans, and possibly his employees, are controlling the content of this page. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 13:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Cptono the idea below is fine, for something down the road (I am simply not going to comb the net for the guy's complete view on Islam right now, as I have a real job to attend to). However, in the mean time the 10% statement deserves to be included somewhere in the article. Why are you so resistant to it? It is a major controversy. It provides insight into his worldview. And it was a statement that muslims around the the country took offense to. I just don't see why you wouldn't want it included. And please, stop trying to convince me you aren't a fan, it is very clear you are. I've been googling you. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 13:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the sources you have provided are short of it being a "major" controversy.Cptnono (talk) 22:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how that is the case. The sources included CNN, NY Daily News, Huffington Post and Beck's own program. It was enough of a controversy that Beck defended his position several times on air. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 14:30, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

You guys are getting along like Diet Coke and Mentos together. Sorry I couldn't resist, trying to humor up this thread. − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 15:14, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I want to be the Mentos!Cptnono (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations, you are the Mentos then. ;) − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 23:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

PLease stop deleting my comments.Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 21:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

This should be included in the article. I can't see why anyone wouldn't think it relevant or notable. 173.48.16.187 (talk) 17:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Beck's view on Muslims

Does anyone have any other lines to suggest to go into a new paragraph in the Viewpoints section? If he has said enough things then it should be easy to craft a paragraph that summarizes his views.Cptnono (talk) 03:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Believes number of muslims who are terrorist is close to 10%: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/12/13/2010-12-13_glenn_beck_claims_10_of_muslims_are_terrorists_cnns_fareed_zakaria_blasts_him_fo.html

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/12/12/fareed-zakaria-glenn-beck-wrong-about-10-percent-muslims-being-terrorists/

This isn't the first time he said this. In 2003 in a book he said:90 percent of Islam is peaceful, while 10 percent of Islam "wants us dead."

http://www.sify.com/news/glenn-beck-s-10-per-cent-of-muslims-in-world-are-terrorists-claims-are-total-nonsense-news-international-kmoqknbghhb.html Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 14:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Someone needs to teach Mr. Beck about demographics and simple ratios... Soxwon (talk) 19:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Do we have anymore sources not related to the ratios? I am under the impression that he is not a fan of Islam (or at least certain elements) and that deserves some place in the article. The ratio thing is only a small portion of everything he has said about terrorism.Cptnono (talk) 21:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

We are not denying Beck or anyone else their First Amendment rights. He can say anything he wants. But advertisers don't have to support his brand of hate mongering, and audiences don't have to take Fox News seriously if one of its top names has become a "circus clown."

Actually, Beck is worse than a clown. He's more like a terrorist who believes he has discovered the One True Faith, and condemns everyone else as a heretic. And that makes him something else as well--a traitor to the American values he professes so loudly to defend.

—Cokie & Steve Roberts -->link

--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 22:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

What does that have to do with the conversation?Cptnono (talk) 22:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Jon Stewart that it isn't helpful to term W. Bush a fascist or to call Barack Obama a Communist. I also think it isn't helpful to say that 10% of a particular religious group are terrorists. Such a way of speaking is over the top, IMO. (Just as Cokie and her husband terming Beck a terrorist isn't particularly helpful, IMO. Albeit, in light of his rhetoric, sort of an interesting counterthrust....) In any case, I ALSO happen to be of the opinion that if Beck's rhetoric is to be included in this article, it ought to be given within its full context (as follows):

Okey dokey—here are the facts. All of this is according to a scientific poll of people in Muslim nations done by the respected group World Public Opinion. Support for attacking civilians who just happen to work in Islamic countries range from 6%-30%.

The lowest amount of support in the polled nations is in Azerbaijan where ONLY 4% of people approve of violence against civilians on our territory, with another 10% having “mixed feelings” about it. That number rises to 9% approval in Pakistan, with another 15% having “mixed feelings”. Do you want me to mention the Palestinian territories? Do you? 24% approval, 15% mixed feelings.

To put it another way—someone in the Palestinian territories who is open to violence on civilians in the United States is about as easy to find as an American citizen who approves of the job performance of President Obama.

But these numbers, ranging from 10% to 39%, are just the beginning.

Specific support for Al Qaeda’s attacks on civilians range from “only” 9% in Morocco to 21% in Egypt.

Specific support for Osama Bin Laden? That ranges from 4% in Azerbaijan to 56% in the Palestinian territories. Include those who have mixed feelings towards the largest terrorist in American history—and you get a range of 10%-78%.

Let’s remove the Al Qaeda brand name, and look for support for groups in general that attack Americans. Support ranges from 25%-30%.

If you think killing troops that just happened to be stationed in the Gulf is terrorism—then it gets much, much worse. Support for violence ranges from 13% in Azerbaijan to a ridiculous 78% in Egypt and 87% in the Palestinian territories. That doesn’t include those who have mixed feelings about killing troops.

“Alright, now that we have the facts…let me articulate the left's last ditch argument:

“But those are only people who advocate terrorism! Not people who are terrorists!!”

First, allow me to point out that your argument has now boiled down to:

“Glenn Beck lied! He said that 10% of Muslims want to kill innocent civilians when the truth is that 10% of Muslims SUPPORT killing innocent civilians!”

Secondly, even that point is wrong. Read the definition of terrorist again:

a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.

“But, that’s not what Glenn meant! You’re only saying that to cover after the fact!”

Am I? Here is the 10% statistic as laid out in 2003, in Glenn’s first New York Times bestselling book The Real America.” (Emphasis mine.)

–Ninety percent of Islam is peaceful.
–Ten percent of Islam wants us dead.
–That ten percent of the faith is composed of extreme radicals who have taken Islam through a time tunnel and twisted it into something that is ugly and barbaric.

What is truly amazing is how completely shocking this is to most of the media. This is very basic information about the war on terror. Anyone who has ever covered a terrorism story should be intimately acquainted with these polls.

— Stu Burguiere (Producer, The Glenn Beck Progam)

--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 22:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Again, is there anything not related to this recent story? Also, his producer is no him.Cptnono (talk) 22:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The "10%" quote if from a three-way radio show conversation involving Beck, Gray, and Burguiere. Then, Burguiere posted the above blogpost and Beck went over it point by point with Burguire on his next radio show (link).--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 23:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, didn't realize. That's cool. Now do we have any thing else baout his views on Muslims or is the only thing in all of his years this news story?Cptnono (talk) 23:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, Cptnono. Sounds like a useful thing to look up! Smiles. (Btw, wrt the outrage over Beck's "10%" rhetoric, here is Mediaite's most recent follow up.)

Fareed Zakaria pointed out that, by Beck’s own definition, he would be a terrorist himself. Today, Beck responded with his own extension of logic that by pointing out that, by Zakaria’s definition, were Beck to vocally advocate the CNN host’s violent death, he “wouldn’t be in trouble.” Whoa. This argument took a hard left turn at some point.

--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 23:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking it took a hard turn early on, and the further it goes, the easier it is to see where its twisted path leads. Dylan Flaherty 02:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I am all for including Burguire's explanation. However, it shouldn't be presented as a concrete rebuttal of Zakaraia's criticism. Most people aren't buying the explanation. And he uses a very questionable definition of terrorist to to make his point. But, even if one accepts his definition, his argument still doesn't work. The poll basically identifies people who say they agree with the use of violence against the US, that is different from actively advocating terrorism. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 13:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Your interpretation of the explanation or the poll or anything are of little matter. We report what other reliable sources report, we don't interpret what they mean. Arzel (talk) 14:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Sure, but we have to use our judgment in how they are presented is my point. Like I said, I am fine with including beck's producer's explanation. But it is clearly an argument most people aren't buying. And his definition of terrorist is questionable at best. Oops I forgot, experts on subjects like me can't weigh in. Your right, let's just hand the article over to beck's producers. Because it is basically being written by his followers already. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 14:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

So nothing, huh? This one news item is the only thing? Can you guys keep the discussion about the 10% thing up above? I mean, it really should be easy to craft a complete paragraph for this biography. At the end of the day, this news story is little but he has said some inflammatory stuff before so look at the big picture. Cptnono (talk) 01:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

"Most people aren't buying" it? Who are "most people"? Did you conduct a poll or something? Even Beck critics admit that he is technically accurate and their own anti-Beck arguments are, quote, "admittedly flimsy," yet they cling to them anyway. If anything is telling about Beck and his critics, this is:

... Look, I know my argument is more about feelings than facts... And therein, basically, lies the crux of my (admittedly flimsy) argument. ...

— Mediaite

-- Glynth (talk) 09:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Stop bully editing Cptnono. Of course there is plenty of material out there on Beck's view regarding muslims. I am just not going to spend hours tracking it down. In the mean time, this story provides insight into the guy, and is a major controversy. It is also a fairly unique statement to come from a significant political pundit. Just stop blocking it for your own purposes, and please start being more polite. You are just one editor among many here, you are not the manager of this page. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 13:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Glynth one blogger says his argument is flimsy. Zakaria never said that. And as someone who studies terrorism every day, I assure you, if we are going to pick apart arguments Becks response is simply a bad one, based on a bad understanding not only of terrorism, but of the terms within the definition and in the polls he cites. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 20:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

What a blogger says is of no importance here. Anyways, can you keep the back and forth on the news story up above? I would love to see a paragraph on his views on Muslims (good or bad) so hopefully this section of he talk page can pan out.Cptnono (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I would be concerned about a whole section on his view on Muslims. I think he has expressed some thoughts on them, but it isn't like he's laid out a doctrine on Islam. Theoretically you could cobble together a "view on muslims" for any commentator (say a Bill O'reilly or Keith Olberman). If the person is known for having a concrete point of view on the religion, then by all means go for it. Don't believe that is the case with Beck. 173.48.16.187 (talk) 18:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I did not say a whole section. I said a paragraph in an existing section. But yes, a whole section (as proposed by DG) is a concern. And there is tons out there that is just as titillating as the recent couple day news story. How about in '07 when he was protested by Muslim-American groups? How about his comments on the facility in NY which generated some press? This stuff is just as controversial and I am surprised that others were not trying harder on those issues. LOL, rcentism.Cptnono (talk) 06:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe you proposed the whole section Cptnono. I just said it was something we could do. However the basic problem is finding many of those older stories online. I remember the story you mention here, but I'll be darned if I know where to find it now. Also a bigger concern with this section, is Beck's tendancy to contradict himself. I think we may end up with a statement he makes one month or year, which he disavows or contradicts at another time. I think it is much easier to take these on a case by case basis, such as with the 10% claim. Where we aren't painting a portrait of his views, but simply reporting a notable dispute that arose out of the statement. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 13:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Salary

The source cited for Mr. Beck's salary does not state that his salary is $32 million. "Glenn Beck Inc., formally known as Mercury Radio Arts (after Orson Welles' Mercury Theatre on the Air), pulled in $32 million in revenue during the 12 months ended Mar." The important distinction is that Glenn Beck is not Glenn Beck Inc. Furthermore, Glenn Beck Inc.'s revenue and profits are likely to be very different; this is a wildly misleading indicator of Mr. Beck's salary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikificationist (talk • contribs) 23:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Geez, IP, it seems you are absolutely correct! On top of production costs Beck must fund writers and researchers--- (he even has journalist-bloggers on his payroll). Is this all sorted out in some source? Or doesn't Forbes get into that kind of nitty gritty?--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 23:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

#43 Glenn Beck, The Celebrity 100, Forbes.com says, "Pay $35.0 mil", attributing $2M of that to Fox News TV and $10M to his radio show. It doesn't break it down beyond that. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Progressive

If the criticism is from someone who differs politically it might be appropriate to note. There are of course a few variables that favor both its inclusion and removal but figured it should be discussed here over more reverting. NOtice that the source used the wording: "The Rev. Jim Wallis, who leads the liberal Christian antipoverty group Sojourners" Cptnono (talk) 06:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Labeling critics is unnecessary and generally discouraged, especially when assigning subjective labels used pejoratively by the subject. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 06:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

When is it discouraged? I understand WP:LABEL for the most part but I don't believe it says anything about critics. This not being under LABEL This is especially true if they do not dispute being "progressive" since it makes it not a controversial label. And yes the label may point to reasoning fr the criticism but that can be both POV and NPOV depending on how you look at it. The NY Times does not have the same neutrality standards we do but they might have got it right. I certainly don;t think we need to over do it ("... is a left-wing progressive group") but using a qualifier seems acceptable.Cptnono (talk) 06:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the qualifier is reasonable, and especially since I believe the group would have zero objections to it as well(anybody believe otherwise?). It may not be necessary, but it doesn't really harm the understanding of the article. I'm all for adding it unless a compelling reason why it shouldn't be included is pointed out.AerobicFox (talk) 07:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Unless the group specifically self-labels itself, Wikipedia does not assign subjective labels based on editorial opinion. You can see several discussions (and even RFC's) about this topic in the talk page archives of some other politically charged articles (Fox News Channel, Media Matters for America, Bill O'Reilly (political commentator), etc.). //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The Bill O'reilly article seems to support a sentence like this:

"a Christian social justice organization widely considered a Progressive organization"

--AerobicFox (talk) 22:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Cherry picking one contextual-less example does not nullify WP:NPOV, and if you dig a little deeper you'll notice there are no labels attached to other sources (CNN, FAIR, etc.). Slapping subjective labels only opens the door to an endless battle of viewpoints. Let's stick to dry facts instead of trying to poison the source. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Cherry picking? The sourced used in the article says it. Do you have links to other related sources? And if the NY Times thought it was appropriate to preface it (or cast some doubt on it) then it might be a good idea.Cptnono (talk) 23:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Blaxthos, that was the first source that I clicked on that you gave me. Not exactly cherry picking. :P Besides the NY Times refers to it as a progressive organization in the ref for this, so it doesn't seem exactly like a never ending battle of viewpoints. --AerobicFox (talk) 23:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem with the label progressive in this instance, is it is a term Beck specically uses on his program as a pejorative to indicate "leftist/marxist/socialist, etc" and using it on a Beck article implies a link between the way it is used to described this group, and Beck's use of the term. This seems inaccurate to me. In this instance I believe liberal is actually much less of a loaded term. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 14:44, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

We are taking it from the source, not him. It does not matter if he uses it as a pejorative. However, "liberal" is in the source so that works out fine by me if progressive is a problem for whatever reason.Cptnono (talk) 02:29, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The issue is the label is used consistently by Beck as a pejorative, so it is reasonable to conclude many people who read the article and watch Beck (and we must assume many Beck viewers do) will be assuming Beck's definition of the term applies, which is very different from how many others use it. I think terms like liberal and conservative, are just much less weighed down by additional meanings and assumptions. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 02:37, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

So you are OK with "liberal" instead of "progressive", right?Cptnono (talk) 02:40, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

So you're afraid Glenn Beck users a fan of Glenn Beck is not going to like people that criticize Glenn Beck? --AerobicFox (talk) 05:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

What is a Glenn Beck user?Cptnono (talk) 05:39, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about.--AerobicFox (talk) 06:57, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I think "liberal" is less loaded in this instance than "progressive". But I object to any modifier like that in the first place. First and foremost this is a christian organization, and that is how they should be described. You do not have consensus, so it cannot be included. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 14:14, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The issue aerobic, is Beck uses terms like progressive, in a slightly different way than the common definition. For someone who watches beck, the label will be bound up with the concept he has laid out (that progressives are part of an ongoing historical movement to undermine the country's principles,etc). SO I think it is a loaded term when included on the beck page. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 23:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

(Interesting quote): Levin/Beck "sledgehammers," says Nat'l Review's Goldberg

(Hat tip: Conor Friedersdorf, from being featured at AndrewSullivan.com)

"if you’ve got to tear down a house and replace it with another one, you need some guys with sledgehammers and earth movers, those are the people like [Mark] Levin and Glenn Beck, some of those guys. But you also need people who do the fine carpentry and detail work. The way Bill Buckley or George Will or Charles Krauthammer might, or the guys at the Claremont Review of Books."---Jonah Goldberg (from Webcast conversation with D. R. Tucker -->LINK)

Probably too pithy for a blp, though.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 07:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't appear to be any encyclopedic value, and doesn't meet with sourcing or weight requirements. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The opinion of a syndicated columnist and author definitely meets weight requirements going by the abundance of editorials here describing Beck. As for the nebulous term "encyclopedic value", that clearly would depend on how it would be used in the article; it seems to accurately portray a common conservative view of Glenn Beck, so it would be no less encyclopedic than the portrayal of the liberal views of him here. --AerobicFox (talk) 22:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, are you saying you believe a webcast on a political blog both meets WP:RS and WP:DUE? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Your sorry? I happen to think that yes, if a notable person blogs something it does meet RS for their opinions and due weight. If Obama webcasted his opinion of something political, do you think it would not be notable? There is no question that a webcast can meet RS and DUE, the only question is whether this does.--AerobicFox (talk) 23:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I had hat-tipped Andrew Sullivan of The Atlantic. Conor Friedersdorf, the piece's author, is the new senior editor at The Atlantic's site--and is the primary Holidays Season fill-in for Mr. Sullivan there.) Wp:BLP (wp:WELLKNOWN) says, "In the case of public figures...simply document what these sources say. If...incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article.... If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out." Then wp:RS (wp:NEWSORG) says, "When taking information from opinion pieces, the identity of the author may be a strong factor in determining reliability. ... When using opinion pieces it is necessary to attribute the information to the author, and not to assert it as fact."

According to Mediaite: "Friedersdorf, a former Sullivan intern, has made a name for himself over the last two years as one of the most promising conservative writers and thinkers. He writes at the American Scene, Forbes, Daily Beast, and the late True/Slant and was involved in the well-thought of, but failed, Culture 11."--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 15:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

It is cute but will it really add anything? Maybe if he went into details it would work but over all it doesn't really say much.Cptnono (talk) 06:07, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Hiding simple truths about Jim Wallis and Sojourners

People continue to edit out perfectly reasonable, fair, indisputably true, fully sourced, and uncontroversial facts about Jim Wallis and his organization. Stop this edit war at once. Wallis is a progressive activist (he admits as much) and his Sojourner's organization likewise pushes progressivism. He is a Leftist. That was redacted. Sojourners is progressive. That was redacted. Sojourners is liberal. That was redacted. And all of it even as my edit summaries explicitly tell people it's sourced and to not start an edit war. In fact, the first person who undid one of my edits gave me a vandalism warning and then redacted that warning after discussion on my talk page showed it was a perfectly fine edit. At least he had the intellectual honesty to discuss it instead of just undoing everything I do.

And now someone actually has gone in and removed the sourced fact that Wallis advises Pres. Obama, even though it's stated (with sources) that he is a political and spiritual advisor here. The edit summary says the source didn't say he's an advisor, seemingly arguing it was just a one-time thing, but the source doesn't say his position with the advisory council was temporary at all. In fact, the article was written in 2009 yet in 2010 Wallis continues to be involved, voting at meetings.

Look, I realize many people want (subconsciously or otherwise) to use this as some "example" of how horrible Beck is even in the minds of "Christians," but hiding the fact that those Christians are progressive political activists who advise Obama is to push a POV narrative rather than the facts. To simply give Sojourners the label of "Christian" here is to muddy the waters, an attempt to conflate it with non-partisan Christian organizations, many of whom would not want to be associated with Wallis or his organization. -- Glynth (talk) 01:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

There was no reason to start another discussion since there was one right above. 3 editors support. 1 editor on your talk page looks like he might lean support. And one opposes. Although consensus is not votes, I do not believe his argument trumps and it should be fine to go in. Just to be safe, any other objections?Cptnono (talk) 05:26, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, why are objections not being treated as votes here, but in the 10% page you were treating them as votes? Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 14:41, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a form of synthesis - adding information that was not in the original source in order to discredit the criticism that is cited. If the original source had drawn the connection, that would be fine, but adding it here would make the narrative biased. Also, saying that Wallis is an Obama adviser could imply that he was acting in his capacity as an adviser. In fact being an adviser to a presdient does not necessarily mean sharing their belief system - Paul Krugman was an adviser to the Reagan administration for example. TFD (talk) 19:23, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Noted but the source does so by that logic we are good, right?Cptnono (talk) 02:26, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The source that connects Wallis and Obama does not mention Beck.[13] The source that mentions Wallis and Beck does not mention Obama. In your mind you may make a connection but until someone else does it is original research. You cannot even find right-wing writers that make the same connections that you do. TFD (talk) 06:19, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anybody's making the connections to Synth that you are making either. There is no need for a source to describe Wallis in relation to Beck in order to describe Wallis in Beck's article. If a source called Obama the president, could we not call him Predient Obama in this article without the source also mentioning Beck? Yes. --AerobicFox (talk) 06:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem is these are subjective labels, that (particularly in the context of an article on Glenn Beck) are problematic because they are weighed down by additional pejorative connotations. Aerobic, we don't call Obama a liberal in his article do we? We general stick to less subjective categories like Democrat and Republican. Suggest simply referring to the group as a christian organization. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 14:18, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

It would be adding an implicit ad hominem argument against Wallis: Wallis advises Obama, therefore his commentary on Beck is politically motivated and can be discounted. TFD (talk) 14:51, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed with TFD that these labels are a concern. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 14:58, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

It's only considered an ad hominem if it's irrelevant to the discussion. If we said, Jim Wallis is a liberal, so beware what he has to say on the manufacturing of cotton, that would be an ad hominem. If on the other hand we say, Jim Wallis is a liberal, and is attacking a popular conservative commentator, then it's considered relevant enough to mention. You would think it would be relevant to mention if he were a conservative attacking Glenn Beck, would you not?

Besides, the political affiliation of someone attacking a political figure is always relevant, and portraying that as an ad hominem is loopy at best.
By the way, do you really you believe that liberal is a subjective label for Jim Wallis, and that his criticism was not even partly politically motivated? --AerobicFox (talk) 02:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

It is ad hominem whether or not it is relevant. If it is relevant then you should find no problem in finding a source that says so. Otherwise, it is just synthesis. TFD (talk) 03:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

"The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy, but it is not always fallacious. For in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue."

Whether or not this is relevant should be up to the reader to decide, so if there is any expectation that a reader may find it relevant(which many will) then it should be included. --AerobicFox (talk) 05:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

See WP:SYN: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". In this case you would be combining statements reported to be made by Wallis in one source with biographical information from another in order to detract from the reliablity of Wallis' arguments. If the source had done that, then reporting it would be fine. Otherwise it is POV-pushing. TFD (talk) 06:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Aerobic: Whether or not ad homs are permissible in certain arguments, they have no place in a wikipedia article. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 20:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

There is absolutely zero OR/SYNTH. The source says it.Cptnono (talk) 04:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

"Aerobic: Whether or not ad homs are permissible in certain arguments, they have no place in a wikipedia article." Ad hominems are permissible in all arguments when relevant; it depends on the usage of the word. As being purely an attack on someone's argument purely on their shortcomings and appealing to emotions rather than logic, then yes it is inappropiate. But here all that is being provided is the political alignment of a man making attacks on a political figure, which is not only appropriate for Wikipedia, but also consistently done. When responsibly used ad hominems are not logical fallacies(see ad hominem, because it's generally recognized that people have biases, and not presenting the relevant parts of a speakers background to the reader will mar their understanding of the topic. Should we start citing scientific evidence against Global Warming without mentioning the group producing it is a right-wing think-tank? You would be opposed then to removing political affiliation. You should have no problems then with the same principal being used here. --AerobicFox (talk) 07:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

And ad homs are only relevent in certain arguments. Either way, a wikipedia article isn't an argument, which is my point. You are confusing two issues here: ad homs in arguments, and whether ad homs belong in a wikipedia article. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 13:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC) By your logic aerobic fox we must now peg FOX as a conservative news station and MSNBC as a liberal news stations. We must also label every critic of every person by their political affiliation. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 14:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

We report ad hominen arguments when they have been made in sources. It is not our role to join in the debate and create our own arguement. We would certainly report scientific evidence (i.e., published in scientific peer-reviewed journals) for and against global warming without mentioning the political views of the writers. In fact academic writing does not use ad hominem attacks. TFD (talk) 15:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

For the billionth time please see the definition of ad hominem. Ad hominems are frequently used in encyclopedias and peer reviewed scientific journals, they are used whenever relevant. It's not just an exception to allow for them, it's an obligation to use ad hominems whenever relevant. The argument that ad hominems by default should be removed is ridiculous, please actually take the time to understand what an ad hominem is before making claims like "they don't appear in scientific journals". --AerobicFox (talk) 18:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Aerobic Fox: Encyclopedias and peer reviewed scientific journals do not make ad hom arguments. In a scientific journal, what matters is evidence, not the person presenting it. You may see objections raised in the letters section of a journal that go into ad hom territory,however. JUst because use of ad hom is not always fallacious, doesn't mean encyclopedias make a practice of engaging in ad hom arguments. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 23:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

It is not our role to insert our own arguments into articles, which is original research. If sources make these arguments, then we may mention them. If Wallis's comments should be discounted because he advises Obama, then we need a reliable source that says that. TFD (talk) 01:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Considering you have no part in academia I wouldn't be trying to speak on behalf of them. If the speakers background is important and relevant, then it is not a fallacy to present it. For instance a literary critic might mention the fact that "Because I could not stop for death" has been called one of the greatest poems in the English language by at least one preeminent critic, so at the very least it definitely has some merit. That is an obvious ad hominem, the merit of the preeminent critics' argument isn't even presented, just their status. Similarly deferring to another's argument in an academic field because of their expertise is often done. Many English professors cannot read or understand scansion, so they just wait for someone who's known for reading scansion to come along and refer to it as a certain type of meter, and then everybody just sort of uses what they said it is. It is kind of a joke among some of the lit majors, that nobody really understands it. Ad hominems like this are used with tremendous frequency all around us, in and outside the scholarly field. Besides, calling him a liberal isn't an ad hominem. Saying he's a liberal and therefore he's untrustworthy would be. It's up to the reader to make that call. Just saying he's liberal, isn't even close though to even being an ad hominem.
It would be OR calling him that if we said he's liberal, but according to Cptnono it says so in the source(which I cannot read due to lack of membership to the NY Times), and even if it didn't common sense tells us to put it in anyway because not including a activists political persuasion when making political attacks is omitting information which readers will likely want to read. --AerobicFox (talk) 07:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I don;t know if you need a subscription. Try [14]. It flat out says "liberal". "Progressive" was a problem for one editor and "left wing" was not sourced but "liberal" is not derogatory and is completely sourced. End of argument, right?Cptnono (talk) 09:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Aerobic: I am involved in academia, and what we are doing here is not literary criticism. Literary studies involves making subjective judgments about quality, but the hard sciences, and encyclopedias don't go there. You don't see encyclopedias making ad hom arguments. They can report them, but don't make them.

And finally, Cptnono is not the god of this site. He is just another editor among many. His judgment and his vote don't have more weight than anyone else's Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 13:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

You don't have consensus. It can't go in. Two editors are for, and two are against. So it can't be included. And if anyone does include it, I will delete it on grounds that consensus hasn't been reached.Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 13:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

And if you can't tell, I am being facetious, of course it can go in. It is totally relevant. But just to be clear aerobic fox, we don't make ad hom arguments here. We can present relevant details. Not the same thing. Blocking a relevant detail like this, is abuse and misuse of consensus. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 15:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

If academics use ad hominem arguments all the time and its use here is relevant then please find a source that uses this ad hominem about Wallis. It is not our role to conjure up arguments that no one else has made. TFD (talk) 16:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree it needs to be sourced. For an editor to identify someone as liberal or progressive, is putting their own judgement in there, unless there is some source where the subject self identifies, or he is characterized as such by an objective news source (not an op ed column or cable news channel). But I suspect the subject has self identified as liberal or progressive. Again, my only issue with the term progressive, is Beck's particular use of the term, which I think clouds the waters. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 17:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Again, it does not matter what someone's political viewpoint is, unless a reliable source says it does. We would write for example, that the Director of Homeland Security, who is a liberal, denies that there are FEMA concentration camps. TFD (talk) 19:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Again. RS does. So is it cool to put in?Cptnono (talk) 23:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

As has been explained to you over and over again, you do not have a reliable source for the argument you wish to insert. If you have trouble understanding Wikipedia policy on synthesis, then you might ask other editors there to explain it to you. TFD (talk) 23:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that.Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 22:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

To quote the source of the article:

"This week the remarks prompted outrage from several Christian bloggers. The Rev. Jim Wallis, who leads the liberal Christian antipoverty group Sojourners, in Washington, called on Christians to leave Glenn Beck."

To not address the speaker of an argument(ad hominem) when it is relevant is irresponsible. Academics do use ad hominems, if you think you don't then it is because you do not understand what an ad hominem is. An ad hominem isn't just "The speaker's argument is wrong because the speaker is XXX" it is also "The speaker is an expert on XXX and their insight or opinion into this matter should be valued because they're an expert". Both are ad hominems, you make an ad hominem every time you say to use a reliable source not because of the argument it makes, but because the source is reliable, no matter how ridiculous what they are saying is. A ban of describing a source because describing a source is an "ad hominem" is ridiculous. Why should the reader not be told whether one scientist is an expert on dermatology vs. one on geology, should we start just saying "This scientist believes sedimentary rocks are formed from lava" and neglect to mention that said scientist is a dermatologist? If that would be an ad hominem(and it would be) because being a dermatologist might discredit them then by all means let's make that ad hominem and move on to issues which don't have common sense solutions.--AerobicFox (talk) 02:26, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The original conversation was about calling Wallis an adviser to Obama and several other descriptions were recommended that were not in the source. Yes, the Sojourners is described in the article about this incident as a "liberal Christian antipoverty group" and unless there is some reason to believe that that description is inaccurate it is fine to use. Incidentally, although it is unlikely that a dermatologist would publish a paper in a peer-reviewed geology magazine, scholars would not write papers attacking the writer but the paper itself. You may disagree with Newton's and Einstein's beliefs but that does not discredit their theories. TFD (talk) 04:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

There was a little bit of a disconnect there. Changed with the line mentioned.[15] Good?Cptnono (talk) 04:30, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

No that's fine. TFD (talk) 06:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

"scholars would not write papers attacking the writer but the paper itself."

Ad hominems aren't a black and white, evil thing that is never used by "scholars", they're used responsibly all the time to give additional background and context to a work. A historian employed by a general to write a book on a battle he commanded would have his employment brought up by other scholars reviewing the work who would read said work through that lens expecting the book to be a bit more favorable to the general then it otherwise would be. Ad hominems like these are common and are accepted standard. As for the change I'm fine that. The current wording is the same from this edit by Glynth which was reverted.--AerobicFox (talk) 07:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Aerobic, you keeping arguing about what scholars do and don't do, and no one is really challenging that. In fact, I don't think anyone is terribly interested in discussing scholarship and ad homs, because that isn't what is being debated here. We are just pointing out that determining what details about a person are relevant isn't our job here. Our job is to report what other sources have said. If another source, says someone is liberal and that impacts his assessement of Glenn Beck, we can include that. But we don't draw that connection ourselves. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 13:30, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Well we can respectfully disagree, I believe there was a lot of arguing over whether ad hominems can be used in encyclopedias up above. Our job is to inform the reader, selectively choosing to leave out descriptors like liberal which are in the source doesn't inform anybody. --AerobicFox (talk) 23:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

This discussion comes up all the time at aspartame-related articles. Since most of the studies have been funded by the industry, various citizens groups allege that there is a conspiracy to hide the supposed ill-effects of aspartame. But there is nothing in the scientific literature making this criticism. On the other hand, if an aspartame manufacturer prepared a study that was published outside the academic press, scientists would ignore it. TFD (talk) 23:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes there appears to be great misunderstanding on this discussion page about what an ad hom is, and how academia conducts itself. Full discolure is not the same thing as an ad hom. And academia most certainly doesn't engage in ad hom (at least in the more rigorous disciplines like science and history (in critical studies you will see ad homs, but that is because these departments are little more than vehicles for opinion writing.)173.48.16.187 (talk) 16:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

So... we just decided to remove the entire section on Wallis, or something? In any case, it's gone at the moment. I suppose that's much easier than getting certain people to give up their attempts to hide basic, NPOV and 100% relevant one-word-descriptor facts about people that might undermine their "Christians hate Beck, too!!11" fantasies. -- Glynth (talk) 06:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theorist"...

is probably one of those partisan expression that should really be sourced/quoted to be encyclopedic IMO (as per Ronald Reagan, one person's "terrorist" is another man's "freedom fighter"). IAC here is the full-on white paper on Beck's alleged "take-down" of investor and progressive movement philanthropist George Soros. (I'll admit I don't get it, but then I'm a "social" Democrat.") --Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 00:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Principle of WP:LABEL should probably apply with attribution. The only problem with that is that he might have been called one too many times to want to attribute it to a single source.Cptnono (talk) 03:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Abuse of consensus

I added the Beck-Zakaria under notable controversies, because it is a notable controversy that has appeared in major news sources. No objections that were raised were valid. [redacted personal attack].Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 23:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

There is already a discussion so you do not need to start a new one (unless you are opening an RFC). I will not repeat my argument imply because you disagree. I have explained to you on your talk page the problem with your edit and options available to you. Do not edit war or add in an edit without consensus on a BLP.Cptnono (talk) 23:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Cptono, in your reversion and your threat to have me banned, you cited a policy which I did not violate. My contribution is absolutely in keeping with that policy guideline. If you insist on making an issue of it, then you should agree to enter mediation. And you cannot ban someone for an edit war. It isn't vandalism when it is a legimitate dispute. And for the last time, read the consensus guidelines. You are misusing them. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 23:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Not everything that has appeared in major news sources is notable. Where is the lasting significance of this, and will it ever be mentioned again in a newspaper?--AerobicFox (talk) 08:15, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

It will be mentioned, because he is the first major pundit to say he believes the number of muslims who are terrorist is close to 10%. You can bet that will come up again. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 13:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, no doubt, as the Beck-haters have added to their long list on why Beck is an evil SOB. And when it does, he'll be ready with the exact same study he cited before. Y'know, since he waved the study around a bit, the whole "controversy" more or less blew over. Maybe there's a reason for that. And that ties into why it's not notable. -- Glynth (talk) 06:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Update: Criticisms of Beckian civil religion or alleged bent theorizing conspiracies

To the list of criticism (and kudos) compiled and archived -->here and -->here can be added the recent negative assessment of Beckian civil religion -->here, this one a critical opinion by Nathan B. Oman:

"Beck's neo-Skousenism is a distraction and a dead end. His ready use of religious imagery appeals to many religious conservatives, but ultimately it is political and spiritual junk food: tasty to some but without substance and poisonous in large quantities. ..."

--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 19:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

There have been various reactions to Skousen and/or Beck by some on the middle-right otherwise generally friendly to faith-informed political conservatism, more of the nuanced of them was in the National Review: Mark Hemingway opined (during the run up to the 2008 primaries) that the late author and BYU religion instructor W. Cleon Skousen had been an "...all-around nutjob," Skousen's tome The Naked Communist "so irrational in its paranoia that it would have made Whittaker Chambers blush."

Then Hemingway pivoted, "[...T]o be fair Skousen wrote on numerous topics with wildly varying degrees of intellectual sobriety. In fact, [...] 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."

The Nat'l Review's Daniel Foster--in a post script to a "take down" he wrote about certain aspects of Beck/Skousen he wrote last summer--wrote: "Many readers and 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. I have not read it - yet. But I will."

Foster's original piece said

[...T]here is much I love about what Beck is doing. Anyone who puts Hayek at the top of Amazon is not without his merits. [...] I’m actually halfway between Beck and Continetti. Like Continetti [Edited: Mathew Continetti, of the Weekly Standard] (and like Jonah [Edited: Jonah Goldberg--like Foster, of the Nat'l Review]), for that matter) I think that the unique political culture of America means that European-style totalitarianism would have a much tougher time gaining ground here. Indeed the very existence of the Tea Party is proof of this. But I also think certain — ahem — neoconservative elements of the right are too quick to reflexively beatify the likes of Wilson and Roosevelt, and too selectively blind to the breathtaking statism they advocated. ¶ But then things get weirder, as Continetti spells out Beck’s ties to a Bircher named W. Cleon Skousen and his world of fringe conspiracy theories[.... I]t is surely this association that is the most potentially damning for Beck[...]. This cuts right to the core of Continetti’s thesis in that piece – that the as-yet amorphous Tea Party movement must lead with free-markets and small-government, not conspiracy theories and doom-saying.

--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Article

The article was rife with redundancies, repetitions, POVs, peacocky words, and undue weight. Many items were repeated two and three times. There is much trivia that does not add to the article. It has been remarked by several editors that an edit of this article needs to be accomplished with an impartial eye, and this is what I am attempting to do. Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 06:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The section on religious beliefs is long enough for a separate article. Updating as I go along. DocOfSoc (talk) 07:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Your edits need a little more discernment. In this edit you removed all info on Arguing with Idiots, An Inconvenient Book, and the Christmas Sweater, except for one sentence that lists them off. None of this seemed redundant, repetitious or full of peacocky words.

Also, please at least explain your reasoning behind deleting these two sections:

Although the majority of his revenue results from his radio show and books, his website's 5 million unique visitors per month also provides at least $3 million annually, while his salary at Fox News is estimated at $2 million per year. Beck's online magazine Fusion sells an array of Beck-themed merchandise, while his website offers a web subscription service called "Insider Extreme" where for $75 a year one gets access to behind-the-scenes footage and a fourth hour of his daily radio show.

Mercury Radio Arts' flagship websites was GlennBeck.com, whose subscription-based premium content section, Insider Extreme, in 2010 began to include an hourlong video blog called the Fourth Hour with Stu and Pat (Stu Burguiere, Beck's producer since his days at WFLA in Tampa, and Pat Gray). A few interactive classes make up Beck University, added to the subscription website in July 2010. In August 2010, Beck launched an independent website, The Blaze, whose managing editor was Scott Baker.

--AerobicFox (talk) 08:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Reads like an ad for his books. Too much detail not afforded other authors. A simple listing of the books is usual.

I deleted the above two sections because they read like ads for the Glenn Beck empire. This article simply has way too much undue weight. DocOfSoc (talk) 08

22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The story about his winning a radio contest at 13 is sufficient in one mention. Excess info about his income is unnecessary. Advertising for his sites are not appropriate here. A step by step listing of his career in radio is unnecessary.

Those who work in radio normally make many moves and it is boring. Do you really think his cruelly mocking a woman's miscarriage is necessary info? Who filled his jobs after he moved is totally unnecessary. Who cares whose wives were guest on his show? Again, just a listing of his books would be far more appropriate. I left far more info than I am comfortable with. Other authors just get listings. SEE: Bill O'Reilly's books: [16] If people want to know the details of his books they can go look elsewhere. This is not encyclopedic! DocOfSoc (talk) 08:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

This is not a fan page listing of all the places Mr. Beck can collect more money. We may have a POV issue here, are you a fan? Hope your New Year is happy one. Please look at this objectively. Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 08:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Just looking at this article as an objective editor, it needs significant editing. I don't care what Mr. Beck says or does not say. Chronicling all of it in infinitesimal detail is undue weight, unnecessary and not encyclopedic. As a I mentioned before the section on Ideologies is more than enough for a separate article. The several sections concerning what the near world has said about Beck is simply TMI. It would be a great contribution if you would like to assist in editing the article rather than rv my carefully thought out edits. I hope to see you are up to the challenge. It's a new year and teamwork is the keyword :-) Best wishes. DocOfSoc (talk) 09:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Unlike Arianna Huffington / Huffington Post or Nick Denton / Gawker Media and more like the blp for Andrew Breitbart there are no separate articles for GlennBeck.com or Inside Extreme/Fourth Hour with Stu and Pat, warranting an overview with their brief mention here.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 21:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with some pruning. However, when you are reverted you should follow BRD. There is no reason to revert someone's revert without giving it ample time for discussion on the talk page. Somethings may get bogged down in the process but that is the way it is. Also, UNDUE deals with viewpoints and not details as you are applying it. I get what you are saying with some details being to in depth though.Cptnono (talk) 21:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't actually do reverting per se but pruned from the old version to create a brand-new Glenn Beck#Online publishing and websites subsection.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 21:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for not being clear. My comment was directed at Doc.Cptnono (talk) 21:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, OK Cptnono. In any case, the suggested order is (1) Bold (2) Revert (3) Discuss (although B-D-R would obviously be OK too, I think...). However, if DocOfSoc feels that the restored material in that section are of events/entities that aren't really notable, we do need to discuss the issue. I argue that GlennBeck.com and the live daily podcast warrant inclusion in the encyclopedia by their being mentioned and listed among links to articles that do exist about Beck's online offerings, due to the fact that they have engendered enough news coverage as part of Beck's empire and simply as themselves being media outlets.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 21:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

"However, if DocOfSoc oS feels that restored mentions are of things that are not really notable, we do need to discuss the issue."
You do need to discuss things if people disagree.
The presence of a lot of detail does not mean that something reads like an ad. Most pop culture wikipedia articles like this one get a lot of trivia and extra facts, but this usually is a benefit to the project. Information about his income also doesn't seem irrelevant, but interesting. I like to get a sense on how much these services make for people like Beck and other popular hosts. A brief one sentence description about a book that has it's own article doesn't seem like excess, or an ad, so I would at least tell the reader what the book is on.--AerobicFox (talk) 21:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec)D'oh. Last night's festivities screwing up my typing! BRD is of course correct :) Saw a quick revert he did (I didn't even look at the diff so he might be on the right page) and don't want to see any more edit warring. Overall I am just stoked to see some fresh eyes so no worries at this time at all. Cptnono (talk) 21:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

You got the BRD ordering right, actually. I just meant that whether a revert of longstanding material should be considered itself being B(old) or a R(evert) of existing details, the idea is to D(iscuss) the issues at hand. (Ooph, I'm getting tongue-tied here! IAC, although the important issue is to discuss the material itself on its merits and not so much worry about the niceties of process: the BRD order I think is meant to favort long-standing material being left standing while it's being discussed though unless there are BLP issues involved or the material is insufficiently sourced and is alleged to be false.)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 21:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

LOL. I am getting brain tied then. Time for a mimosa to get my mind right. I see what you are getting at. Basically, if we have to slow down a little bit on a couple edits then we should. If something is pruned then reverted then it needs to be discussed over reverting. In the perfect world, DocofSoc would not be bulldozing at all and everything would be discussed if there is any chance it is contentious. However, I have a feeling that is not his style so we can wing it. As long as we keep cooler then we have been I am down with whatever.Cptnono (talk) 22:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

A description of his subscription services most certainly reads like an ad. This should absolutely not be included. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 22:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Deliciousgrapefruit, you haven't challenged their notability but the NPOV of the text. Do you have any suggested edits top bring it into line? I'll try to address that issue in the meantime.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 22:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the mention of their $$ earnings should be removed? Here is how the blp for Anrew Sullivan addresses a similar issue:

In late 2000, Sullivan began his blog, The Daily Dish. In the wake of September 11, 2001, attacks, it became one of the most popular political blogs on the Internet. By the middle of 2003, it was receiving about 300,000 unique visits per month.

300K is phenomenal for an intellectual blog, BTW. (Beck's site's 5M is due its being more a "political entertainment" venue. Meanwhile, Heather Armstrong's Erma Bombeckian or chick-littish prose garners millions of monthly hits as well.)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 22:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

STOP DELETING MY POSTS. I QUIT. THIS ARTICLE IS EDITED BY BECKHEADS PLAIN AND SIMPLE. WIKIPEDIA SHOULD BE ASHAMED. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 22:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Haven't even seen or heard Beck in over a year, so I don't think I qualify. Besides XXX-heads edit all XXX articles; try working with other users.--AerobicFox (talk) 22:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC) Any and all reference to subscription services should be removed. Are people so blind that they can't see beckheads are freakin editing this page? This article is an F ing ad. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 22:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Not going to take your word for that. YOu are a beckhead. In fact, I think you work for him. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 22:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

That's just a little paranoid. I watch O'reilly with my father because he likes to watch that show, and I try to spend time with him, and I only saw some episodes of Beck around this time last year. Besides, isn't this an ad hominem? --AerobicFox (talk) 22:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

It is an ad hominem. And totally relevant. If you a fan or employee of Beck, that clouds you ability to contribute objectively to the article. While wikipedia editors shouldn't engage in ad hom in articles, when making a determination about an editors ability to contribute, ad homs should be employed. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 22:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure you do. You work for beck and you know it. Why else would you want subscription costs mentioned in a supposedly objective article. This article is a piece of trash and needs to be deleted. Or at least charge beck advertising space for the thing. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 22:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you actually serious? --AerobicFox (talk) 23:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely, and you know I am telling the truth right now. Feign surprise all you want. We know you work for Beck. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 23:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

We are not encouraged to give out our political leanings but I myself believe in doing so. I am not even slightly libertarian. My favorite recent president was Jimmy Carter and I voted for and strongly support Barack Obama (to be truthful, I'd like him to be successfully MORE left wing, but I realize that the democratic process must follow the people's will). As for Beck's website offerings, they are relatively popular/have a high public profile, hence my belief that they are notable, as supported by coverage in wp:RSes in the news media. (I don't subsribe to them myself, nor listen to or watch Beck's show, btw.)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 23:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you serious? Listing the services provided by his website is relevant and not in any way an ad? I don't buy that at all. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 23:15, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Beck University is notable enough to have it's own page. Not getting how it doesn't warrant a mention here. --AerobicFox (talk) 23:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The Stu and Pat podcast does not necessarily include the live participation of Beck, yet is often mentioned in media accounts (Mediaite, Media Matters, etc etc); Fusion magazine is not edited directly by Beck; and Beck U. has engendered a lot of notice in the press. IAC, child articles are indeed to be wp:SUMMARIZED/mentioned in parent articles and until/if Mercury Radio Arts gets its own article, this one has to fill this role, just as is the case for Andrew Breitbart and certain other cases.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 23:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Can mentino he has a university. But you can't mention the cost of his webservices or the price of his tuition. When the article starts to resemble a brochure, that is an indication there is a problem. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 23:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Actual prices are rarely notable. (Mention that a certain retail chain is a discount outlet, but don't list their exact average percentage below the prices of their competitors, for example.)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 23:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Never mentioned bringing up costs. --AerobicFox (talk) 23:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Either way, a listing of various services beck is selling to customers isn't appropriate. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 18:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Per the guidelines, subscription/non-subscription is not the basis for determining whether media programs or offerings are to be given encyclopedic coverage or not, rather it is whether some non-free service or another is notable. The New York Times, the Chicago Trubune, and the Los Angeles Times are not free but are noteworthy--ditto: news weeklies, services such as AOL, cable channels such as HBO and their programs, subscription radio offerings such as the Oprah Channel or the Stern Show--and on and on.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 02:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Beating the dead horse with new info

I was looking for info to add related to his business and finances, and on his bizshark profile he is called a "libertarian political commentator". His libertarian leanings are clearly significant, and should be mentioned. Any ideas? --AerobicFox (talk) 21:53, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The thing is, Beck has a history of being less "isolationist"/"counter foreign adventurisms" than was old school turn-of-the-20th century "paleo," limited-government conservativism or many current strands within US libertarianism, I think (that is, he tends to agree with the sort of "neo" Weekly Standard on some issue more than libertarian Reason magazine?)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 22:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Stupid horse! Labeling him a "libertarian" is probably no good since it has been disputed. Clearly explaining his libertarian ideals would be an easy way to handle it though.Cptnono (talk) 22:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem with his libertarian leanings being mentioned is they are a source of contention among libertarians. A lot of libertarians out there dispute him being labeled as such. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 22:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

A conservative with some libertarian ideals then? --AerobicFox (talk) 22:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

No. He isn't a libertarian. He employs the label. But I don't think he is a libertarian by any measure. He is a conservative, and some conservative principles intersect with libertarians. He is as much of a libertarian as Barrack Obama. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 22:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

He doesn't seem to care about gay marriage, and his reason being that people should be allowed to do what they want if it doesn't hurt others seems fairly libertarian. Considering how much he and his followers believe this it should be covered in some regard. --AerobicFox (talk) 23:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Lots of people don't care about gay marriage. That doesn't make them libertarians. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 23:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

It makes them apolitical. AerobicFox (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that his stance on gay marriage is significant, and should be included. But don't agree he can be labeled a proper libertarian. 173.48.16.187 (talk) 17:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Since he doesn't care about "gay marriage" why should it be included?[17] DocOfSoc (talk) 13:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Guys, I'm not up to date on the current discussion, but unless there's some context I'm missing, then this thread is being handled incorrectly. We should not ever be debating the "actual" meaning and applicability of a label like this. Either he is referred to as a libertarian, and the label is appropriate in the article, or he is not, and it is not. If it is disputed in reliable sources, then we should say that. Our opinions on the matter, and the actual definition of the term, are entirely irrelevant. What do reliable sources say? Also, if he claims to be a libertarian, that has to be included somewhere. Jess_talk|_edits 18:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Tend to agree with Mann-Jess. DocOfSoc (talk) 14

01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The RS should be in the archives. Let me know if you need me to track it down. Basically, Beck has referred to himself as a libertarian then said no he wasn't. Some libertarians have disputed it while others have linked him with it. So any label simply won;t work but explaining the above might be possible if necessary with the sources previously provided.Cptnono (talk) 03:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The source I provided though does call him a libertarian; although I'm completely unsure of who writes the profiles for Bizshark, so I'm unaware if that could be called reliable. --AerobicFox (talk) 06:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

But others do not and even dispute it so it would need to be handled differently then a label ("he is a libertarian"). "Some have said... because... yada yada" or something would be another way.Cptnono (talk) 06:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

How 'bout

"Glenn Beck, while generally viewed as a conservative, has at various times fluxated between considering himself a conservative libertarian to simply having libertarian leanings. The claim that he is a true libertarian though has been contested by some libertarians while others have maintained there are aspects of libertarian philosophy fundamentally present in his political outlook."

Or something along those lines. --AerobicFox (talk) 06:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind it. I would have gone a different way with it but after reading your I might have been way off. Probably too much for the lead but political views section could work. We would for sure need to redig up the sources to add to the line just to keep everything OK. Anyone else have any thoughts? This would actually clear up something that has come up several times on this talk page.Cptnono (talk) 06:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I've improved the wording, so I hope this new version should be good enough to enter somewhere in the political outlooks. More could be done to make this better, and sourcing would be needed, but I think this may now take away any future arguments concerning his libertarian-ness. -AerobicFox (talk) 06:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about Doc's objection in a below section. Although the whom template is a great tool when POV and ambiguity is in question, it is also a problem when trying to not give too much prominence to certain aspects that are so well reported that it would create a wall of attribution. Of course, we could make it a whole subsection with every single story attributed and rebuttals and rebuttals to those but that goes against the recent pruning, doesn't it?Cptnono (talk) 07:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it would. I wish I read your post before posting below. --AerobicFox (talk) 07:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The commenters above that say to just report what's in the sources are right. Political sub-categories are so complicated its often the case that its impossible to categorize some polico as being in one or another of em. Eg at the article Paleolibertarianism it says,

"Paleolibertarianism is a school of thought within American libertarianism formerly associated with Lew Rockwell, the late economist Murray Rothbard, and the Ludwig von Mises Institute. It is based on a combination of radical libertarianism in politics and cultural conservatism in social thought and opposes a libertarianism which advocates "freedom from cultural norms, religion, bourgeois morality, and social authority."

Austrian economics, anti-federalism, opposition to war, Misesian libertarianism, and anarcho-capitalism heavily influenced the movement's attitudes toward ideas on trade, commerce, immigration and the state.

...

Murray Rothbard declared in 1992 that "with Pat Buchanan as our leader, we shall break the clock of social democracy." Three years later, he said Buchanan developed too much faith in economic planning and centralized state power.

Pat Buchanan is, for example, more of an "isolationist" than Beck has ever been, so if even Buchanan isn't necessarily thought a completely bonefide "old school" conservative libertarian....... what chance does Beck have, then, huh?--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 15:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Hodg you are brill! DocOfSoc (talk) 15:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The end of the intro sentence reads funny: "who says "I could give a flying crap about the political process."" Doesn't seem like this sort of thing should be in the first section at all. Remove that part and it reads much better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.100.48.233 (talk) 22:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Source does not clarify what he calls himself, esp. since it starts with "I dunno" leaving that out is a form Of "synthesis." Also there has yet to be a consensus on his "label" mostly because he does not fit into any one category. DocOfSoc (talk) 14:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

It certainly states his own opinion of his own position -- the cavil that "dunno" somehow reduces the value of the statement is withot reasonable foundation. Collect (talk) 15:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Entrepreneur before political commentator

In the forbes article Glenn Bekc Inc, he says "I could give a flying crap about the political process" because "We're an entertainment company." I feel like his perspective towards the role of his media holdings is critical is understanding who is as a person. I feel like his quote can be put under "Media career and income" in the paragraph or added to the separate quote box that currently includes the sentence following Beck's own quote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gsbus8 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

He's primarily notable as being a commentator though. Einstein's true passion may have been as a cook, and he may of considered this his most important feature, but he's more notable as a theoretical physicist. --AerobicFox (talk) 23:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure, but its still useful to include how he views himself. It gives context to his unique media strategy and explains many aspects of his commentary, thus adding to the depth of understanding of what he is most notable for. The edit should not be "he is not a commentator," but rather, he views his commentary as part of his entertainment strategy. Just like under personal info for Einstein, you might include he was a cook, or if he viewed his work in physics as part of his humanitarian ideals (purely hypothetical), you would include that to contextualize his work in physics.

Why someone does something is just as important as what they do. Given it's his words, it seems pretty objective and informative. Gsbus8 —Preceding undated comment added 23:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC).

I think this is problematic if you only include his reason for why he does what he does. Then the article becomes a vehicle for self promotion. Only should be included if notable counter examples are given. 173.48.16.187 (talk) 16:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Who else is qualified to comment on his motivations? It's also not self-promotion, given that most of his commentary is done under the presumption that he does care about the political process. Not every statement about self-motivation can have counter examples, and its inclusion is still net positive in terms of broadening the understanding of the subject. Self-promotion would be like "Glenn Beck does this because he wants to change america" not "glenn beck thinks its profitable to say X." It's his opinion, and when you're writing about someone, it's useful to include their opinion, not necessarily every counter example. I understand the concern about self-promotion, but if this particular example does not in anyway promote Glenn Beck in a purely positive light, I think it's quite useful. It's like if someone made a notable report on government policy, and then later said "I only did this because X think tank paid me," that would be useful in discerning the context of the initial report. It's not self-promotion, it's shedding further light on the subjects own intentions. If its obviously a self-promoting statement meant to increase public appeal, I could see your point. But when it's an honest assessment of intentions that doesn't reek of pandering, it seems useful even without counterexamples. --Gsbus8 (talk) 00:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

It's like when the article says he credits god with having saved him from drug abuse. Do we need a counterexample that god didn't save him from drug abuse to include that? No, merely his statement is useful enough in learning more about Beck. The reader can believe his statement or not, but they should know he said it in the first place. That statement about god saving him from drug and alcohol abuse is also 10000x more self-promoting that my suggestion. --Gsbus8 (talk) 00:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

If there was a prominent counter example, yes. For instance, if someone else came forward saying it wasn't god at all, but a secular rehabilitation program he went through (just a made up example here), then that would need to be included. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 12:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Article part 2

Wow, where to start, I never engendered such a scintillating discussion before. As I know very little about Mr. Beck, any and all discussion is welcomed and I feel almost all of the above is very productive. Note to Cptnono: if I were a bulldozer, I would not have stopped in the middle of the article but would have continued to rv the excess verbiage. I am not offended, there can be a fine line between Bold and Beautiful, ooops, I mean Bulldozer!  :-D and your comments were very perceptive, ty. I really appreciate the welcome to my "fresh eyes". So let's wing it.

• First, I did not mean any section should Be a separate article, I was remarking that too many sections are long enough to Be articles, (although that may be a consideration down the line.)
• AerobicFox, I appreciate your passion, but in checking several other articles, a simple listing of the author's books is sufficient, we are not a bibliography, again, e.g. see Bill O'Reilly's article.
• I did not highlight "undue weight" because I was not meaning the Wiki definition, the whole article is overweight/obese! Poetic license...DocOfSoc (talk) 10:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
• In carefully rereading the article and comparing it to [18], there are some copyright violations, sentences lifted wholly from that article and copied and pasted here. Those can be summarily deleted without discussion if not totally rewritten. Our copyright committee is very skilled at that.
• "BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement." There is also too much disproportionate space devoted to far too many viewpoints, and are overly promotional in tone as per BLP.
• If I have deleted anything someone deems vital, this is the place to discuss it.

Gsbus8 thank you for your comment, I agree it is worth including. Beck's views on gay marriage would need to be sourced, but my suggestion is let's get this article significantly pruned before adding new topics. Comments? I am attempting to cover all your remarks above, if I miss anything I am sure you will iterate ;-) Someone who doesn't give a "crap about the political process" will probably not fit into any party designations. No use beating that "dead horse." There is at least one item in which there is contradiction, that of his non-existent secondary education. I am getting the distinct impression, that Mr. Beck will say whatever suits the occasion and may be taking some liberties with the truth. Comments? Beck's income and all its sources may be interesting but adds nothing to the article. Do we need to know more than he made $32 million last year? Although he may be notable as a commentator, he calls himself an entertainer, which gives him far more latitude in his comments. I think it is worth keeping that in mind when we are editing. Looking forward to tomorrow. Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 11:24, 2 January 2011 (UTC) Made a few edits. Categories with their own page only need one sentence. DocOfSoc (talk) 14:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

user box was full of extraneous info that is not standardDocOfSoc (talk) 13:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

If you have deleted anything someone sees as vital then maybe you need to think about that before deleting it. It is easy to assume what some people will see as contentious so open it up for discussion before deleting it. And money made is OK. It is often discussed in the media for not only Beck, but others who bring in signifigant sums. There is even s parameter in infoboxes for business people.Cptnono (talk) 19:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Points to Ponder

I have never seen a Header like "Public reception". If I were a bulldozer ;-) I would zap it, after moving a sentence or two. The rest seems fan-like and frivolous, rather self-serving. "Public disputes" needs clean up, a couple categories are superfluous; the rest could be put in one paragraph. His every "live appearance does not need to be described in detail, pruning suggested. HB Secret Garden, I like your ideas, added a few more bullet points. More tonight. DocOfSoc (talk) 14:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Never heard of it? I have seen them around. Anyways, something like "criticism" has some POV and is frowned upon so integrating both criticism and support into a single section with a neuteral header is the way to go. And "reception" for such a public figure is more than appropriate.Cptnono (talk) 19:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I like your idea of combining for balance. Does anyone else want to tackle the copyright issue? I did, a bit. Would you find me an example of "reception" for comparison, I had no luck. In "disputes", we have outdated items that suffer from "they were important at the time, but not for history". That's covered here: "established articles that are bloated with event-specific facts at the expense of longstanding content—is considered a Wikipedia fault." it's the backlog of "Recentism" [19]. Input please :-D "cya" later! DocOfSoc (talk) 05:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Bulldoze away. AerobicFox (talk) 06:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, smash! Copyright issues just need to go or the paraphrase needs to be done better. As long as it isn't a link to infringement I am less worried. I am not going to find you a comparison for the section header right now because I am lazy and it is completely ridiculous to think it is not throughout Wikipedia. If you really cannot find it let me know and I will find examples but I would prefer not to do 5 minutes of leg work (with links) when it can be seen in 1 with honest looking. Even typing that out seems silly when it is obviously there. Yes, I assume there are recentism issues. Start listing them and killing them. However, we do need to watch out because the recentism issues might have stemmed from issues that were never important in the first place but required extra lines to explain them to provide the full context of a news story that was titillating but lame in the grand scheme of things. Cptnono (talk) 09:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Doc, I believe you sincere and find your self-confidence inspiring. Still, there's a tiny learning curve editing Wikipedia and it's us your fellow editors' job is to help, sharing what we've learned from experience. With this in mind, let me just say that the reason that the word reception is used every once in awhile in Wiki articles is 'cause people are trying to be NPOV and be sure to imply that both positive and negative criticism is going to be discussed/included. Be that as it may, the word criticism can mean either kind so that word works just as well. (I sorta like perception: eg see Public_image_of_George_W._Bush#Domestic_perception_of_Bush.) IAC, if you have some kind of allergy to reception, just substitute criticism or some other word and be done with it--or figure out some other way around your dislike for that word. There are any number of additional ways to suggest cultural resonances/reactions/image/etc., or one can even choose not to amass a distinct section for these type of things but instead opt to leave them scattered throughout the article.

And please also trust that I am sincerely trying to be helpful and not insulting in sharing the basic technique of using Wiki's search function, as follows: There is this bubble thing on the upper right of a Wiki page, yknow? OK, just type in a word for an article subsection you're looking for--in this case, that is: "reception" but don't hit return; instead look below the bubble, where you'll see the words "containing... reception ." You move the cursor down to those words and click Return then scroll down the page to----

-The_Secret_Garden#Public_reception
-The_Larry_Sanders_Show#Reception
-Lopez_Tonight#Critical_reception
-The_Colbert_Report#Reception
-Barbara_Boxer#Public_image.2C_political_reception_and_controversy
-Geert_Wilders#Public_reception
-MTV_Latin_America#Public_Reception
-Julian_Assange&diff=prev&oldid=405677083#Public_reception
-Robert_Thurman#Public_reception
-Emi_Suzuki#Public_reception
-Erin_Cummings#Public_reception
-Philip_Carl_Salzman#Public_reception
-Yas#Public_reception
-Magibon#Public_reception
-Shauna_Burns#Public_Reception
-John_Brownlee_sex_scandal#Media_and_public_reception
-Thomas_Burke_(author)#Reception
-Jennifer_Hawkins#Reception
-Evelyn_Waugh#Reception
-Christopher_Nolan#Critical_reception
-Søren_Kierkegaard#Reception
-etc.

--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 19:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

For example, in point of fact, WP's blp for the political commentator, accasional broadcast political pundit and consummate political blogger Andrew Sullivan's only separate section for Reactions is called

-Andrew_Sullivan#Controversies.

As for media personality and media mogul Oprah Winfrey, her blp has a section called

-Oprah_Winfrey#Influence.

--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

-Public_image_of_Sarah_Palin#Perceptions_of_Palin.27s_political_style
-Bill_O'Reilly_(political_commentator)#Political_views_and_public_perception
-Matt_Drudge#Comments_by_journalists
-Alan_Colmes#Criticism
-Ann_Coulter#Controversies_and_criticism
-Chris_Matthews#Criticisms_and_controversy
-Michael_Savage_(commentator)#Awards.2C_criticisms.2C_and_controversies

-Oliver_North#Political_and_historical_legacy
-Ed_Schultz#Evolution_of_political_views
-Nate_Silver#Recognition_and_awards
-James_Carville#Quotations

--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 21:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

No matter how long you are on Wikipedia, there is always a learning curve. I appreciate the time you guys have taken to further educate me. When you stop learning you are dead. I am unfamiliar with the "Bubble" you are referring to, just the search box (But I did learn what an Immaculate Reception was, Thank you! LOL) I am not the least bit insulted. Hodg if in your judgement, you want to move the websites NP. I had seen them at the bottom in other articles but have no strong feeling about it. I do have strong feelings that Oprah took over my fav health channel, but I digress. On "reception" I have mixed feelings, but that could be is one of the things I do for a living is weddings LOL. "Reactions" is ok, Cpt or Hodg, use your best judgment. Still mystified about the "Bubble. Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 03:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)"

Internet offerings

The Net section mentioning Mercury Radio Arts' GlennBeck.com and TheBlaze.com websites was moved to the bottom of the page. Is there a reasonable rationale to mark some kind of clean separation/dichotomy between Beck's personal and corporate oeuvres? If not, shouldn't it join the sections for his books, etc., in the section currently arranged around Beck's "career"? Of course like many complicated media empires, in Beck's such things as, say, his books are "team written"--he speaks them in meetings and also calls at odd hours with his ideas and his collaborators commit them to paper--as is accomplished the creation of the scripts/outlines for his one-man stage performances or his broadcast shows, so it isn't always easy to know what parts of "Glenn Beck" are his own utlimate contributions and what parts were contributed by the various folks he has selected to collaborate with him on whatever project. And, for example, the blp for Oprah Winfrey has one section for her eponymous show, under the heading of "Television," and has another section that groups together subsections that cover her various other media enterprises: for "Film," "Publishing and writing," "Online," and "Radio." (Btw, here's the entire subsection in the Oprah blp about her radio channel):

"On February 9, 2006, it was announced that Winfrey had signed a three-year, $55 million contract with XM Satellite Radio to establish a new radio channel. The channel, Oprah Radio, features popular contributors to The Oprah Winfrey Show and O, The Oprah Magazine including Nate Berkus, Dr. Mehmet Oz, Bob Greene, Dr. Robin Smith and Marianne Williamson. Oprah & Friends began broadcasting at 11:00 am ET, September 25, 2006, from a new studio at Winfrey's Chicago headquarters. The channel broadcasts 24 hours a day, seven days a week on XM Radio Channel 156. Winfrey's contract requires her to be on the air thirty minutes a week, 39 weeks a year. The thirty-minute weekly show features Winfrey with friend Gayle King."

--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 06:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Reverts

You need to slow down, Doc. I am finding myself doing too many reverts since you are not using the discussion page. In particular, you just removed info from the lead with an edit summary saying it is repetitive. That is the purpose of the lead. It is supposed to be a standalone overview. So instead of shaping the article as you see fit, try looking at why the info might be in there. An alternative to full on removal of the publishing info might be to reduce its wordiness but some publishing info needs to be in the lead. I have not reverted this yet but might tomorrow. Any suggestions on how to summarize the publishing in the lead instead?

I reverted your deletion of an image that your edit summary saying it was simply moving an image. I agree the images need to be better distributed and might even need to be trimmed but moving them into a stack and then deleting doesn't work well.

I partially reverted your deletion of the rape stuff. It was a legal case that received tons of attention There is a whole other article for it so giving it summary style here is OK. Maybe trim it but not remove it?Cptnono (talk) 08:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, any major adjustments to the layout needs to be taken to the talk page. Your personal preference might not be inline with MoS and could be debatable. Better safe than sorry, so please come to the talk page before doing that stuff again.Cptnono (talk) 08:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I understand, there was just a discussion about making edits and then remarks on talk page. There is a concern that people who are johnny on the spot( and there is nothing wrong with that) will not wait for the discussion after the edits. They had no good answer but it was interesting. The "repetitious edit was the same exact info that is shown later down. I don't remember doing anything to the lead. The images were in an unattractive clump so I was trying to find the best places for them. I will go see your rv's so we can get together on this. I wish we could IM here!DocOfSoc (talk) 08:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Most editors that I know, edit and then go to talk page. I put a lot of thot into editing and hold onto a picture before I replace it, as I did in this case. I may move it again, if it not just right, which I think I did until I was happy with it. Going back to compare your remarks with edits, side by side which I often do. BRB DocOfSoc (talk) 08:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

It looks to me that perhaps we should both slow down! ;-) A couple of your concerns I was in the middle of fixing. I did not touch the lead, the repetitious was from line 57 about his books which is already in the article. The lead is jsut fine and again, I did not touch it. The revert on the rape issue looks fine to me. I had not heard of it. I didn't delete any images. I moved them. The "Glenn Beck on cards "I moved to the main article where I felt it belonged and took away the clumpy problem. Please don't assume what I am doing until I am finished. I think it is looking good so far. So the question is: do you edit and then go to the talk page or go to the talk page and anticipate your edits before actually editing? I think the only concern where we were not in sync, was the rape paragraph. Yes? I need a bit of time to actually get to the talk page after editing. You were too fast for me LOL. I appreciate your concerns and hope I have addressed them properly. Have a good nite. Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 09:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

You are kidding me? I'll go back through and double check my own edits! :) Cptnono (talk) 15:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Nope. Still looks like you said you were moving an image but deleted it. Maybe try the inuse template next time? I don;t see how it would have helped here since your next edit was not to put it back in but you were doing so many edits I assume that you were just juggling stuff around so not a big deal. But publishing is in the lead so my bad there! And yes, some people make changes and then talk but when someone is making contentious changes on an article that has a history of edit warring you are making the problem worse if you do so. So just take it easy a bit. I totally support your fresh eyes trimming but if there is any doubt in your mind you should bring it up here or else trouble is bound to come up.Cptnono (talk) 05:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Beck's dispute with Zakaria needs to be included. This is a major dispute with a major figure and was the product of a highly controversial statement Beck made. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 13:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Not taking sides and not a listener of Beck, but isn't highly controversial statement standard MO for him and most of the "talking heads" out there? What makes this "incident" "article worthy"? Again, I admitt I don't know the specific details about this "dispute" but is this really that big a deal or is it something you are really passionate about including? In cases like this, I would defer to consensus and hope more folks would chime in either way. Anyways, good luck. --Threeafterthree (talk) 14:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Please do not change the scope of talk page discussions and duplicate them. Discussion for this is up above. Thanks.Cptnono (talk) 15:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

This is within the scope of this topic, because it was removed as a product of Docs changes.Once again, Cptnono: you are not the page manager here. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 18:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

This topic is about the speed of edits made to this page. Whether or not to keep certain disputes is being discussed in detail above so please see that discussion for gathering consensus on the matter. Also, please refrain from making comments such as "Once again, Cptnono: you are not the page manager here." and stick to actually discussing the relevant arguments. Failure to comply will result in a pie to the face. --AerobicFox (talk) 19:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry Aerobic, but I can't help but feel that this "project" is being overseen by two problematic editors with questionable objectivity. Doc is doing commendable work, however it is an issue that the only two other people really involved in the rework are AerobicFox and Cptnono. And yes I will continue to defend myself when Cptnono acts like my boss. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 19:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Cptnono was talking to both of you, and I have not taken any part in the rewrite. I'm not even sure if I have made more then 2 or 3 edits to this page in my entire edit history, so your characterization of me leading this rework, while flattering, is misplaced. DocofSoc and Hodgnsecret Garden are doing almost exclusively all of the rewrite. If you didn't always respond aggressively then other editors would be able to work with you better. AerobicFox (talk) 05:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. There is an out of chronological discussion going a few lines up, a discussion about the Muslim thing up above, and another ANI over there. We need to get back on track.Cptnono (talk) 06:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Aerobic Fox, I wasn't talking about edit contributions, I was talking about consensus building. Because Cptnono enforces it very strictly (and I would say he does so inccorrectly based on my reading of the guideline), these discussion threads are very important. If two editors like you and Cptnono are the primary ones involved in the discussion, then you will basically be the shapers of content (no matter how good or bad your assessments). Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 12:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

"Project"

Dear DeliciousGrapefruit, For your own good, please cease and desist attacking the team that is working on this article. I am speaking from past experience. Only with the input of and the cooperative teamwork here can this article be edited. As an experienced editor, I learned something new from the delightful Cptnono just the other day. AerobicFox is there to help. I must admit, I am growing smitten with the wise Hodg. ;-) ; None of which could have been accomplished by the inexperienced me a few years ago. Only by friendly cooperation and patience will you grow as an editor deserving of good faith. You just got here, other editors have much to teach you whether or not they are your cup of tea. Chill Babe, I believe you have much potential. Sincerely, DocOfSoc (talk) 06:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. I simply disagree with you on this point. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 20:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Beating the dead horse with new info Part Two

It is difficult to follow discussions if they are not kept sequential. I am going to move the last part of the discussion down here to continue. I hope that does not discombobulate anyone. DocOfSoc (talk) 06:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

"Glenn Beck, while generally viewed as a conservative (covered in lead), has fluctuated between considering himself a conservative libertarian to simply having libertarian leanings. His claim that he is a true libertarian though has been contested by XXX libertarians while group YYY have maintained there are aspects of libertarian philosophy fundamentally present in his political outlook.

Or something along those lines. --AerobicFox (talk) 06:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind it. I would have gone a different way with it but after reading your I might have been way off. Probably too much for the lead but political views section could work. We would for sure need to redig up the sources to add to the line just to keep everything OK. Anyone else have any thoughts? This would actually clear up something that has come up several times on this talk page.Cptnono (talk) 06:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I've improved the wording, so I hope this new version should be good enough to enter somewhere in the political outlooks. More could be done to make this better, and sourcing would be needed, but I think this may now take away any future arguments concerning his libertarian-ness. -AerobicFox (talk) 06:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I would swear that said his libertarian-ass, sorry, cracked myself up!

AerobicFox that is a great effort to identify someone who cannot decide for himself what he is. He has said he is an entertainer or a clown and could care less about the political process.. Some really tough admins are my page stalkers, and no offense, but I have an idea what they would do to your valiant effort. See above and See ----->

DocOfSoc (talk) 06:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Why part 2? The talk section up above was going fine. I will respond up there since I am not interested in making the talk page ven worse.Cptnono (talk) 07:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

As I said, talk pages need to be sequential or people like me have a difficult time finding, much less following the discussion. Thanks DocOfSoc (talk) 07:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC) OK, I may be wrong on this. Sorry DocOfSoc (talk) 13:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

"Glenn Beck defies labels. He vacillates somewhere between a conservative and a libertarian." all it needs is a sentence or two more. Beck changes from venue to venue from what I can see. Weasely words won't do it. What is a "wall of attribution?" Too tired tonite. Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 07:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC) :"Glenn Beck defies labels." is too much editorializing.

Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user or someone acting at their explicit request.DocOfSoc (talk) 13:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Umm thanks for that. I'm going to go ahead and restrike my own words since I am that user though. --AerobicFox (talk) 20:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm using "some libertarians" because I don't know. I have heard there are sources saying the libertarians but have not bothered going through the archives to find them, this is a skeletal example, the weseal words would be replaced by what the source says. I've replaced some with XXX to clarify.--AerobicFox (talk) 07:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Strike all this, I'm responding up top as well since I don't think splitting this discussion is making it any easier to read. --AerobicFox (talk) 07:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Missing poll

Gallup's most admired man and woman poll lists Glenn Beck as the #4 most admired man by Americans in 2009, and tied for #8 in 2010. If nothing else this should act as a good indicator of the size of his fan base. --AerobicFox (talk) 20:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Another way to read that poll is admiration for him is declining. I don't know if a single poll is of much use here, unless it has been widely commented on. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 21:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I assume this was publicized so grab some sources. In the section with public reception? I doubt DFs analyses received any RS from my quick look but that is something to consider if it is out there. Cptnono (talk) 08:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

With a margin of error of +/- 4%, the polls basically useless I would say. Soxwon (talk) 14:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 65.100.48.233, 6 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Please change:

• Glenn Edward Lee Beck (born February 10, 1964) is an American radio and television host, conservative[5] author, entrepreneur and political commentator, who says "I could give a flying crap about the political process."

To:

• Glenn Edward Lee Beck (born February 10, 1964) is an American radio and television host, conservative[5] author, entrepreneur and political commentator.

Because it reads much better without a largely irrelevant quote in the opening. 65.100.48.233 (talk) 20:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done I don't think that's appropriate for the first sentence of a biography. -Atmoz (talk) 21:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

webpage

Most of this content should be removed. It is essentially an advertisement of the services one gets when they subscribe. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 20:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Rather than wp:DONTLIKEIT, pls cite guideline.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 21:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

What specific content issue dd you have in mind? Dinkytown talk 21:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Trying to guess, he is probably citing wp:Promotion. However, the guideline's specified ins/outs shd be followed to the letter, rather than willy nilly (as per, say, any editors' personal POVs).

FWIW: From yesterday's NYT:

Former Huffington Post Chief Is Hired to Run Glenn Beck Site, by BILL CARTER January 5, 2011. Glenn Beck, the conservative talk-show host, has hired a onetime chief executive of the left-leaning Huffington Post to lead his new Web site, The Blaze. ...

--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 21:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Quote

DocOfSoc, why does this quote need to go in the lead? Has it been referenced many times and become synonymous with Beck? If not, it's really just some random quote that has no real significance. Soxwon (talk) 14:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)