Jump to content

Talk:Glenn Beck/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Nazi Party

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

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

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

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

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

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

From Nazi_Germany#State_ideology the first two words are: "National socialism." 71.175.155.223 (talk) 23:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
From the official name of North Korea, the first thre words are "People's Democratic Republic". 166.217.68.238 (talk) 16:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

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

And by extension, aligning Soviet Communism to Democratic socialism, to Social Democrats, to Labour, to labor unions, to the moderate centrist liberal US Democrats, or in short: NAZIS=COMMIES=DEMOCRATS. Beck could have just as easily had said DEATH=DISEASE=HANG-NAIL, and it would have made about as much sense. Shanoman (talk) 03:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
My problem is that even if Nazi Germany wasn't socialist there was no controversy surrounding it; I don't remember hearing about it anywhere. Besides I think enough people think that hey were socialist that it's not a great fact that he's one of them. It seems to have disappeared so this point is now moot. 76.116.227.205 (talk) 13:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
The problem with it is that Beck is playing the demagogue here, tying current events to Nazi Germany and implying that "socialism" is part and parcel with dictatorship. We have a term for Nazi Germany's economy: a mixed economy, with some resources in the public domain, and others in the private. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.39.50.26 (talk) 18:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Entrepreneur?

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

Hi. Please read the wikipedia entry for entrepreneur. I would argue that Beck, who has started his own businesses and ventures (books, stage shows) and routinely puts his own capital at risk, qualifies as an entrepreneur. I suppose that it is subjective, but so it the statement that he's conservative. E2a2j (talk) 15:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
How about "media entrepreneur"? If his enterprise is media, that would be more precise. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 18:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Hitting on Guests

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

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

No. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
There's a difference between acting in a flirtatious matter and hitting on someone. Beck sometimes does the former. Perhaps you need to learn the difference.Kornbelt888 (talk) 21:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Whether it is flirting or hitting on someone, we need reliable sources to include such controversial material. you and me watching some talk show and concluding that the host is either flirting or hitting on someone and deciding to write that in wikipedia is original research. sorry, a big no no. --Docku: What's up? 21:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
"I got some time and a camera. Why don't you stop by?" I'm sorry, but that is more than just flirting. (source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PY9IC7njYYc)
Its called sarcasm. some people however have no sense of humor 129.100.195.138 (talk) 16:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Cut a troll edit...

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

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

Let's keep this page clean.

what is clean with Mr. Glenn??

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bias

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

It is clearly bias, but "protectors" of Olberman's page (like Obama's and other liberals) will not allow critical comments, no matter how factual or encyclopedic, to be added. Such is Wikipedia...E2a2j (talk) 15:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
you have just made a false statement. you should really have the ability of your brain to recognize when something is factual or not checked out
So enforce the same policy on this page. You have the power! ;) --70.142.48.213 (talk) 18:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I have no interest in any kind of edit war. Life's too short! E2a2j (talk) 19:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
c'mon,it'll be funNicholas.tan (talk) 22:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Left handedness

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

Controversy section

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

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

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

This is ridicules. If anyone went into a pundit like Olberman on the left and added a controversy section, it would be down in minutes and the user probably banned. But for Beck its ok... that's totally POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.61.226.88 (talk) 05:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Personally I have no problem with controversy surrounding Keith Olbermann being included in his article. So, no, I'm not being POV here. And your assertion that any user who added controversial material about Olbermann would be banned is quite difficult to swallow. If one added it over and over without discussion that user might get a block, yes, but that would have nothing to do with left vs. right but rather with edit warring. If you have a problem with the Olbermann article then you should take it up over there - it's really not relevant to this discussion.
As I said above there's no question Beck is controversial and that fact should be discussed here, it's just that there's probably a better way to do that than having one huge controversy section at the end. If you have suggestions about how to go about that please opine.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
because media matters is the only reliable source in reporting. how about anything written by fair and mmfa don't count as "reliable sources." glenn is just as controversial in what he says as the next person. but ever second word glenn says has to be scrutinized by liberals. shall i add what aim has to say about keith?Nicholas.tan (talk) 22:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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

News with tears

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

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

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

Using a teleprompter is something every president does as well as most leaders of other countries. It is not noteworthy, and should be assumed (you know in the same we you don't note that Obama breathes oxygen). A political talk show host crying is never done and highly noteworthy when it happens.
Easy: because that's not what's he's famous for. He's famous for being a president of USA. He may have certain other characteristics that are worth mentioning -- such as the fact that he's married, or his foreign language skills -- but those are not what he's famous for. And using a teleprompter is probably not even in the category of "other noteworthy stuff". Well, maybe if the teleprompter had a blue dress, maybe then it might change -- but so far, it hasn't happened. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 18:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Every time I go to the Obama artilce I get confused, I cannot tell if I am looking at the article for Barack Obama or Jesus Christ.--E tac (talk) 12:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Easy. Take a look at Jesus Christ. See the lack of photos? That's how you can tell them apart. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 18:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

#3?

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

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

Semi-Protect?

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

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

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

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

You are correct. I'll go one further and say that almost all or probably all of the quotes should be removed from the article. Wikipedia is not the place for quotes, we have a sister project, Wikiquote, where all quotes belong. L0b0t (talk) 13:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
My impression is that the mere existence of wikiquote doesn't mean all quotes in articles get vacuumed out. --kizzle (talk) 04:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Spelling error

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

Fixed. --Smashvilletalk 14:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Glenn Beck vs Glenn Beck on Wikipedia

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

No need to retype, it looked like this two years ago. Morphh (talk) 2:55, 07 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad you linked to the past article. Interesting that what was noteworthy about Beck then (Michael Moore, Hurricane Katrina, etc.) are long gone memories. That's why specific criticisms should not be included. Who cares if Beck was critical of Michael Moore 2 years ago, and that some left wing organization made a complaint about it. It's useless fluff. Bytebear (talk) 18:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Your argument falls horribly short given that the President of the United States is a vastly more important figure than a filmmaker like Michael Moore. Making incredibly controversial statements about the President, to the point that Fox News goes to the apparently unprecedented (for them) length of issuing a statement that Beck's statements represent only his own opinion and not the network's, is something that won't likely be forgotten. But even aside from that, the notion that no specific criticisms should be included is crazy. If we went by that standard, then this article will always look like it could've been an official bio on foxnews.com. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 07:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Why isn't this mentioned?

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

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

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

Actually I have done very little to the article itself. I will remind you to assume good faith. As to Mr. Becks "unconventional on-air style" his style is not particularly unconventional by politcal pundits on both the left and right (see Bill O'Reilly and Kieth Olberman). Furthermore any mention of his on-air personality would better be served on the article that talks about his show, rather than this article. As to cherry picking, if I were accused of such behavior, I would be asking for inclusion of all sorts of pro-Beck moments, of which there are just as many as negative ones. You and others are singling out specific incidents for inclusion, not me. Finally, NPOV does not mean we must include negative material. It means that the material we include is presented in a neutral way. The Time magazine article inclusion is a good example of that. It was originally included with text that included POV and a non-neutral analysis of the content of that source. I read the article, and summarized the content for inclusion in this article in a factual, neutral way. I hope you can now see the difference in the two approaches. Bytebear (talk) 16:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Also see WP:DUE. Just becasue there is a source for some "material" does not mean it has to be included in the article. How widely has the "material" been covered by RSs? If it has been widely "covered", then present the citations in here and let the community decide if it rises to the level worthy of inclusion. This ends this PSA :) Cheers :) --Tom (talk) 19:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Barak comment

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

I doubt many people had.

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

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

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

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

I didn't say that it wasn't notable, please reread my statement. It is notable, but just because it is notable news does not make it part of Beck's notability - there is a difference. Wikipedia is not tabloid journalism. Beck has many many comments that are notable, both good and bad, and each statement has context, requiring a representation of both points of view if included. We have rules on the weight given to any particular event, comment, or content in relation to other content. What I'm saying is that it doesn't matter what you or I think is part of his notability (or even notable news). We have to show it by sufficient reliable third party sources covering the news. These are Wikipedia's requirements, which are strict for the biography of a living person. If you read the discussion above, you'll see that I'm fine with the inclusion of this particular statement, but we're still discussing the best presentation as it relates to Beck's notability and what examples to include. Morphh (talk) 12:47, 09 August 2009 (UTC)
  • The IP editor was way off base from the start. He said "I had never heard of him before these comments on national television. I doubt many people had." Just because you hadn't heard of him, you think most people hadn't. The fact that his show on FNC alone garners more viewers than anything MSNBC or CNN (his former employer) alone puts on should disprove that. The books and the #3 ranked syndicated radio show just make that statement more laughable. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Glenn Beck's Yale History

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

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

Removal of anecdotal incidents

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

The items I have included in this article are not POV or unnoteworthy. There is nothing "cherry picked" about them. They are properly sourced. That Beck has repeated on a major mainstream cable newschannel a conspiracy theory that is largely relegated to the hard, ultra-right in America (i.e. FEMA facilities turning into concentration camps) is certainly noteworthy. That Beck has written a foreward for, emphatically endorsed and handed out a book by a notorious conspiracist and John Birch Society supporter is certainly noteworthy, as is other conservatives' criticism of him doing so. I have no idea whether Beck is a "conspiracy theorist wacko" (your words), since I don't know whether he believes the things he says. I don't seen how Wikipedia:BLP applies to what I've added. You need to explain to me why these items are not noteworthy before you take it upon yourself unilaterally sanitize this article. --Hardindr (talk) 19:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Of course it's cherry picking. Beck has done hundreds if not thousands of shows on a wide range of topics, and you have chosen topics that in your own words, "a conspiracy theory that is largely relegated to the hard, ultra-right in America." That is cherry picking a topic. And your obsession with labeling Scousen a "Conspiracy theorist" is also cherry picking those descriptors, which other editors have already agreed. The burden of proof does not lie with me. And if you know the BLP policy, you should know that that burden is far more strict than with other articles. Now, if you want to discuss each paragraph, then by all means, but I see nothing of value in them. Bytebear (talk) 21:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Not commenting on all aspects, but certainly some of that material has been here for awhile. Beck is a very controversial figure (abnormally so, even for a pundit), and it's inevitable that we will discuss some of the more notable controversies here. "More notable" is determined by those which have received the most coverage. The thing with Keith Ellison was widely discussed and I think therefore worth including, as was his 9/12 Project show and the on-air tears (mocked not only by Colbert, but also a fellow Fox News anchor). One can debate about what belongs and does not belong, but it would not be in keeping with WP:NPOV if we didn't cover some of the most noteworthy controversies with respect to Beck. I would make the same argument over at an article like Michael Moore, incidentally.
Of course, we also need to cover the basics about Beck's life, popularity of his shows and books, etc. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
So you think 1) a comedy bit mocking his emotion, 2) a FEMA comment in one show, 3) a comment from a press secretary about a book endorsement and 4) a disagreement with Whoopie Goldburg on the View are all noteworthy controversies? Seriously? Bytebear (talk) 21:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
David Frum is a former speech writer for GWB and a prominent and incluential conservative. His criticism of Beck is definetely noteworthy, even more so because of its harshness. --Hardindr (talk) 22:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Obviously I did not say that, and anyway it's not about what you think or I think, it's about attention received in secondary sources. Being mocked on The Colbert Report can be notable, especially when Shepard Smith also mocks you, and especially when the incident is reported all over the place (surely you know this—the crying bit was widely, widely covered and it seems utterly appropriate to mention it here, indeed a huge number of people probably know him only for this incident). The FEMA comment got some attention but inclusion of that is certainly debatable, as is inclusion of criticism from David Frum (though he's a prominent conservative, obviously, which is worth considering, and by the way he was a speechwriter, not a press secretary). I had not heard of the thing with The View until I came here and have no idea how I feel about that.
If you're willing to discuss the specifics of these here then that is good. Again, what matters in terms of evaluating this is the amount of discussion of various incidents in secondary sources and the overall neutrality of the article. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
So you think that a mocking video or comedy skit about Obama would be fitting as well? I know that, "Barack the Magic Negro" got a lot of play on Rush Limbaugh and other conservative circles. Why is no mention of that on Obama's bio? The simple answer is, it isn't noteworthy. And neither is the material in question here. Bytebear (talk) 22:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
It's better to structure this as a conversation, rather than a series of "what about this?" questions. No, I don't think that that video should be mentioned in Obama's article. You'll notice that I did not say that the Colbert video should necessarily be mentioned in this article—I said "being mocked on The Colbert Report can be notable," and pointed out that I think the whole "crying" incident should be mentioned in some fashion. Maybe Colbert's response should not be included, I'm certainly open to that. I'm willing to work with you here. No need to reply to this (unless you want to) as I'll engage with the conversation continuing below. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't have an "obsession" with labeling Skousen a conspiracy theorist, beacuse that is what he is known for, besides being a major supporter of the John Birch Society. I'm working on pulling together the necessary cites to have the article on him reflect this, particularly in the lead. It is irrelevent that Beck has done thousands of shows on a wide range of topic. It isn't irrelevent or unnoteworthy when a major figure on popular mainstream cable news televeision show repeats fringe conspiracy theories, or promotes the book of a notorious conspiracist. If Keith Olbermann or Rachael Maddow got up on their show one day and said, "You know what? I can't debunk these theories out their that 'Bush did 9/11'! Isn't that funny? Oh, and by the way, this book by David Icke, its "divinely inspired!" that would be noteworthy and definitely worthy of inclusion in their respective wikipedia entries. I think what I have posted about Beck is well within the BLP policy, though you are free to disagree. Do you want to move this to an RFC? --Hardindr (talk) 22:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
and you don't see that as being a wee bit POV? Pushing an agenda that Beck is wrapped up in conspiracy theories. I doubt you will get too far in the Skousen article either, since his theories were well regarded at the time. In fact, other than the category on his article "conspiracy theorists" (which I think is misplaced POV), there is no mention of him being such in the entire article (at least last time I checked- I am sure that will change soon). I am sure there are left wing sources to the contrary, and I am sure you will try to change the article to slant it's POV toward your own impression of him. Fortunately Wikipedia has rules and guidelines to thwart such behavior. Consensus has already proven that your pet name for Skousen has been shot down. But I cannot stop you from perusing your agenda. Good luck. Bytebear (talk) 22:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
"POV" is not an excuse for removing legitimate and well-sourced items from an article. Skousen's ideas about David Rockefeller and other "insiders" running both the US and the USSR were not "well regarded" by anyone, now or in the past, except by members of the John Birch Society. Your "left wing" remark reveals your own POV issues. I find this tiring. Do you want to start an RFC or should I? --Hardindr (talk) 22:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I am not removing them because they are POV, but because they are not noteworthy and by cherry picking only certain events, they present a POV. You putting up non-noteworthy items is just an attempt at pushing your POV. We have already established consensus on the use of "conspiracy theorist" to describe Skousen, but if you want to bring more people to the discussion, by all means, just don't cherry pick them like you do your facts. Bytebear (talk) 22:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I will add that if and when you find references to Skousen's supposed conspiracy theories (meaning you need a third party reliable source calling them as such), they should be presented on that page, not this one. Bytebear (talk) 22:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay, let me get this straight. You do not regard the fact that a widely watched host of an opinion show on a major, mainstream cable news channel promoted a conspiracy theory that is believed by only those in the U.S. militia movement and other sectors of the hard right in America noteworthy? If Ed Shultz looked straight into the camera on his television program one day and said, "You know, I think Barrack Obama is controled by a Zionist cabal from the South Side of Chicago, and this book by Eustace Mullins is really great!" you wouldn't think it would be worthy of inclusion in his wikipedia article? As for Skousen, who is this royal "we" on Wikipedia that you speak of? I've put some cites into the lead of the Skousen article to accurately reflect his views, and we'll see what other editors think. I'll go to a local academic library in the next week or two to get some more. But Skousen really isn't the issue here. What will it take for you to stop sanitizing this article? --Hardindr (talk) 23:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Starting over

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

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

Ok. let's start with something simple. Why is a debate with Whoopie Goldberg noteworthy? From what I see of the sources, it was some "rock jocks" in the UK that reported on this? How are they notable? They certainly are not mainstream. Bytebear (talk) 23:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I actually agree with you on this. I don't care if the View paragraph is in the article or not. --Hardindr (talk) 23:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
ok, done. How about the issues unrelated to Skousen? Let's start with the spoof on Beck's emotional outbursts? Is it noteworthy to mention them at all, let alone a spoof about them? Bytebear (talk) 23:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I didn't put this into the article, but I think it is noteworthy. It was widely mentioned in the media, and Beck even received criticism from fellow employees at the Fox network. I have no opinion as to whether Beck's outburst was spontaneous or acting. --Hardindr (talk) 23:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Good call on the View removal, I agree. I'm going offline for awhile now but will check back in on this later. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Additionally, I do not like your threat made here [9], User:Bytebear. You are the person the one violating the 3RR rule, not me. Are you an administrator? Do you have the power to ban people? --Hardindr (talk) 23:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Would you prefer a formal warning on your talk page? Bytebear (talk) 01:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Are you an administrator? What powers do you have? Should I warn you on your talk page for your disruptive editing? --Hardindr (talk) 01:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Your comments are not helpful. If you look at the article history, you can see the cites I have provided. Do you have some specific suggestions for this matter? --Hardindr (talk) 01:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I have specific suggestions for you, but don't need extra drama right now, beer guzzling and golf call, maybe later. --Tom (talk) 15:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I am at work until July 6th, and then on away from my computer on vacation until July 14th. However, I will be back. --Hardindr (talk) 06:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Starting over again

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

I see Bytebear has presented his initial thoughts on this controversy below. I will respond when I get back from vacation on July 16th. I beg everyone's patience in the meantime. --Hardindr (talk) 15:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I am back from vacation, but more issues have come up in the real world. I will respond next week, no latter than July 23. My apologies for the delay. --Hardindr (talk) 18:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I want to thank everyone for their patience. My initial responses are below. --Hardindr (talk) 02:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Okay, anybody want to comment on the text in the section below? --Hardindr (talk) 15:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I would think that videos are primary sources. It would be nice to get secondary sources for criticism. I'd avoid media matters if possible. If it's controversial enough to be in the article, I would think we shouldn't have to stretch to such partisan sources for the basis of inclusion, but they could be useful as a supporting reference. I think too much weight is given to the crying bit. I would give it one sentence (two at most) in the "Media persona and commentary" section. No need to quote all these people, just describe that he sometimes chokes up on air and that he's been mocked by fellow commentators for his emotional style. In the second paragraph, I don't understand how this is controversial or why it is important. Why is it part of his notability and what makes it a unique example. Morphh (talk) 15:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, the media matters columns just help to establish what the reactions of fellow Fox News employees was to Beck's crying incident. They aren't being used to present the columnist's opinion of Beck. The second paragraph is controversial because Beck promoted a conspiracy theory that is the sole providence of the Christian Patriot movement and other elements of the ultra-right on a major mainstream cable television news network. This is unheard of in the mainstream media. --Hardindr (talk) 19:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
From reading the sources, it looks to me like the second paragraph is WP:SYN. Morphh (talk) 19:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
How so? --Hardindr (talk) 20:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Each source only goes to support a part of the sentence referenced. Like sources to a book, or that he had a book on his website, or that he looked at the theory. But I don't see that the sources tie this all together as written and as you describe. It looks like a synthesis of published material. Morphh (talk) 21:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Do I need to go through and copy edit so that each source only refers to a single sentence? I'm not following you here. Would the portion about Skousen be more appropriate down in the book section, where it is mentioned that Beck wrote the Forward to The 5,000 Year Leap? --Hardindr (talk) 23:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Ahh, ok.. source #11 I think is what is tying this together. I must have missed that one. It is not written in a way that expresses how this relates to Beck's notability or even what it is trying to get at. The first two sentences discuss how he is dismissing it, yet it is intended to say he is promoting them? Beck says he brought them up to debunk them. How is this controversial? In any case, I don't see this as having enough attention to give it any place in the article. Morphh (talk) 0:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
The first sentence of the second paragraph does not say that he is dismissing the conspiracy theory about FEMA camps; it states that he tried to do so and was unable (I have changed the sentence to be more clear). The second sentence states that denounced the conspiracy theory later. It is notable that a major television figure on a mainstream cable network said that he had attempted to debunk a ridiculous and outlandish conspiracy theory that is only believed on the hard-right in America (and has been debunked by others years before) and failed is certainly notable. --Hardindr (talk) 00:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
"It is notable that a major television figure on a mainstream cable network said that he had attempted to debunk a ridiculous and outlandish conspiracy theory that is only believed on the hard-right in America (and has been debunked by others years before) and failed is certainly notable." You need some reliable sources that make this connection, otherwise it's OR. Also, even if we have several sources, we need to show that it is part of his notability (not that it is notable). I'm ok with first paragraph of information, but would not support inclusion of the second. Morphh (talk) 0:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Many conspiracists (on their blogs and message boards) found it notable, including this one [10]. I think the Krugman column counts towards notability. But, I must admit, that frankly I'm surprised that I'm having this conversation about a major news figure pushing an absurd conspiracy theory into the mainstream news and whether it is notable or not. --Hardindr (talk) 01:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Just seems weird. Beck says he brought it to mainstream news to debunk it, not push or promote it. So it seems the criticism is that he didn't debunk it fast enough? Is this really about Glen Beck? His research team likely did the investigating, so it's certainly more a Program thing, not a bibliography thing. I apologize, I'm not trying to be difficult, I just don't quite understand the overall controversy. Of course blogs and message boards are not acceptable sources, particularly from those that promote conspiracy theories. Morphh (talk) 2:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Disputed parts of TV section

After a March 2009 taping of Beck's FOX News show on which he appeared to choke up on air, wiping tears from his eyes and explaining, "I'm sorry. I just love my country, and I fear for it,"[1] Beck was mocked by fellow FOX personality Shepard Smith[2][3] and Comedy Central satirist Stephen Colbert, the latter going as far as to imitate Beck, saying "I'm sorry. I just love Glenn Beck's sanity. And I fear for it."[4] Regular Fox News political commentator Dennis Miller remarked that Beck was "a shaky cat." [5]The New York Times ran a feature piece on Beck later in the month, quoting an interview with Beck in which he identified himself with Peter Finch's "mad prophet of the airwaves" from the 1976 film Network, Howard Beale, and continually noting Beck's reputation as a performer rather than as a journalist.[6]

On the March 2, 2009 Fox & Friends program, Beck claimed that he had tried and was unable to debunk rumors that FEMA facilities were to be converted into concentration camps, [7][8] a longstanding conspiracy theory that has circulated in the U.S. militia movement since the 1990s.[9] Later, on the April 6, 2009 Glenn Beck Program, Beck denounced the rumor. [8] After the airing of Beck's March 13, 2009 Glenn Beck Program Special "We Surround Them," Beck was criticized by former George W. Bush speech writer and conservative commentator David Frum for distributing copies of conspiracist and John Birch Society supporter Cleon Skousen's book The 5,000 Thousand Year Leap, in which Beck wrote the foreward for the 2008 edition. [10]

[11] [12] Beck had previously promoted an excerpt from Skousen's 1958 book, The Naked Communist on his website. [13]

  1. ^ WATCH: Fox Host Glenn Beck Cries During Live Broadcast
  2. ^ Shep Smith Mocks 'Glenn Beck Friday,' 'I Don't Even Know What the Heck the Thing Is'
  3. ^ Boehlert, Eric. "Is Fox News big enough for Shep Smith and Glenn Beck?" [1] Media Matters of America. Published: 2009-06-16 Accessed: 2009-08-12
  4. ^ The 10/31 Project
  5. ^ Boehlert, Eric. "Glenn Beck and the rise of Fox News' militia media." [2] Media Matters of America. Published: 2009-04-07 Accessed: 2009-08-12
  6. ^ Stelter, Brian (March 29, 2009). "Fox News's Mad, Apocalyptic, Tearful Rising Star". The New York Times. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  7. ^ Krugman, Paul. "The Big Hate." [3] NY Times Published: 2009-06-11 Accessed: 2009-08-12
  8. ^ a b Rendall, Steve. "Glenn Beck is No Howard Beale." [4] Extra! June 2009. pg 12.
  9. ^ Barckun, Michael. A Culture of Conspiracy. Univerisity of California Press. Berkeley, CA. 2003. pg 101-2.
  10. ^ Skousen, Mark. "Glenn Beck Re-Energizes the Conservative Movement" HumanEvents.com [5] Posted: 2009-03-19 Accessed: 2009-07-01
  11. ^ Frum, David. "WHAT IS GOING ON AT FOX NEWS?" NewMajority.com [6] Posted: 2009-03-16 Accessed: 2009-06-25
  12. ^ The 5000 Thousand Year Leap [7] Accessed: 2009-06-24
  13. ^ "1963 Communist Goals." GlennBeck.com [8] Posted: 2002-03-12 Accessed: 2009-06-25

Crying

Ok, the crying thing. Yes, he has been mocked for his tearful commentary, both by comedians and commentaries, but unless there is any third party commentary on the comedy bit, I would remove it. As for the NYTimes article, I think I would rather have a general overview summary of the article, with author acknowledgment. The current statements are POV, and could be better fleshed out. I am ok with that source, but we cannot cherry pick comments to present a conclusion. I would rather focus on the Howard Beale stuff and not the crying stuff, particularly when it is a self description. Bytebear (talk) 18:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with the paragraph as it is currently written, although we could note that the breakdown isn't known to have been genuine or acting. These are possible third party cites for Beck's alleged breakdown [11] [12], if only to substantiate other members in the media's reaction to it (including fellow Fox News employees Dennis Miller and Shephard Smith), not the columnist's opinion of Beck. --Hardindr (talk) 02:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I have a problem with only sourcing Media Matters. I would say find better sources before continuing. Bytebear (talk) 20:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I think using Media Matters is appropriate here. Media Matters offers reliable reporting regarding what people in the media say, including video/audio recordings and relevent transcripts, and they also run corrections. I am not saying that the opinion of the columnist should be included in the article, just the underlying facts in the column detailing other people in the medias reaction to Becks dramatics (real or staged). Other media watchdog groups, like MEMRI are used on wikipedia as sources. --Hardindr (talk) 20:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Transcripts violate WP:RS since it is a first party source. You need third party sources. If Media Matters is presenting an opinion on the issue, or a conclusion, then we need to look at that, but just saying "Beck cries a lot" in and of itself is not notable. And re-reading the section, it is just reiterating one instance, and some people who have made fun of his crying. It really falls under trivial.Bytebear (talk) 03:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, the two columns I proposed aren't transcripts, so they aren't first party sources. The column notes various media figures, including fellow Fox News employees, reactions to Beck's alleged breakdown on TV. --Hardindr (talk) 09:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
And you know my opinion on Media Matters, so I will leave it on that. Let's just say, the articles move themselves into a first party source as they are known to be hostile to conservatives, and the articles add themseleves to the list of reactions. Bytebear (talk) 16:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, I think your wrong. By your logic, any article published on a conservative or liberal website/magazine could not be used in a wikipedia article. Anyone else want to offer an opinion? --Hardindr (talk) 20:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Hardindr; Glenn Beck's crying on air is absolutely notable for his personal article. It was widely discussed in the media, and is probably literally what he's most famous for. Much more so than some of the other material in the article. It's not POV to say that he cried on air; to say it is POV is to assume that crying on air is bad, and I'm sure some of his audience would disagree with that. aubrey (talk) 06:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree that Beck crying on the air should be included. If it is not included, perhaps something general about his repeated emotional outbursts while on TV or the radio should take its place (i.e., the "Get off my phone!" incident on his radio show, which was covered by several reputable newspapers across the world). The fact that Glenn Beck cries/screams/is very emotional on the air certainly differentiates him from other political commentators, and is a primary issue discussed by his critics. MichaelLNorth (talk) 16:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

FEMA

I think this whole section is just a fluff of POV to try to connect him to conspiracy theories and needs to be dropped. Bytebear (talk) 18:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if you would call it "POV", but I think it is at least a little biased that someone whose uploaded pictures are all of Mormon temples is continually deleting the controversy section from an outspoken Mormon. Just because an outspoken member of your religion is controversial does not mean you should be able to remove his notably controversial statements and views from the public. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mto880 (talkcontribs) 05:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Please review the section WP:AGF. Your comments are unproductive and inappropriate. Bytebear (talk) 18:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't agree with you. This section is not POV, and has citations from reliable sources. I don't know whether Glenn Beck believes in conspiracy theories and the paragraph as written doesn't allege that he does. However, when hosts of highly rated shows on mainstream cable news networks repeat conspiracy theories from the hard right, it is worthy of inclusion in their wikipedia article. --Hardindr (talk) 02:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Not really. It goes more to cherry picking an incident to present a conclusion. I goes more to notability than reliability. Bytebear (talk) 20:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, I guess we have different opinions as to what notable means. When a person repeats fringe conspiracy theories from the Christian Patriot movement on a popular television program on a major cable news network, it is notable. It a person on the left (like Rachel Maddow) looked into the camera and said, "I can't debunk these rumors about Bush/Cheney being behind 9/11, and enjoy this book from David Icke compliments of me," I think it would be notable. I feel like we are going in circles here. --Hardindr (talk) 19:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I would consider Rachel Maddow's statements not notable either. Glenn Beck comments on a lot of things, and those things change every day. To pick this above all others in a plethora of opinion and commentary is POV. Bytebear (talk) 03:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Do any other editors have an opinion on this issue? We aren't making any progress here. --Hardindr (talk) 09:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

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

I think this also [13] counts towards notabillity. --Hardindr (talk) 20:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

A controversy section or separate article MUST be created.

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

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

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

Sounds very close to a personal attack on article editors. Take this as a polite warning and assume good faith. Morphh (talk) 0:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Sounds like a proposal for a WP:POVFORK to me. Bytebear (talk) 00:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
How about one compromise; I added back the Keith Ellison question. Of all of Beck's notorious on-air moments, this one appears to be the most notable. It was called incendiary by the New York Times, was singled out by Muslim groups in protesting Beck's inclusion on GMA, it is featured on Ellison's own wiki page and Beck admitted it was one of the most "poorly-worded questions ever."--The lorax (talk) 01:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Not really a compromise to try to slip in one non-Noteworthy incident. It also is more related to his show and not to him. Do you have more references than that? Was the incident covered by several analysts? Was it just spread around by a single AP source? This particular link violates WP:EL#Sites_requiring_registration. The particular incident isn't the focus of the article, which also shows it to be less than noteworthy. The other source you cite is just a transcript of the show, which is not a third party source, making your conclusion WP:OR. Do you have a reference that explicitly talks about this incident, or states your conclusion that this is somehow controversial? Why do you think this incident is noteworthy? Why is it more controversial than, say, his commentary toward Michael Moore? Bytebear (talk) 02:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Bytebear can claim that any of the numerous controversial statements he has made are not noteworthy, but together they are the single largest reason why Beck himself is noteworthy. Whether you think that Beck's statements are "what nobody else has the guts to say" or that they're crazy and offensive, these statements are why he is known. Having no mention of these statements in general, if not the statements themselves with appropriate references (i.e., organizations that act as "watchdogs" for Fox News controversies and inaccuracies, i.e., Media Matters, The Huffington Post, Daily Kos) leaves out the single most relevant characteristic of the person whom this article is about. Perhaps including individual controversies is seen by Bytebear as WP:POV, but certainly omitting or downplaying the entire topic of controversies and controversial statements by Beck is an even greater instance of WP:POV. Obviously these general statements need to be supported with references, so Congressman Bob Inglis telling his constituents that Beck is "trading on fear" would be a good start. MichaelLNorth (talk) 17:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
The Washington Post had a pretty thorough analysis of the incident: "Until he starts trading bons mots with Diane Sawyer, Beck remains best known for what surely is his most embarrassing moment. It happened in mid-November, when Beck invited the country's first Muslim congressman, newly elected Democrat Keith Ellison of Minnesota, on the show"
[...]
"Three groups have written to ABC urging the network to keep Beck off "GMA," the Associated Press reported yesterday. "That blatant anti-Arab, anti-Muslim bias has been given credibility on a larger news show is something that concerns us," Arab American Institute spokeswoman Jennifer Kauffman told the AP."
"When "The Daily Show" re-aired the clip of Beck's question to Ellison, host Jon Stewart followed up with this thought: "Finally, a guy who says what people who aren't thinking are thinking."--The lorax (talk) 03:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
The article might be good to pull some general information from, but it is hardly focusing on this incident, again proving my point that this is not notable. Bytebear (talk) 03:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
There's a lot of good information from that WaPo piece. Here's another article mentioning the Ellison incident: "Mr. Beck has often roused protests from the left, and never more so than when he interviewed Representative Keith Ellison of Minnesota after he was newly elected as the first Muslim congressman."--The lorax (talk) 04:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I already discussed the NYTimes article. It fails WP:EL because it requires log in. It also does not focus on the event as the sole subject of the article. Don't you see the problem. You are picking examples from various articles and creating focus on an incident which none of your sources focus. You are researching and picking and choosing what parts of the articles to focus on. It takes more than just pulling out quotes and putting them together. In fact, that is not allowed under Wikipedia rules on WP:OR. I will be more specific. You start your paragraph with the statement, "Beck's penchant for speaking his opinions candidly has sometimes spurred controversy." But, none of your sources make that assertion directly. They are not articles about his "controversial" nature. That is your assessment of the sources. In other words, original research. Bytebear (talk) 04:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Without commenting on the specific info and whether it belongs in the article or not...failing WP:EL in no way prevents an otherwise reliable source from being used as a source. --OnoremDil 04:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, but one issue is notability, which means that reliable sources should be prevalent. That it is difficult to find reliable sources that meet the standards of WP:EL goes to show the lack of notability in this case. If the incident is notable, there should be a plethora of acceptable sources to choose from. Bytebear (talk) 04:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
This incident has been documented many times though in numerous reliable sources: In Time, at least two NYT articles, the Washington Post article, The Daily Show et al. Nobody would argue its place in Keith Ellison's article, why can't we say the same for Beck's article? Also, as opposed to the "sometimes spurring controversy" line, how about verbatim the NYT's line: "Mr. Beck has often roused protests from the left." I'm not trying to cherry pick, I'm just trying to include obvious missing parts of Beck's career that are absent from the article.--The lorax (talk) 05:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
The incident is covered in the Ellison article because it is about Ellison and his political views as explored through Beck's interview. It is not about Beck or his views. Beck interviews hundreds if not thousands of people. The articles you cite are not specifically about the incident, but use it as examples. We can discuss the overall concepts of the articles in question (as I did with the Time article- which by the way does not mention Ellison by name, another whack at your notability claim), but we do not need to give undue weight to this or any other specific incident. It is being used as a POV wedge to make Beck look bad, (which none of the articles are doing by the way). That is where the original research comes in. You want to conclude an aspect of Beck from this incident that no article concludes. BTW, I cannot read the NYTimes article, so I have no way to verify your quote, but when is it noteworthy that a conservative commentator garners criticism from the left? But that is not what you asserted. Your claim said nothing about who criticized him, showing your own (not so) subtle POV that he is controversial, but really, he isn't, except to the left (which is to be expected and a given). Bytebear (talk) 06:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
1) Glenn Beck specifically says in the interview that he is uncomfortable with having a Muslim congressman, this does reflect on his views: "Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies. And I know you`re not. I`m not accusing you of being an enemy, BUT THATS THE WAY I FEEL (emphasis mine), and I think a lot of Americans will feel that way." Transcript here: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0611/14/gb.01.html 2) From the notability guide: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material" 3) Ellison is the only Muslim congressman, he does not need to be refereed to by name if his unique title is used. 4) The articles for Micheal Moore and Don Imus both have coverage of controversy. Micheal Moore's article mentions his comments regarding the RNC being moved because of Hurricane Gustav, which attracted attention primarily from conservatives. The Don Imus article has a giant controversy section that catalogs numerous racial slurs and offensive statements. Why is Glenn Beck different from this? The inclusion of a controversy article isn't destined to be POV. 5) Why is the statement from the Arab Institute not a reliable source? I've seen statements from the Anti-Defamation League used in Wikipedia articles all the time. novalord2 07:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
First of all, you cannot use a transcript as a source. Your commentary is WP:OR. Just by putting your emphasis on the quote, you are revealing youe own POV. Second, you are giving undue weight to a single issue. Beck has said a lot of things to a lot of people. What makes this particular incident more prominent than anything else he has said or done? It does not have more citations, or news covering it. Third, not mentioning the congressman by name does show that the article in question is not specifically about the incident. Fourth, "because they do it" is not a valid argument. If the Don Imus article has a criticism section, then maybe it needs to be changed. The Criticism of Bill O'Reilly article is already slated for deletion. Criticism sections are discouraged on Wikipedia. They create [[WP:{POVFORK]]s. They introduce WP:Trivia and cause bloat. Fifth, the issue is covered in the appropriate article, where it is pertinent. It is not noteworthy to Beck and we don't need to repeat it, and I am not really sure it even needs to be in that article. Bytebear (talk) 16:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't have citations or news covering it? Really? And explain to me how condemnation from the Arab Institute isn't noteworthy, unless you believe the opinion of the largest Arab advocacy group aren't significant enough this article. I emphasized the quote to show exactly where he reveals his opinion. Also, the criticism of Reilly is proposed to be MERGED into the main article by Aug 20, not deleted. The undue weight guidelines say this: "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents" and we do have several prominent publications.novalord2 21:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, you absolutely can use a transcript as a source, and I quote Primary sources are sources very close to an event. For example, an account of a traffic accident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the accident. Other examples include archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews, the source cannot however, be the sole source, which in this case it is not.
Notability does not govern the content of articles in any way, shape, or form, it can never be used as a defense because no policy regarding said content exists, it is explicitly stated Notability is meant only for the decision regarding the creation of the article's topic, I reiterate, it cannot be used for the content of the article. WP:NOTE
Wikipedia does not discourage Criticism WP:CRIT, in fact, it has a policy dedicated solely to it, thus your statement is false.
Noteworthiness in no way dictates the inclusion of the content, if educated Criticism exists, it should be included under an appropriately named section and cited, not necessarily "Controversy", Wikipedia suggests the term "Reception" so as to include both negative and positive third party points of view, though it is correct for articles dedicated solely to the topic of Criticism to be considered non-notable and POV content. Trivia restricts mentioning a bevy of specific incidents as does Recentism, it is best that both positive and negative opinions be summarized intelligently without pedantic emphasis placed on an array of specific incidents, as is the case with most "Criticism" sections of articles. Revrant (talk) 22:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I think you are forgetting two issues. One is Undue Weight where we have todecide what should and should not be mentioned. No citation is specifically about this event, other than to comment generally about Beck's style as a commentator. And I believe that style is already mentioned in the article to a fair extent. To focus on this incident adds undue weight and POV to the character of Beck. Add to that that the congressman mentioned has stated that he didn't find the issue offensive at all. Add to that the issue of longevity. Someone complained that the criticisms of a year ago are not in the article, but it is clear that those criticisms are long forgotten. This issue will also be long forgotten in a year or two. It does not define Beck as a person. It is not noteworthy to his life. This article is not about his on-air persona, or about his interviews. It is about him. There is a big difference. I have said before that I am fine with mention of specifics in the show article, assuming sources are appropriately focused on his on-air personality and his show (example being the Time Magazine article). Oh, and although the compromise on the deletion of the O'Reilly criticism article was to merge some material, there are several comments about deleting the article outright. The compromise is about not trowing the baby out with the bathwater, but the majority of editors feel that most of the criticism items mentioned are not noteworthy, and should be deleted. Bytebear (talk) 22:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I believe the incidents do reflect him as a person. The current wikipedia article explains his political views in some detail. It is irrelevant and honestly questionable that Ellison wasn't offended (he says defensively that he does not deserve to be painted as an enemy in the interview). The publication of this in several newspaper, and the Arab Institutes efforts to prevent ABC from hiring Beck solely because of this incident make it notable to his life and career. I think also that you are being dismissive; the comments are obviously not forgotten if so many people have come here to argue for its inclusion. There a thousands of hits, although not certifiable enough for Wikipedia, who reacted to this comment. I would be willing to support moving this controversy section to the Show's article, but I do think there is substantial basis for its inclusion here. It is Glenn Beck who said these things, not his show. novalord2 01:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Right now the article suffers from undue weight, it shows a very favorable view of the subject, it should be balanced. I made no mention of including the incident specifically, and it is obvious you did not read what I said or read the policies I linked to. After perusing the history, it is not that the incidents were forgotten, editors zealously prevented them from staying in the article, unfortunately this is a theme with many media personalities, specific trivia need not be outlined in detail unless the incident was given heavy coverage and created sufficient controversy to warrant separate mention. I will repeat to you, notability governs nothing in regard to content, please read the Wikipedia policy I linked, if you will not acknowledge the policy then there can be no consensus on the issue. Revrant (talk) 19:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
From WP:BLP "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives." Bytebear (talk) 19:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
That has nothing to do with this, by quoting that you are insinuating that every criticism is a lie, sensationalist, and a "claim" instead of what it is, fact, you cannot continue on simply telling everyone no, you must quote policy to maintain your position, otherwise, if you were to keep reverting an article without quoting policy, it could potentially lead to a block from the editing of the site. WP:CRIT, you can get away from that possibility by reading the policy and finding a good sense case against the inclusion of a reception section with neutral, due weight to both sides, although I don't believe there has ever been a case against that given it is a golden standard for many FA nominations, to summarize since you didn't read my large post, a path without proper policy leads to blocking from Wikipedia, use policy to disagree, don't disagree and cite unrelated policy or incorrect beliefs as to the policy(Notability). Revrant (talk) 22:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Revrant, I think you may be misunderstanding the argument. I don't think we're talking about the Notability policy for article creation. We're talking about BLP policy that states "Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources..." Something that is notable news (tabloid paper) may not be relevant to the subject's notability (a historical encyclopedic perspective of a persons biography). Also, undue weight policy does not mean balance between positive and negative perspectives in a persons biography. It means that after it complies with BLP above, the policy "requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." Morphh (talk) 1:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I understood just fine, I was merely pointing out the emphasis placed on notability in regard to the inclusion of any criticism is incorrect, and you are incorrect about undue weight, and I quote Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources., the article is not written in an entirely neutral point of view and shows an obvious skew, it is the duty of the editors to represent these points of view fairly as policy states, not push their points of view, please state policy correctly in the future. Revrant (talk) 10:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Who said that notability policy was being used to remove any criticism? As for undue weight, I don't see where I contradict what what the policy states. I actually quoted the undue weight policy. I said that it does not mean balance between positive and negative, as you stated above. As quoted by yourself, it is to fairly represent all significant views. This may or may not mean "balance" between positive and negative. You need to show that it is not a tiny minority view and that it meets standards for including criticism in a BLP, which is that it is relevant to the persons notability. Morphh (talk) 12:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Bytebear, that was one of the reasons Bytebear continued to cite, noteworthiness and notability, you are outlining a facet of the policy where the entire policy falls under NPOV, therefore it is part of that policy's goal and not a goal unto itself regardless of that policy, it is a tenet of the policy and should be represented as such lest it violate the spirit of the policy. I need only look to the truly stunning amount of criticism removed and reverted from the page to show it is not a tiny minority, and I don't really know how the line of logic persists that what a commentator decides to say is not relevant to their notability, but I'm not arguing for that, at the moment I'm arguing for the compromise between editors that wish for no criticism at all and those that wish for an entire section devoted to it, a reception section. Revrant (talk) 18:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
You are wrong. Should we include the recent tirade by Hillary Clinton in her article? People will comment on it, and it is making news, but it isn't really noteworthy to Clinton, and I would fight to keep it out of Wikipedia, although I am sure I would be shot down by the right wing as much as I am being shot down here by the left. Bytebear (talk) 22:36, 11 August 2009
You are wrong is not an argument, assume good faith, and you are insinuating something that could be misconstrued as a personal attack, do not insinuate that attempting a consensus automatically means the users involved, myself included, are of the "left", it is derogatory to make that assumption, and while I have a very high tolerance for personal attacks against me, I will report the behavior if it gets out of hand. Your use of language in choosing tirade 1. a prolonged outburst of bitter, outspoken denunciation, is not appropriate when referencing one spoken sentence in which the subject demanded they be asked questions directly regarding their policies. I will not comment on your use of Fox News as a source, needless to say, it would not be considered reliable as a primary source on the issue given the obvious political bias, the same is true of The Huffington Post on Wikipedia in regard to articles of a political nature and regarding political figures. You have yet to make a case regarding policy, telling me I'm wrong and a mild exaggeration of an unrelated hypothesis is not the correct means to argue against the inclusion of a Reception section in the article, please cite policy directly to support your argument. Revrant (talk) 10:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
It is very difficult to assume good faith with someone who looks at FOX News as being an unreliable source. That is such a POV statement, that I don't even know how to respond. Bytebear (talk) 16:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I really don't care how difficult it is, it's a policy when dealing with other editors, and if you can't do it at the onset then you might have to remove yourself from the proceedings. There's no POV in that statement, there's a definitive reason why I don't think Fox News is a reliable source when addressing a political subject, and it isn't my own feelings, it stems from their amount of political controversy and bias allegations. Revrant (talk) 18:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I recommend you read up on WP:POVFORK.

(outdent) According to the Ellison article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So your saying that the NYT Bestselling author, nationally syndicated radio host, and TV host on a self titled show on Fox News was not notable until a few weeks ago? The statement is only news because Beck was already notable. If controversial statements are made on a regular basis, how do we determine what to include and what not to include? Wikipedia is not an collection of statements, we need to apply it to his notability and pick the most relevant examples. The Obama comment may be one that should be included, but people need to stop complaining about it and provide the sources to better justify the argument for inclusion based on policy. Morphh (talk) 13:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
In the past week, Lawyers.com, Procter & Gamble, Progressive, S.C. Johnson, GEICO, Men's Wearhouse and Sargento have all pulled advertising as a result of his comments. How is this not worthy of being mentioned? Patriot Missile33 (talk) 13:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Ellison and Obama

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

Moving forward

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

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

Proposed "Obama is a racist" comment addition

On Tuesday, August 4, GEICO instructed its ad buying service to redistribute its inventory of rotational spots on FOX-TV to their other network programs, exclusive of the Glenn Beck program,” said a spokesperson for GEICO Corporate Communications in an email to ColorOfChange.org. “As of August 4, GEICO no longer runs any paid advertising spots during Mr. Beck’s program.[15]

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

Beck's sometimes incendiary comments have sparked advertiser boycotts. On the July 28, 2009 Fox & Friends in response to President Obama's criticism of the arrest of Henry Louis Gates, Beck said that Obama had "a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture." When rebutted by Brian Kilmeade, who said many of Obama's staffers were white, Beck replied, "I'm not saying he doesn't like white people, he has a problem. This guy is, I believe, a racist."[1] Fox News SVP of Programming Bill Shine said in response to the comments, "Glenn Beck expressed a personal opinion which represented his own views, not those of the Fox News Channel. And as with all commentators in the cable news arena, he is given the freedom to express his opinions." In late July 2009, Beck argued that reparations and social justice were driving President Obama's agenda, discussing issues of diversity and institutional racism.[2] That week in response to the Henry Gates controversy, Beck stated that Obama has repeatedly exposed himself as having "a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture" and concluded that "This guy is, I believe, a racist."[3] These remarks drew criticism from MSNBC commentators, the NAACP, and others.[3][4] Advertisers including LexisNexis-owned Lawyers.com, Procter & Gamble, Progressive Insurance and GEICO have requested their ads be removed from his programming.[5][6]

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

Made some changes... Morphh (talk) 16:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
GEICO pulling from the show, may be noteworthy to the show article, but it isn't to this article. I have proposed this before, falling on deaf ears. Controversies dealing with the Beck show should be presented on that article, not this one. Bytebear (talk) 16:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
why I am reminded of the essay WP:Wikilawyering. --L I C 16:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Why am I reminded of the guideline Assume Good Faith? You must have forgotten to read this part of the essay WP:Wikilawyering#Misuse_of_the_term. I am also reminded of the policy WP:BLP which says, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives." Bytebear (talk) 16:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
The TV section, Radio section, and media persona and commentary section are in part a summary style of the TV and Radio articles (different aspects). So if we place this in the TV article, is there a briefer summary that would be acceptable for this article in referencing the larger content in the TV article. Morphh (talk) 16:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I think we can describe Becks style without going into polemic examples which are there just to introduce POV. The only reason I think these issues are being brought up are specifically to "be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims." The sources themselves only bring up those issues as examples, and are not direct news about the incidents. Other than self published criticism of Beck, I can find no reliable secondary source that specifically reports directly on one of these issues. Bytebear (talk) 16:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
First, this isn't a "titillating claim" by any stretch of the imagination. That's for tabloid rumours about relationships etc. This is about a statement that Beck made as part of his public professional life. Second, there are plenty of news stories specifically about him calling Obama a racist in the mainstream press, including outside America and in sources not considered left-wing. And third, it is impossible to entirely separate what Beck says on his show from him as a person. If you want to do that, then all content about his show should be excised from his biog, which would be ridiculous. Bytebear, you're making a valiant effort, but your insistence that there is no mention of controversies involving Beck is wearing thin. I'd advise you to compromise. Fences&Windows 18:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I am trying to compromise. This issue belongs on the Fox News article or the Glenn Beck show article, but not here. The so-called boycotts were against the show, not Beck personally. Second, the term "incendiary" is blatant POV. Who decided they were incendiary? That is a subjective call, and without a reference and attributed to a source, it is WP:OR. The NPOV way to say it would be, "Specific critic felt Beck's comments were incendiary..." with a specific third party source. Do you have such a source in mind? Bytebear (talk) 00:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
The action that caused this whole chain of events occurred on Fox and Friends, the morning talk show. If you insist on separating Glenn Beck from the Glenn Beck TV Show, his comments on other shows have everything to do with Beck as a person, and nothing to do with Beck's TV show (other than the fact that advertisers are distancing themselves from Beck, via pulling advertisements off his TV show). Furthermore, the page for his TV show is even less complete than this article, and is frequently purged of any information that potentially could reflect poorly on Beck. There are only three or four sentences that apply to his controversial Fox TV show, and I am the one who wrote them. This issue is notable, and it belongs on his page. MichaelLNorth (talk) 20:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Any reason you struck out FOX's statement on the matter? No need to quote the whole thing, but I think it's worth mentioning that they issued a statement that disclaimed responsibility for his opinion. Andrewdupont (talk) 19:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it adds anything about Beck. It's about Fox News absolving responsibility (using a canned statement... that's Beck's opinion, not Fox News - no big surprise). It adds nothing in regard to Beck's media persona, context for the remarks, or criticism. If he was reprimanded for it, then that would be worth including. As presented, it was just unnecessary fluff. Morphh (talk) 20:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I added the source for the Fox News statement as a footnote after the sentence stating Beck was criticized for the remarks. Morphh (talk) 20:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
In the past week, Lawyers.com, Procter & Gamble, Progressive, S.C. Johnson, GEICO, Men's Wearhouse and Sargento have all pulled advertising as a result of his comments. How is this not worthy of being mentioned on Beck's page? I would put this incident on par with Don Imus' "nappy headed hos" comment which is certainly discussed in detail on his page. Patriot Missile33 (talk) 14:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Your assertion that this is "on par" with Dom Imas' incident is WP:OR. Do you have any evidence to back up this claim? Bytebear (talk) 15:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Bytebear, my comment on the controvery was my opinion. You want evidence to back up my opinion? This is the talkpage so I'm fairly certain I can express my opinion here. Lawyers.com, Procter & Gamble, Progressive, S.C. Johnson, GEICO, Men's Wearhouse, Sargento and State Farm (just added to the list) dropping Glenn Beck is not my opinion, it's fact, and should obviously be noted on the Glenn Beck article. Here's the article: http://rawstory.com/blog/2009/08/more-advertisers-pull-support-for-glenn-beck/ Patriot Missile33 (talk) 17:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Blogs are not reliable sources. Also, could you please summarize your thoughts in one area rather than responding with the same argument in several places, it is too hard to follow, and I don't like repeating myself. Bytebear (talk) 17:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Reliable news source on Glen Beck show losing advertisers for controversial remarks: Fox News' "Glenn Beck" loses advertisers: http://www.reuters.com/article/peopleNews/idUSTRE57C07920090813 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.12.114.226 (talk) 17:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

A new compromise.

Apparently, Glenn Beck's statements accusing Barack Obama of racism are not notable enough to be put in this article. I contend that making these statements is, in fact, the most notable thing Glen Beck has ever done. The statements were covered in the mainstream media and have inspired at least one major corporation to pull its advertising from Glenn Beck's show. His sibling died of a heart attack? So did my grandfather. He's a Mormon? So are millions of other Americans. The "9/12 Project"? Which newswire covered that? I suggest that if Glenn Beck's statements are not notable enough to be included, that this entire article is not notable and should be deleted. I'd do it myself, but I'm not bold enough. 97.83.117.40 (talk) 19:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC) 97.83.117.40 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Yes, it's absurd that the most notable thing Beck has ever done is excluded from the article, yet the utterly non-notable "9/12 Project" gets an entire section to itself (and even at one point had a separate article!). 75.76.213.106 (talk) 07:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
In the past week, Lawyers.com, Procter & Gamble, Progressive, S.C. Johnson, GEICO, Men's Wearhouse and Sargento have all pulled advertising as a result of his comments. This needs to be mentioned, obviously. I would do it myself but I can't because of semi-protected status. Patriot Missile33 (talk) 14:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
And you have primary sources that covered this extensively? It is making news? I haven't seen anything, certainly nothing more noteworthy than anything else going on. Second, this is an issue about the show, not the person. Bytebear (talk) 15:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Primary sources? Wikipedia relies on secondary sources, that's a matter of policy. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 16:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
This Glenn Beck controversy is certainly making news. Check out this article, http://rawstory.com/blog/2009/08/more-advertisers-pull-support-for-glenn-beck/ I found this as one of the top stories on Digg.com. Patriot Missile33 (talk) 17:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Blogs are not reliable sources. Second, if we included every real news article out there, GM would be discussed far more than these issues. Bytebear (talk) 17:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Bytebear, I have no idea what GM article you talking about but I suspect it's a redherring. Do any of these articles qualify in your opinion: http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/fnc/glenn_becks_racist_comment_sends_advertisers_elsewhere_123710.asp ; http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/06/glenn-becks-obama-racist_n_253264.html ; http://www.adweek.com/aw/content_display/news/media/e3i41bbbd5e87896f552892f979ef325932?imw=Y ; http://www.reuters.com/article/peopleNews/idUSTRE57C07920090813 . If you do a google search for "Glenn Beck Obama Racist" there are approximately 1 million results. As I said, it's a top story on Digg.com which, if you are not aware of, is extremely popular (#127 in the world according to Alexa.com). Are we starting to get the picture? This is a big deal and should be treated as such. Patriot Missile33 (talk) 17:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it is newsworthy, but it is not noteworthy. It will fade over time. Wikipedia is not a news service. and we cannot add titillating facts just because they are currently making headlines. Bytebear (talk) 20:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I understand that you have the opinion that people will forget about the "Obama is a Racist" comment and the related chain of events, over time. I, and others here, do not agree with you. I would like to remind you to assume good faith, and realize that we are simply trying to add information about this controversy in a WP:NPOV way. You can claim that we just want "titillating facts just because they are currently making headlines", and I can claim that you are aggressively protecting this page from anything (including notable WP:NPOV information) that might potentially be damaging to Beck, but that doesn't get us anywhere.MichaelLNorth (talk) 20:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
That's your opinion, Bytebear, and you're welcome to it. However, since you seem to be the only one (or at least, one of the very few) who opposes including this in the article, it seems to me like we've got a clear consensus to include. And since we have legitimate sources and there's no reason it can't be included in an NPOV manner, there's nothing in policy that would require ignoring the consensus. — Red XIV (talk) 22:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
By my count I have at least four other editors who agree with me. How many other commentators believe Obamas statements were racist in nature? I think that is a fairly common conclusion by a lot of people. It is certainly not unique to Beck. And it isn't notable to Beck. Please carefully read WP:BLP carefully. It's not enough that you can prove a fact. No one is disagreeing that Beck said what he said. You have to prove with significant reliable third party sources that this issue defines Beck's notability. I say it does not. You say it does. I have not seen any references that even come close to convincing me. They are either primary sources, or blogs. The few reliable sources that do mention the issue are general articles about Becks persona and on air personality. And I cannot imagine this issue lasting more than a few weeks, let alone forever. Beck will never be described as "the radio personality who called Obama a racist." That is just not a defining attribute of the man, no matter how offended you may personally be by the accusation. Bytebear (talk) 00:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
This is not a page about Obama, it's a page about Glenn Beck. We are not having a partisan battle here, we are trying to complete a wikipedia page that is lacking in critical information. "Fairly common conclusions" do not qualify as good wikipedia content, unless they are supported by proper sources. Your "I have not seen any references that even come close to convincing me" statement is indicative that this is really turning into edit warring. It is also concerning that you have chosen to remove all information relating to this controversy (saying that it is WP:NPOV) instead of editing it so that it is properly neutral. To be clear, NPOV is not subjective, whether Bytebear feels like this is probably notable enough to include is certainly subjective. Here are some sources that are not blogs: http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheat-sheet/item/glenn-beck-loses-advertisers/backlash/ , http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/fnc/glenn_becks_racist_comment_sends_advertisers_elsewhere_123710.asp , http://www.flcourier.com/news/2009-08-14/National_News/Beck_Show_loses_advertisers_over_Obama_racist_rema.html , http://www.reuters.com/article/peopleNews/idUSTRE57C07920090813 , http://www.seattlepi.com/tvguide/409258_tvgif13.html , http://www.outcomebuffalo.com/beck-pulls-813-2009813001.htm , http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2009/08/13/beck_townhalls/ , http://www.mediabistro.com/agencyspy/people/the_gecko_waves_goodbye_to_glenn_beck_124272.asp , http://www.afro.com/tabId/551/itemId/4410/Beck-Loses-Advertisers-After-Calling-Obama-a-Racis.aspx , http://www.fcnp.com/commentary/national/4866-glen-becks-blatant-racism.html , http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=111585 MichaelLNorth (talk) 00:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
By the way, I have no problem with the content that was recently added. It was a good start, although it needs a lot of NPOV polishing. The problem is, it's in the wrong article. It needs to be in the Glenn Beck (TV program) article. Bytebear (talk) 00:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I already addressed this, and like you, I dislike having to repeat myself. The notable incident occurred on Fox and Friends, not on his TV show. The various companies that pulled their advertisements are only a reaction to the notable incident, not the notable incident its self. This has nothing to do with the Glenn Beck TV show, other than these companies have chosen to no longer associate themselves with Beck by having ads during a show that he hosts. MichaelLNorth (talk) 00:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Regardless of where he made the comment, the protests are directed toward his show, and that is where the focus of this event should be. It also alleviates the issues with WP:BLP which have much stricter restrictions than does the show article.Bytebear (talk) 02:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Once again, it is protest directed at him, in the form of no longer wanting their advertisements being shown during his show. This is not a boycott for political cause, it's the companies' desire to no longer have potential customers associate them with Beck. The notable event is the controversial quote, not the repercussions. The content belongs here, and WP:BLP only dictates that it be well-sourced and not libel. MichaelLNorth (talk) 02:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I completely disagree, if the story becomes notable, it is usually just as much from the reaction as what was said. I think (as I said below) that the section given isn't the right one, and that it belongs in a seperate criticism, or on the show page. Soxwon (talk) 02:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Am I to understand that your position is that the blurb should be about a withdrawal of advertising that just happened to be about some incendiary comment he made? To me, it seems that the real notable event is the cause, not the effect. It is sounding as if we will have to move forward with some more official dispute resolution processes. MichaelLNorth (talk) 13:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
No, but it was covered because of the boycott, hence why that part should be covered. The comment should be mentioned of course, but the fact that the thing was only news b/c of the boycotts, means it's more show related than bio. Soxwon (talk) 16:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Wrong section

After looking over this incident, it is indeed noteworthy for inclusion, but I disagree on the section placement. It doesn't give the reader any more idea of what his program is about, but just gives details on one isolate incident. Unless you can prove that this is a common occurence or defining theme, I think it should be moved to the section on his show, or to the show's page. Soxwon (talk) 02:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Moving forward - Keith Ellison and the Arab community

I believe the Keith Ellison incident (which is sourced by the NYT, Time and the Washington Post in a few sections above this) is most notable for drawing explicit condemnation from the Arab Institute (and other arab organizations) and the efforts of it and thousands of its members to prevent ABC from hiring Glenn Beck. The Arab Institute is the face of a significant minority, there are an estimated 3.5 million Arabs living in the USA. This organized response indicates that these statements attracted more than "secondary mentions" or were "forgotten quickly"

Please review these sources:

http://www.aaiusa.org/aai-bulletin/2743/glenn-beck-update-pelosi-appoints-arab-american

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/features/20070126-0548-tv-beck-arabs.html (the Union Tribune, a newspaper published in San Deigo)

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/1/25/212919.shtml?s=rss (Article copyrighted by the AP)

http://www.mpac.org/article.php?id=470 (Muslim community)

http://www.adc.org/PDF/hcr07.pdf (PDF report by the Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Council, mentions the incident)

http://www.cjr.org/politics/muslimamerican_groups_protest.php (Columbia Journalism Review)

The inclusion of this can be presented in NPOV way. It should be included that Ellison saying that he wasn't offended, and that Glenn Becks lamented the question's "poorly-worded" nature.

Please discuss. Novalord2 20:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is a place to start, taken from a past edit and modified slightly. As above, feel free to strike and add as needed. Morphh (talk) 20:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Beck's penchant for quick wit style of expressing his candid opinions have helped make his shows successful,[7] but have also resulted in protest controversy. On November 14, 2006, Beck asked then-newly-elected Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress to "prove to me that you are not working with our enemies" and saying "And I know you're not. I'm not accusing you of being an enemy, but that's the way I feel".[8] Beck later regretted the question saying it was "quite possibly the poorest-worded question of all time" and joked about his "lack of intelligence".[9] While Ellison stated he was not offended by the question, it later spurred several Arab-American organizations,[10] such as the Arab Institute and the Muslim Public Affairs Council,[11][12] to publicly protest Beck's hiring as a commentator by Good Morning America, accusing Beck of "anti-Muslim and anti-Arab prejudice".[13]

I had not added the sources above yet, so feel free. -- Morphh
I expect we should summarize a small bit from Beck's response. "My message is clear: Islam is a peaceful religion for over 90 percent of the world's Muslims," he said. "I have urged viewers repeatedly to understand this, while asking all of the proud, peaceful Muslims here in America to take a more visible role in our fight against those who make a mockery of the Quran. I also make airtime available, at any time, to any Muslim organization to help reinforce this realistic, peaceful view of Islam." Morphh (talk) 21:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Here's my problem with this paragraph. The statement, "Beck's penchant for speaking his opinions candidly has spurred controversy" is POV and OR. Who says so? Do we have a reilable third party source calling his comments controversial? Other than the criticism by the Arab League (which is a first party source), do we have any specific third party source that has specifically targeted this incident as controversial? Or do we just have an overview of his on air persona with various examples both positive and negative. If anything, you should say, "News source XYZ has cited example ABC as controversial". You see, no incident is controversial until someone says so, and you need to apply NPOV to who is making the claim, but not directly, but through the report of a third party. I don't see that happening in any of these references. They either talk about incidents involving the show, or they are talking about his persona on the show. And, again, this is a news item which will fade over time. It is a poor argument that this or even the Obama comment will be the lasting image of Glenn Beck. It simply isn't true. Bytebear (talk) 21:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I made some changes. "Penchant for" has an unnecessarily positive connotation. I believe the Arab groups deserve to be mentioned by name, and for clarity's sake, to address what exactly is being criticized by the Arab groups. "anti-arab prejudice". GB's rebuttal may be added after the last sentence for NPOV. Novalord2 21:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Bytebear, we have SEVEN sources noting the controversy caused by the incident, several of which ask for a boycott SPECIFICALLY because of the incident. You can't be serious. Novalord2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Novalord2 (talkcontribs) 21:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Repeating myself again. 1) The boycotts are relivant to the show, 2) the boycotts are primary sources, not secondary ones. I can call for a boycott of Swiss cheese, but until a substantial amount of media attention by neutral parties pick up on my boycott, the issue is not noteworthy to the Swiss cheese article. 3) Wikipedia is not a news source. This issue did make some news, but it is a blip, as much as Beck's past criticism of Michael Moore. It is not what Beck is noteworthy for. This incident is just that, an incident, and one where even the opposing party says it was no big deal. Bytebear (talk) 22:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Here is another example of POV. I could be requesting that the article say Beck believes that "Islam is a peaceful religion" per the San Diego source. But the fact is, Becks opinions of Islam, good or bad are not what Beck is known for. It's irrelevant to the article. I hope this helps you understand why I am fighting to keep this POV out of the article. Bytebear (talk) 22:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
1) The show isn't talking, he is and it is HIS opinions. 2) The Associated Press article documenting the boycotts is a reliable third party source. 3) Documenting the most famous controversy of his does not make this article a tabloid or a new source. And indeed, the Arab community finds Beck's comments "not a big deal" despite the six sources that I just posted above. The attention drawn to him by the incident is palatable, it does deserve a mention. Just a simple, NPOV mention, is all ive been trying to include in the aritcle. Wikipedia does not discourage Criticism or Reception. Wikipedia does not discourage Criticism, as said above. {Novalord2} 22:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Deciding what the "most famous controversy" is subjective. What makes this incident more weighted than his previous "controversies?" It certainly isn't a proliferation of sources. They are short lived. They were news, but are not any more. They may be "palatable" to you, but, again, that is your perspective. To Michael Moore fans, I am sure they have different issues they would like to see highlighted. If I do a Google search on "Glenn Beck" I get the Glenn Beck Program, then Glenn Beck Radio, then FoxNews.com, then some videos of Beck, talking about National Debt, Ron Paul. Then I get some news articles, on GM, Health Care, and Mike Malloy. Then I get his Twitter site, and then his book Common Sense. So, what do you think his most prolific attributes are? This single incident? Hardly. There are as many sources talking about Beck's comments on GM (350k vs 47k google results - News gives 25 articles on Beck and GM vs. 2 on Ellison), and yet, you declare that this is his "most famous controversy." I really don't see it, other than to add "titillating" content. Bytebear (talk) 22:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
It's seems obvious to me that you're not so much "fighting to keep this POV out of the article" as fighting to keep anything potentially negative about Beck (no matter how clearly notable and well-sourced) out of the article. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 07:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
No, I am keeping things in context. Beck has BY FAR more articles about his comments about GM than about any of these incidents, and yet, you seem to think that this is more noteworthy. I have not seen any evidence presented that corroborates that conclusion. The only argument that I have seen is WP:ILIKEIT. Prove to me that these issues out shadow all the other things Beck discusses on his show, and I will change my position. Bytebear (talk) 15:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Can we vote on this or something? If Bytebear is the ONLY one objecting to this, these criticism should be included in the article despite his objections. A single person's opinion should not stop larger consensus and the inclusion of content to this article. This argument is going nowhere, and hasn't for weeks. We could also request the insight of more experienced Wikipedians or a moderator/administrator of some sort. novalord2 09:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

  • I also object to some of these so-called "controversies". Niteshift36 (talk) 09:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Even though I'm helping write them, I'm also very hesitant on including them. They're too detailed for my taste. I'd would rather not get into any details or specific incidents. I think it would be best to just describe the persona, criticism, and controversial nature in general, rather than any specific event. Morphh (talk) 13:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
      • This would be fine with me. This should not be a page for smearing Beck, but reading the page should give you an accurate idea of what he's about. Since he is a political commentator, a critical part of this is how he is received by his audience and critics. MichaelLNorth (talk) 20:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
  • "Beck's quick wit and candid opinions have helped make his shows successful,<ref>{{cite web|url=[http://www.glennbeck.com/content/program/about/ http://www.glennbeck.com/content/program/about/]|publisher=Premiere Radio Networks|accessdate=2009-07-13}}</ref>". Can we get a better source for this than Beck's own website? Fences&Windows 22:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't know what you are trying to show with this source, but it is self published, so can only be presented as such. Also, the source is about the show, not the man. It's also borderline plagiarism. Adding one line of "praise" is not balance, and it is not NPOV. Bytebear (talk) 00:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I updated the source to one from Reuters. What I was trying to do with the sentence was set the stage (tie it into his media persona and aspects of notability) for the criticism. Leading in that this aspect of his media persona has been both positive and negative for him, then going into an example. As far as NPOV, it appears both positions are fairly represented. Several of the statements are neutral, some Beck's pov, and some criticism. Overall, I think it may be undue weight for the story, but I think it needs that much content to be represented fairly if it is going to be represented. Morphh (talk) 0:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I think it was a good start toward NPOV. But the section is about boycotts of the program. As such, the content is in the wrong article. I have no problem with you adding it to his show article. But it doesn't belong here. Bytebear (talk) 00:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
There was never a call to boycott the Glenn Beck show, only to stop HIM from getting hired by ABC. Thats why it is about him specifically, even if the statement was made on the GB show. Novalord2 (talk 00:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
My apologies. I got my "controversies" mixed up. With this issue, I have seen no third party coverage of the boycott other than blogs. It certainly doesn't warrant more weight than other things reported on Beck. This is clearly just not a notable event to Beck. It is covered fairly NPOV in the Ellison article, although some of the sources are questionable. Bytebear (talk) 02:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Ok, but this section of the talk page is for the Ellison incident. We have more than sufficient third party sources for it. Novalord2 03:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
It's not a matter of verifiability. It's a matter of noteworthy status. As I said, I am fine with it being covered in appropriate articles. Bytebear (talk) 03:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Your opinion of whether it is noteworthy is in fact injecting your WP:POV that it is not noteworthy. If we held everything currently on his page to the same requirement of notability that you're looking for, we would have to erase virtually the whole thing (i.e., why is it notable that he is a member of the LDS church? Where has this been reported on by third party sources? Why is the 9/12 project notable?). MichaelLNorth (talk) 13:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Making a Mockery of Assuming Good Faith

So here we are, many pages and pages of discussion, with one guy using his personal opinion to keep this article scrubbed of anything that sounds negative. This has got to be booted to a higher level. Nothing is getting done here, there is consensus except for one guy who's excessive ability to devote time to this article gets to set the truth. This needs to be given to someone(s) IMPARTIAL to make a judgment. Not even the soviets were this good at scrubbing history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.223.53 (talk) 06:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I was also a little annoyed by the apparent scrub effort. Thank God we can edit the page too! Which I did. How do we kick this to a higher level if that is what is required? Patriot Missile33 (talk) 11:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

How do we kick this to a higher level indeed? This is a pure mockery of assuming good faith. Amebos (talk) 12:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

RfC regarding notability of controversies

The issues have been discussed ad nauseam on the talk page, with no consensus reached regarding the notability of certain controversies regarding Glenn Beck. Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 14:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

    • Most of the more constructive discussion has occurred in the talk page sections "Moving forward" and "Moving forward - Keith Ellison and the Arab community". Please review them for an idea of what is being proposed and to see the drafts of the proposed content. (this isn't directed at you) novalord2 —Preceding undated comment added 19:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC).
  • Include, but not in detail. Beck's polarizing and controversial nature is very notable, but the details of most of the controversies surrounding him are not. The "Obama is a racist" comment, and the withdrawal of advertisers in response are certainly worth mentioning specifically, but not in their own section. MichaelLNorth (talk) 19:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Put in show article The RS's centered around the boycott of Beck's show. They should go there appropriately. Soxwon (talk) 20:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Create a Reception section, include both in some detail I think the criticisms are appropriate for his article because the boycotts/protests are directed at him and his views. Glenn Beck is not notable enough outside of his show and commentaries to warrant a major incident in his show being excluded from his person. novalord2 21:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Bestselling books and a seperate radio show? I think that it would go better in the television article, as it chronicles a very important event and the RS's center around him losing advertisers. The other half of this is that it's so hot off of the presses, we haven't given a chance for the dust to settle (or even see that it will settle). It might help to give this a week to wait and see what further developments (if any) occur. Soxwon (talk) 22:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I understand he has best-selling books and a radio show, but even still, Im fairly sure most of his fame comes from the show, and i still dont think he is at such a famous level with such a long resume list that incidents like these don't impact him directly. novalord2 00:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Have you even read the article novalord? Beck was an author and had a radio show before the TV show. Those are what got him the TV show. His radio show was nationally syndicated in 2002. His first book was published in 2003. He didn't get his first TV show until 2006. How can you say his fame comes from the TV show? The #3 radio talk show in the country with over 8 million weekly listeners would indicate something pretty substantial. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I just did a quick google search, Beck averages 2 million viewers each night. It is safe to say that he is best known for his show. novalord2 08:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
  • It's not safe to say that. If he wasn't already notable and popular, he wouldn't have that show. He was a proven commodity before anyone gave him a TV show. Your splitting hairs at this point. Many notable hosts in the talk industry that you've heard of (Imus, Liddy, Prager) don't even get 2 million listeners a week. There are only 3 that get over 6 million a week. And do you really think that even half of the viewers don't listen to him at all on the radio? You do know that people can both listen to him on the radio and watch him on TV, don't you? I suspect that you hadn't heard of him before he went on TV, so you just presume that is the case for everyone.Niteshift36 (talk) 11:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Aye, but are sponsors dropping his show more relevant to him or to the show itself? Soxwon (talk) 00:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
The comments in question were made by Beck when a guest on Fox and Friends and sponsorship was consequently pulled from his show. Events have centered around Beck the individual; advertising was pulled from The Glenn Beck Programme because it was fronted by Glenn Beck, nothing about the show which wasn't Glenn Beck related caused the sponsors to backtrack. It would misrepresent the facts to suggest that this is about his programme and not about him.--85.189.35.71 (talk) 02:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
You don't think he was acting as a persona when interviewed on the same network as his own show. This incident isn't like Mel Gibson's drunken tirades. Beck was acting as a media personality, and as a representative of his show. Bytebear (talk) 16:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
What do you have to support that theory? Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 16:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
It's the same thing he said on his show earlier that week, except he explained his position and why he came to that conclusion. So he placed a context around the remarks. Morphh (talk) 16:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't know, I think there's something in what Bytebear says. Kinda a "Rush Limbaugh effect," and capturing that core demographic. Soxwon (talk) 16:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Then note what he claims, but that can't be taken as truth with no verifications from someone who would be more neutral and removed from the incident. Unless you can find multiple instances of neutral parties related to the incident that agree with his claimed defense and that he was acting under a fake persona, not his actual self, then it should be in this article, not his show's. Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 17:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
That's a double edged sword. You would have to do the same for your point. Bytebear (talk) 17:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
What do you mean "my point"? All I said that as long as there isn't any reasonable evidence presented to suggest that he was acting under a fake persona, it should be included in his own article. If any is, it should still be included, but under the article of his show. Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 19:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Its argued above that the bit about Glenn Beck calling Obama racist should be excluded because (a) it doesn't "define his notability" and (b) because lots of people think Obama is racist. Since the second reason is offensive and ridiculous, I'll ignore it and focus on the first. The assertion that his comment doesn't define his notability is entirely correct, but just as entirely irrelevant. There is a great deal in the article already that doesn't define his notability, and it all stays because that isn't the standard for inclusion (in any article, BLP or otherwise). If its significant to his life, significant to his image and information that readers are likely to come to Wikipedia to find, then it belongs in the article. This controversy is the subject of a New York Times article published today, which describes the reaction to his comments and its impact on Fox and his show (seen here). As linked above, there are many other articles from news organizations that demonstrate the significance of this event. There hasn't been a strong argument made above for its exclusion, and before its removed again I'd like to see some arguments that are reasonable and don't misconstrue the requirements of policy. Nathan T 01:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
As I said above, I think it should go in the show articles, or at the very least in a more appropriate section of the bio. I think it's noteworthy, but badly misplaced where it is. Soxwon (talk) 01:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I am inclined to agree to an extent. The emphasis of this is article is on events surrounding Glenn Beck the man, but they have clearly impacted the Glenn Beck Programme in a very significant manner as well. It should be discussed with appropriate focus in each of the two articles. --85.189.35.71 (talk) 02:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Include here. Beck has made comments on his show, in his books, in public speeches and interview, all of which have received media attention. Regrettably, I came to this article through WP:AN today, after a Reddit link criticizing this article was posted. The comments there were adamant that our page is biased, and having looked at the page, there's not a single negative statement anywhere. I don't mean 'Beck is a poo head' negative, I mean, not one bit of this article implies or states and fault in the man. By this article's current views, Beck should be made the first holy saint of the USA. Having slogged through about 2/3 of this talk page, then giving up because it got predictable, I can see that any single item is 'non-noteworthy', no matter the volume of coverage, under something of a RECENTISM argument, and any body of his statements and criticism is disallowed as either advancing a POV that Glenn Beck has said controversial things, UNDUE weight to include chronologically throughout the article Beck's attention-getting stupidly said things, or a STRUCTURE violation to allow a section of his stupid things. All of these opposition arguments are brought up over and over by about three or four editors, against what looks to be approaching, if not exceeding, two dozen others. Seems that a consensus for inclusion on merit-holding arguments was reached long ago, but because these few editors are adept at splintering things off over and over, each proposal has one or two editors for, and the same three or four against, painting any one section as an 'anti-inclusion consensus', when the whole talk page demonstrates a pro-inclusion consensus'. The bias in this article is palpable. ThuranX (talk) 14:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
To me this all smacks of recentism. In 5 years Beck and all of his controversy will be as relevant as Zoë Baird or Fawn Hall. There seems to be way too much tit-for-tat edit warring going on which does not (to me anyway) seem conducive to crafting a quality encyclopedia. Perhaps it would be best if the ideologues on both the right and left stayed away from the wiki entirely if they are unable to check their particular POV at the door. L0b0t (talk) 15:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
You're confusing RECENTISM with relevance in an extreme manner. To report on whatever the comment of the week is in depth would be recentism; to NOT report on his theatrically absurd objections to Obama, as a man and a president, at all in the name of preventing RECENTISM is to deny that for the next three and a half years, his criticisms of Obama, and the way in which he criticizes, are relevant as well. ThuranX (talk) 18:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. Relevance, Glen Beck is irrelevant and will be remembered by very few people in the future. Why are we making a mountain out this molehill? C'mon, we're talking about a television comic who couldn't even finish an undergraduate degree. So, yes, I deny that his criticisms of the president and certainly the inarticulate, jingoistic, pseudo-populist way in which he criticizes is relevant. L0b0t (talk) 19:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
  • He "couldn't finish college", yet 6 million people a week listen to his radio program, 2 million a day watch him on TV and he's a best selling author. Not bad for a college drop-out. How many people a week listen to your opinion? My sarcasm isn't a personal attack. It's just there to illustrate the absurdity of your rant. You can use all the negative adjectives you want, but millions of people do find his opinion interesting and relevant, even if you don't. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Just because you don't like him doesn't mean that he isn't an at least somewhat influential person who is notable. He's a long-time media personality who gets a fair bit of attention. An aggregate of his opinions, controversies, etc. should definitely be included. I'm pretty sure you're the only one here questioning that. Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 19:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Settle down folks (mmmm...Men at Work). So roughly 2% of the US (0.001% worldwide) hear him on the radio, 0.007% of the US (0.0003% worldwide) sees him on the telly-box and he moves a lot of books (although, frankly, any author Oprah mentions on-air becomes a best seller). In my view, that speaks more to notability than relevance. However, "a long-time media personality" he is not. Compare Beck's 9 years of bloviation with Larry King's 52 years or Andy Rooney's 67; Meet The Press has been on the air weekly since 1947. On the other hand King's article makes mention of controversy and Rooney's is dangerously close to character assassination. Look I'm not arguing against Beck's inclusion, or even the fact that he has both ardent proponents and opponents. What I do think is that some are putting an awful lot of energy and emotion into arguing over an article that in the larger wiki as a whole (and certainly in long view of history) is rather inconsequential. It's not like this is the Barack Obama article; it's the article about a young man who is paid to nay-say our Party Chairman of the Supreme Soviet President. So, find the 2 or 3 gaffes Beck made that caused the biggest stink (most mentions in reliable sources), put 'em in the article and call it done. L0b0t (talk) 00:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to know where you got those statistics, because, as I have been informed, 70.6% of all statistics are made up on the spot, and those don't seem particularly accurate considering Fox News is the most-watched of the big three news stations in the U.S., with pretty much everyone I've ever met that's over the age of 15 knowing who Glenn Beck is. Also, picking the major controversies is what we're trying to do...with, for example, this discussion. Your time argument to make this all seem less notable really doesn't work considering those are a very few select commentators that have been around since early television. Beck's 9 years is pretty considerable in the scheme of things as they stand right now. If you really want to try to pull the time argument, then none of these television personalities are notable, along with 99% of actors, politicians, etc. Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 00:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
The statistics were from Niteshift36's above post of 6 million weekly listeners and 2 million weekly viewers divided by estimates (very rough estimates) of a US pop. of 300 million and world pop. of 6 billion. As for your friends being aware of modern, pop-culture figures... well, you & I probably live in rather different parts of the world and likely have disparate tastes in entertainment; that's the sort of diversity that IMHO makes us richer as a people. Again, I'm not arguing against Beck's notability just his long term relevance, he's no Josephus or Samuel Clemens or even a Walter Winchell or Charles Kuralt. Also, in my opinion, editors shouldn't work themselves into a lather over something as trivial as the amount of criticism in this article. Have a spot of tea and some nice cake, add the most notable Beck gaffes and let's move on. L0b0t (talk) 01:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I never said my friends, nor did I say that they were interested in following Glenn Beck for entertainment (not that it's really relevant, but I almost count that as an insult, and I don't want any misunderstandings regarding this, even to a complete stranger :P). I'm a U.S. citizen and Beck is a commentator for a U.S. broadcaster, so my point was simply that he is well-known in all parts of the country that I've ever lived in for any period of time, as far as I can tell. I do not doubt that 50 years from now he will be just another face in the crowd, but to keep his article downsized when plenty of notable information is available is really just an unnecessary precaution for some kind of prevention of Wikipedia becoming monstrously large in the distant future or something. These things are plenty relevant to the Glenn Beck article since they're some of his more notable controversial acts, and thus to the current U.S. population, and anyone else that cares about American news media. I'm sure that if Wikipedia survives for a century or two, there will be future generations adding plenty of things that will only be relevant to people of a 20 or 30 year span, but it's still notable enough to meet Wikipedia guidelines. As far as the "getting lathered up" bit goes, any frustration is all just over matters of principle (or at least for me). Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 02:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Yet again, you're being ridiculous in your estimations of the timespan required for proper consideration. It would be recentism if we could be sure Glenn Beck was forgotten in six months. Your argument is that in 100 years we will forget him. Probably true, but this encyclopedia is written for people here and now. Beck's commentary and bombastic style have been discussed, by diverse reliable sources, as citations linked here in this and other sections demonstrates, for months on end, and some into last year and earlier. His character in this regard being well established, it should be reflected here. To argue that eventually we'll forget him is to ignore the here and now of Wikipedia for an absurdly long view that precludes almost all our BLPs, in favor of a 'wait till they're dead to prove they are important enough' atitude which is thoroughly unrealistic. ThuranX (talk) 03:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
It would appear that you misunderstand me. Again, I am not arguing against the notability or inclusion of Beck and his works. Rather, I'm positing that his lack of long term relevance precludes, in my opinion, the need for so much partisan bickering. Consider it a call for more congeniality & common sense; we don't want a puff piece nor do we want an attack page. Valid, reliably sourced criticism has to be included; all the other commentator's (Is that what this fellow does?) articles have criticism, just look at Andy Rooney. L0b0t (talk) 03:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Amazing. I thought you were exaggerating, but then I read the article. I can understand that we don't want a bullet point list of every mini-controversy and ridiculous statement he makes, but this article has gone too far in the other direction. It accomplishes the herculean task of making Beck look like a reasonable guy, and from reading it you'd never know that a large percentage of people consider him a mentally unstable charlatan. Our policies protect articles from becoming hatchet jobs, and rightfully so, but a sanitized article is just as much in violation of NPOV as a hatchet job. So I've tagged it and I'll try to help beef this thing up in the next couple weeks. Big job, I think. Gamaliel (talk) 14:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I think everyone agrees that the controversial content should be included in Wikipedia. I think the main issue is where is the best place for it. Beck has several articles. If we put the content on the show articles, to what degree to we summarize it here. Unfortunately, there has been a lot more complaining and accusations than actual productive discussion about the article. So hopefully that will change with some additional participants. Morphh (talk) 15:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

There needs to be some mention of controversy here; otherwise we're not coming even remotely close to a neutral presentation. If there had been an issue with including too much, then include less, not zero. As far as the show versus here, I don't really see a lot of merit to putting material somewhere but here. The point seems to be to pick an article that's less trafficked so as to create a biography that's more favorable toward the subject. That really isn't appropriate. Croctotheface (talk) 03:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

So an incident that occurred on his show, and the resulting of his show are not or less relevant to his show how? Soxwon (talk) 03:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Please pick a spot to discuss

Can we focus the discussion in either the RFC or the compromise section below so we're not bouncing all over the place with the same discussion? Soxwon (talk) 00:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. It's kind of hard to follow. Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 00:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Attempt at compromise

I've tried to digest all the comments here and hopefully put forward a compromise inclusion (linked in case it is reverted). As suggested by Soxwon, ByteBear, Nightshift, etc, I moved the detailed commentary of the controversial incidence to a "Reception" section on the appropriate Raido and TV show articles. But as recommended by others, I then included the criticism to at least identify the key areas of controversy covered in this talk page; to include, the protests, boycotts, racist comment, Muslim outrage, crying on air, and covering conspiracy theories. The information is greatly summarized and includes sources to what I thought to be the most reliable sources. I then added the Further tag right after this to direct people to the articles that cover the controversy content in more detail. Hope this is something we can all live with. Morphh (talk) 14:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong. I would, however, like to see other items that could justify, not a criticism section per se, but a more thorough idea of what ppl keep bringing up as being offensive and noteworthy. Soxwon (talk) 14:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I think it is written well and in an appropriate manner novalord2 21:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Ugh, what a mess. I tried to add some context, but it is so POV, that it is ridiculous. You can't just say, "Beck called Obama a racist." That is POV. And that wasn't covered in a particularly noteworthy way. The boycotts are covered far more, and have given the story some life, but that's why it's more important to the show article, and not to his personal article. And now the article is filled with context that isn't really relevant to Beck's notoriety, and in a few months will be forgotten. Bytebear (talk) 22:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
The very plain fact that you are questioning is as NPOV as any statement can possibly be. You seem to be the only one who doubts at this point that this information is relevant to the article. On that note, I think the piece is written very nicely and am thankful for your attention to this article, Morphh. Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 23:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
That's simply not true. There are several editors who agree with me. Bytebear (talk) 00:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
It very simply is, and no there aren't, not that any such thing is even remotely relevant. At this point, it's becoming very clear that you've been very set on keeping as much criticism of Beck out of the article from the beginning, and that are you are not willing to meet reason or any compromise. Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 00:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Came here from a thread at WP:AN. I'm disappointed in how any kind of criticism has been euthanised by putting Beck first - such as removing the word racist from the Obama quote, and by sandwiching the Ellison critics between Beck's excuses after he was called out on it - yet still failing to highlight what the controversial questions actually were. - hahnchen 23:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you serious? You think no context should be given? That criticism should just be put out without knowing why or how it came about? Seriously? Read WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. Thinking it over, I will cut you some slack. it is strucutred that way, because it was just a list of critical events, with an attempt to give it some context, but as I said, it is a mess. Bytebear (talk) 00:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
You must not understand English well, because he didn't say any of that. He only said that he wants more of the specifics regarding the criticisms already included, i.e. the stories behind them. He is calling for the exact opposite of what you think. Also, please stop linking to WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. You've done it in several of your posts, so I'm pretty sure that if anyone wasn't already familiar with them, which they should be if they're discussing this on the talk page with us, then they should be at this point. If you want to reference anything regarding BLP and NPOV, then link to a specific section or quote it, as doing otherwise is pretty useless. I'm pretty sure that we're all experienced editors here for the most part. Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 00:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I do have some issues with some of the additional information added - it now presents the criticism in some detail, but lacks Beck's position. I'm going to try this again. I'll try to re-summarize it including a little more content from both sides. Please keep in mind that adding additional material from one side will likely result in additional material from the other. We need to keep this as a brief summary, otherwise I think we'll degrade back into the battle. I am attempting to cover it in a short, neutral way, and direct them to the detailed content. Please consider this version. Morphh (talk) 4:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I have made a request for clarification of the comment made to Ellison. Without showing what was said, specifically, it becomes an attack on Beck. A reader can easily dismiss the current format as 'oh, i'm sure some liberal just hates Beck, they can't even quote what he said, so they're making it up or it's not really all that bad.' That quote needs to be in there to give the context that Bytebear demands. ThuranX (talk) 04:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The absurdity of Beck's comments may make them seem like they were taken out of context, but no, he actually said that. We did originally have the full quote included alongside Beck's apology and Ellison's response that he wasn't offended, but several editors here objected to discussing the incident in detail. The transcript has been posted in the talk page, or can be easily found via google. novalord2 05:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
It's covered quite well in the Ellison article. Bytebear (talk) 07:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I added the quote as a footnote and then added a wikilink to "poorly worded question" that links to the coverage in the Kieth Ellison article. Morphh (talk) 11:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
That's insane! "You can go google it" is the response of Wikipedia editors? That's not the goal here. The quote belongs here. As to the 'It's at Ellison's page', Why should an incident provoked by Beck not be on his page as well? Leaving it only on the victim's page and not the offender's? The whitewashing of this page by a tiny number of rabidly biased editors grows more transparent daily. ThuranX (talk) 14:31, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I worry that if we add the quote, then it might require us to also quote Beck's response for POV. My concern is that all that would then require additional context, digression, next you have an entire paragraph or two on the exchange and undue weight and notability issues. That would then lead to, as it always does on these types of articles, an area for trolls to add a paragraph for each new criticism of the day. I think we need to keep it short, sweet, and relevant to his notability and I don't see that having the quote in here is particularly important. The references are there if people want to learn more about the incident and what was exactly said. It's enough that we cover the controversial exchange and the protest. I think the details of what was said is fairly unimportant in his biography and it makes the section a bit long. Morphh (talk) 16:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
ThuranX, there is too much weight given in entire quote for Keith Ellison. If we include all this, than we have to include Beck's pov and response. "My message is clear: Islam is a peaceful religion for over 90 percent of the world's Muslims," he said. "I have urged viewers repeatedly to understand this, while asking all of the proud, peaceful Muslims here in America to take a more visible role in our fight against those who make a mockery of the Quran. I also make airtime available, at any time, to any Muslim organization to help reinforce this realistic, peaceful view of Islam." Again, this is just too much detail for this particular incident. There is no need to get into the particular quote and response on this article. If we do include something for "more context" it doesn't have to be the entire quote. We can just take the notable parts and put it in our own wording. I'm not sure why saying '"I know you're not" but "prove to me ..."' is really any different than '"prove to me ..." and saying "And, I know you're not"'. I don't see as you stated, a "Holy whitewash! Totally falsifies the context of beck's statement that way". Please explain. I'm trying to reduce the verbage of the quote so we don't have to get into the details of it. Is the last sentence of the quote notable or relavant? I don't even think the quote should be included at all, but if we do include it, there is no good reason to include the entire thing, and several reasons to keep it summarized. In fact, the current statement changes the context. This is the correct statement. Glenn Beck interviewed Rep.-elect Keith Ellison (D-MN), who became the first Muslim ever elected to Congress on November 7, and asked Ellison if he could "have five minutes here where we're just politically incorrect and I play the cards up on the table." After Ellison agreed, Beck said: "I have been nervous about this interview with you, because what I feel like saying is, 'Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies.' " Beck added: "I'm not accusing you of being an enemy, but that's the way I feel, and I think a lot of Americans will feel that way." Not exactly how we have it portrayed. Again, I don't even think we should portray it. Just state that it happend and the protest for it. Morphh (talk) 20:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Mmm. LOvely. Right back to the no coverage at all, then. This is disgusting. You and BYtebear are committed thoroughly to protecting this article. Simply disgusting POV pushing. and you're worse for pretending to be trying to compromise. Your compromise is to take it all out because if we put it in it's too much to put in. lovely compromising there. ThuranX (talk) 01:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Wow, I try to present some reasoning for a discussion and I get a personal attack and uncivil charges. I didn't even revert the changes you made. And I did not suggest no coverage at all, nor have I argued that in the past. I said the quote only provides a misleading piece of context and doesn't really add anything to the event. I think this just falls under WP:ILIKEIT as you're arguing with emotion instead of discussing the actual merits for inclusion and how it is pertinent to his notability per WP:BLP. It seems to me that for NPOV policy, if we include it, we should include the other context as discussed above. I think no quotes are better than presenting a critical quote without providing Beck's context or explanation. To be clear, the only thing I suggested we take out is the Ellison quote. So instead of leveling insults (which is only disruptive), why don't you explain your viewpoint so we can best work to move this forward. Morphh (talk) 12:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Morphh, your efforts to make this article comply to WP:BLP are laudable. In that spirit, you insist that any fact, news, event, incident etc involving GB, to be included in the article, no matter how notable it may be itself, must also be relevant to GB's notability (verifiably). But this is not what BLP requires. BLP restricts this criterion (relevance to the subject's notability) to criticism and praise. Consider, a neutral description of something GB did or said, is neither criticism nor praise, as long as it does not judge, disprove or otherwise comment, and therefore the criterion does not apply. Furthermore, BLP demands, regarding well-known public figures: If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article - even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. Otherwise, keep up your excellent work! --Captain Blood (talk) 20:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll reread that section to make sure I fully understand it (or at least where I think I fully understand it - haha). I agree with what you're saying. The criticism and praise is a sub-specification of the general well-known public figures statement in this case. I guess the question on this is if we can include such a statement without describing the published criticism around it. I guess saying there is criticism or protest would be a neutral description as it itself is not the criticism, but the expression of the criticism (like charges of anti-Muslim prejudice) would be criticism and thus would fall under that policy - is that what you're saying? Morphh (talk) 21:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
That's indeed a good question. As I understand BLP, the criterion (relevance to the subject's notability) applies first and foremost to isolated criticism or praise. I guess a reaction to an incident, be it criticism or praise or any other notable and well documented reaction, may be mentioned, if leaving it out would make the description of the incident incomplete or unclear - if my interpretation of BLP is correct. --Captain Blood (talk) 22:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Comment on content, not contributor. Could you post a copy of how you think it should look Thuran? Soxwon (talk) 01:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
What I reverted to is fine., It shows Beck's attempts to pull back from it being a dire3ct accusation against Ellison. I'm fine with that version, which I did not write. ThuranX (talk) 01:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Your conclusion directly contradicts what both Beck and Ellison say about the "accusation." How do you propose to put that in the article, per NPOV? Bytebear (talk) 03:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
We report the FACTS. The facts are 'Beck said something stupid. ELlison dismissed it. Other groups, offended by beck's insinuations, did NOT dismiss it, and reacted. If we could actually include any of Beck's dipshit comments ,we might not have to focus on this one as much as you think we are, but since you refuse to allow ANY criticism in, we have to build it piece by piece. Stop protecting him in the biased fashion demonstrated earlier today. ThuranX (talk) 03:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Wow, and you call me POV. This is the exact thing I warned against from the beginning. Add minimally noteworthy events, and someone wants to present them as "Beck's dipshit comments." Yup, that's the right attitude! Bytebear (talk) 04:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
You ARE POV pushing. No matter the sources and citations, you opppose the inclusion of any amount of criticism of Beck. I seek a legitimate amount., I have no interest in a full catalog of every dumb thing he says ,I seek either inclusion of comprehensive reviews of Beck's faults, or the creation of a section which accomplishes the same by including multiple notable incidents for which he was criticized. He says stupid stuff. Whether it reflects his convictions or his ratings hunger, either way it happens, and it should be in here. ThuranX (talk) 04:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
A drive by comment from an uninvolved editor, who isn't going to bother saying anything beyond this: Bytebear, cut out the accusations of POV pushing. Looking through the recent page history and talk archives, as well as your own userpage, and it's apparent that of the major editors on this page it is you who has the clearest conflict of interest here. Accusations and deflections only make that more apparent. Please work collaboratively with others and discuss changes before revising them (that's general advice for everyone else too.) Also in that vein, restricting references from progressive blogs and the like is a good step towards reducing some of the issues; BLP requires high quality sources, and these web pubs are often anything but. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 15:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
what fuchs said is absolutely correct. bytebear, you should try to step away and come back with a new approach. you seem to say that you are open to including things about beck that dont make him look like a saint, BUT every time someone tries to include such info you always find a reason (not always logical) to exclude it. i know you will try to argue that each instance is different and really you are open to including things if only... (insert something miraculous), but i think the only person you are fooling is yourself. also, most of the info should be here- not on the show article. this is where people come to find out about him and to try to hide anything negative about him on a less heavily trafficked article is just that: hiding it. i understand that everything has its place, but when the man is the show it makes it difficult to try and separate the two. also, the "obama hates white people" statement was not made on his show. i have also read where someone said that the boycotts were more of a story than his statement itself and i would say that is incorrect. we can work together to make this a good article- it doesnt need to be a hatchet job or a whitewash. and it is already looking less (very slightly less) whitewashed than last time i checked. --Brendan19 (talk) 05:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Brendan19's comment is completely accurate. Beck didn't come out with his ridiculous "Obama hates white people" remark on his own show, it was on fox & friends if I'm not mistaken. So putting details regarding that on the Glenn Beck show article doesn't even make sense. And the incident where Beck "joked" about poising nancy pelosi, which was a major reason for companies boycotting his tv show, isn't even mentioned.
This article as it stands is sadly still an almost total whitewash: small stumped paragraphs, weak contents arrangement, and sentences confusingly and bizarrely worded — as well as being loaded with WP:words to avoid. This is what happens when an article is aggressively guarded by a cabal who have no intention of improving it, just making the subject look good. No wonder google ranks this wikipedia article so low. ʄ!¿talk? 08:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Quite frankly, the amount of time & effort expended by some to keep this article free of any mention of the many provocative things that the subject has uttered is baffling to me. We are, after all, discussing an article subject who's entire career consists of saying provocative things, that's what Beck does for a living. That said, the bar for inclusion for this material must be necessarily high. As Beck says provocative things for a living, WP:UNDUE precludes an exhaustive (or even a thorough) listing of his gaffes. Beck's saying things that upset left leaning viewers is no more notable than a bartender mixing a drink, a teacher instructing students, or a baker making a cake; it's all part of that person's job description. Articles about, for example, athletes don't mention every single game or every mistake in practice or play, just the major events. Again, I would urge everyone to relax, have a spot of tea, perhaps check out articles like Charles Kuralt, Walter Winchell, Hedda Hopper, Larry King, Wolf Blitzer, or the hatchet job that is Andy Rooney to see the amount of criticism in articles about those who have actually been in the business for more than 9 years (I also posit that people are dramatically exaggerating Beck's influence & we could have a great discussion about the utter inaccuracy of statistical sampling re: television/radio audience shares, not to mention the lack of correlation between viewing/listening and taking action, but that is another topic for another article.) Bytebear, at this point it might be most helpful for you to back away from the equine carcass & put down the crop you seem, in my opinion, to be editing this article with rather unfashionable eyewear and it is growing tiresome. L0b0t (talk) 15:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
The problem I have is with the lack of reliable sources. There are plenty of left leaning sources talking about these incidents. but if you look at the fairly well covered incident on the Keith Ellison article, there is only one source that is actually a third party reporting of it. [16] And it's more a commentary than actual news coverage. If this is a truly notable incident, where are the rest of the reliable sources? Where is the coverage by CNN, CBS, NYTimes? There are a few articles that talk about Beck's personality which mention the incident secondarily, not even mentioning Ellison by name. I understand that many people see this incident as crucial for inclusion, but really, is it? Now, do you really want me to get started on the accusation of pushing a conspiracy theory. That reference is just ridiculous to include. Bytebear (talk) 16:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that anything short of WDN is too far left for you, and WDN isn't a reliable source for the color of the sky. There are sources from those sites about the incident,this was the first hit I got, there were more. Clearly, you're either not looking at all or deliberately ignoring them. I venture both. You don't look and ignore those from others. I think you should heed the advice given above and move on. ThuranX (talk) 16:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I just reviewed the article, and there are more sources, although the source you link is not. It's better. The Ellison article still needs additions though. It is weak. Bytebear (talk) 16:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
That's not even a statement. The source I link is not what? It's a perfectly fucking fine source to everyone but you. It sets the premise that he's been criticized for the Ellison piece, and of course, 'it's not'. I hold this up as proof that even when Bytebear asks for the NY Times, He doesn't intend to accept anything. It's obstructionism, pure and simple - an intentional, deliberate and planned resistance to any sort of constructive progress at all. ThuranX (talk) 16:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Looks like a fine source to me. I'm also a bit confused by your statement, doesn't quite make sense... Morphh (talk) 17:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Whoa dude, calm down ThuranX! The editing process can be stressful but there's no need to be profane about it. If you look at how the page has evolved over the last couple weeks, I think you would agree there has been progress made towards including some of Beck's more notorious comments.--The lorax (talk) 17:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
What I see is that it takes six men to budge Bytebear, in the role of Sisyphus' boulder, UP the hill a nudge, and I have little faith that it will do ought but slide down quite soon, as it's already trying to do. ThuranX (talk) 18:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Bytebear, PLEASE review the section of this talk page titled "Moving forward- Keith Ellison and the Arab community". I have posted six sources about the incident there, INCLUDING coverage of the incident by the Associated Press and the Columbia Journalism Review. It has been beyond well established that there is enough reliable sources. This talk page stopped discussing sources like a week ago, and you are the only one conjuring this strawman. novalord2 20:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Novalord2 (talkcontribs)

Some may think this is a little rash, but I propose that Bytebear be restricted from editing this article if he continues his POV pushing. I'm pretty sure that no one questions his motives at this point, and his refusal to comply with Wikipedia's policies regarding NPOV is making it very difficult to edit this article properly. To be honest, I'm about to give up on this article. Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 05:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me Morph. Now that there are more than 20 companies that have requested that their advertisements not air during his show, and something on the order of a hundred non-blog news sources have reported on the issue, this is certainly more than just a passing "tantalizing controversy". Personally, I would rather not have the first hint that Beck is a controversial figure as such a seemingly minor part of the article (i.e., there's more info on his involvement with the LDS church than his career as a pundit, despite his career being MUCH more notable), but I can live with the version as of my posting this. Thanks very much for your help in coming up with a compromise. To those who wish to continue fighting over this, I will just remind you that the argument that including certain controversial information is "POV" is moot, since excluding (or continuing to exclude) that information must therefore be POV as well. What matters is notability, verifiability, presenting information from a WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, etc... This seems to be something that is missed by many here. A whitewashed article is not the absence of points of view -- it is in and of its self a point of view. MichaelLNorth (talk) 05:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

If there is sufficient agreement, I'd be fine adding some additional content if properly summarized and NPOV. I think such would be acceptable for WP:WEIGHT as you describe, but I also think there are other areas that could use attention as well and maybe we should look at it in a different way. The article has like one sentence for each NYT bestselling book, with no description or reception regarding the books (this is another place to tie in a critical comment or two). They are easily relevant to his notability, and lack of attention in these other areas can give the perception that criticism is given too much weight in relation to other content as it grows in one section. Unfortunately, most editors are not interested in the other aspects and the attention always goes to the criticism section on these types of biographies. We just need to find those aspects that we can agree are properly significant enough to be tied into his notability and place it where it best ties in to the biography. I think we could use some generic statements that he's been criticized by fellow commentators for being eccentric, emotional, etc, but not going into the detail as to who (it's in the ref - no need to list names of people like O'Reilly, Miller, Scarborough, etc - not pertinent). My concern is, and you can see it with just the recent edits in the last 24hrs, the focused section becomes a troll magnet (not calling anyone a troll, it's just the term used) for adding in good faith random criticism. That's the big issue with such sections in general, it becomes a list of criticism. The more incidents (or detail) you add, the more likely people are to say.. "well what about this one" and tack it on. The line gets less defined as what relates to his notability for the section and what is significant. That's why I think it is important to keep it very limited, relevant, and brief. I have no interest in future patrolling of this article and reverting content I (or we) deem to be unworthy. I'd like to remove it from my watch list and move on to other topics. I'm hoping that we can somehow set up a structure, watermark for notability relevance, and properly open and close the paragraphs to limit future stuffing and paragraph additions of unimportant trivia news and criticism. Probably too lofty a goal for such a politically charged character and I certainly don't want to go through another debate on what is significant, but there it is... Morphh (talk) 13:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Morph -- I understand that there is concern over the criticism/reception/whatever section becoming a POV magnet, but I stand by my opinion that potential POV magnets do not justify TOOFEWOPINIONS. A person like Beck will always be a target for vandalism and random good faith criticism, so there's no avoiding that. I'll try to find some time this evening to flesh things out a little, and to make the language of the criticism more "closed". MichaelLNorth (talk) 14:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Again, Morph. I have some wiki links that you would benefit from reading. First of all see WP:what is a troll(to see why I am not one like you suggested), then read Wikipedia:Don't call editors trolls(to see how you breached WP:goodfaith(and no a weak Glenn Beck style "I'm not saying such and such" and then going on to say exactly such and such isn't going to cut it in the real world, sorry)). The criticism I added to the article was not "random", it was very specific. Beck is largely alienated from his conservative peers in the media, yet this is totally overlooked in the article. Adding something like "Keith Olbermann is critical of Beck" would be an example of something random. You can't get away with cocooning Beck from his own outlandish remarks, and whitewashing this article to make it seem like he is just a regular joe — this is a guy who makes a living out of comparing the president of the United States to Hitler, and the article should reflect that. ʄ!¿talk? 20:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Maybe I am missing something, but where exactly were you called a troll? Bytebear (talk) 20:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Unbelievable. ʄ!¿talk? 21:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I specifically stated in my message that I did not call you a troll for the very reason that I was not referring to any specific entry but the activity with regard to what we've been working on with criticism. I don't know you or your edits enough to label you anything. Sorry if you misunderstood. I was talking about the activity and how it applies to criticism type sections (see Jimbo's quote WP:CRITS). As for cocooning, whitewashing.. give me a break. The article will follow the policies laid out in WP:BLP and reflect what reliable 3rd party sources state, not the criticism of the tiny minority. Like I stated above, I think it's fine to include that he is criticized, I just think it's undue weight to list each person that does so unless it's significant (like we did with the ones above). Morphh (talk) 21:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

If you honestly think that only a "tiny minority" are critical of Beck, you are quite literally living in a fantasy world. And this article is never going to be balanced if the two editors who are insisting on guarding the article have the idea that the highest form of wit is to play dumb. ʄ!¿talk? 21:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I think Morph's point was that regardless of how many people are critical of Beck, we must still use third party reliable sources that report on that criticism. As to your other comments, please review WP:AGF. Bytebear (talk) 21:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Who said that a tiny minority are critical of Beck? Stop twisting my words. I stated how policy states the article is to be written, which is not based on making sure this article reflects "a guy who makes a living out of comparing the president of the United States to Hitler". Morphh (talk) 21:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Well Hitler one day then Stalin the next. This is a complete joke, I'm done with this article. ʄ!¿talk? 21:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh, how I love Godwin's Law. Bytebear (talk) 21:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Well that explains your interest in Glenn Beck, seeing as he invokes Godwin's law on an almost daily basis on his show(sorry, I couldn't help it — that was just too rich. Now I'm done). ʄ!¿talk? 23:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ Bauder, David (2009-07-28). "Fox's Glenn Beck: President Obama is a racist". Associated Press. Retrieved 2009-07-29. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  2. ^ Beck, Glen (2009-07-23). "What's Driving President Obama's Agenda?". Retrieved 2009-08-01.
  3. ^ a b Bauder, David (2009-07-28). "Fox's Glenn Beck: President Obama is a racist". Associated Press. Retrieved 2009-07-29. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  4. ^ Krakauer, Steve (2009-07-29). "Glenn Beck's 'Obama is Racist' Comment Fuels MSNBC and Beyond". Mediaite. Retrieved 2009-07-29. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  5. ^ Ariens, Chris (2009-07-28). "Glenn Beck's 'Racist' Comment Sends Advertisers Elsewhere". TVNewser. Retrieved 2009-08-12. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  6. ^ Hein, Kenneth (2009-07-12). "Fox News' "Glenn Beck" loses advertisers". Reuters. Retrieved 2009-07-13.
  7. ^ "Glenn Beck and Simon & Schuster Launch Wide-Ranging Global Publishing Partnership". Reuters. 2009-05-04. Retrieved 2009-07-13.
  8. ^ Glenn Beck (November 14, 2006). "First Muslim Congressman Speaks Out".
  9. ^ Pierce, Scott (2007-01-11). "Beck is in a Catch-22". Deseret News. Retrieved 2009-07-31. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  10. ^ "Arab Groups Protest Glenn Beck's Hiring". NewsMax. 2007-01-25. Retrieved 2009-07-12. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |works= ignored (help)
  11. ^ http://www.adc.org/PDF/hcr07.pdf
  12. ^ "Urge ABC News to Reconsider Hiring Glenn Beck". Muslim Public Affairs Council. 2007-01-23. Retrieved 2009-07-31.
  13. ^ Malek, Alia (2007-01-25). "Muslim-American Groups Protest GMA's Hiring Of Glenn Beck". Columbia Journalism Review. Retrieved 2009-07-12.