Jump to content

Talk:Glenn Beck/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

Appropriate weight

One of the lesser-known aspects of WP:NPOV is that giving undue weight to an aspect of a topic is a violation of the neutral point of view. What is the appropriate amount of text in an article is always subjective. Still, there can be more-or-less clear cases. Consider this text, currently in the article:

On August 31, 2009, Bud Norris, mayor of Beck's childhood hometown, Mount Vernon, Washington, announced that he would award Beck the key to the city in recognition of his achievements. The announcement drew both support and cries of protest from local residents. In response to some public opposition to the award, the Mount Vernon City Council voted unanimously to disassociate itself from the award.[52] The mayor stated that it was not an endorsement of Beck as a political commentator, rather, recognition of a former resident who is now a celebrity.[53] The key presentation ceremony was a sold-out event at the 850-seat McIntyre Hall on September 26, 2009. The event generated $10,000 through ticket sales which Beck matched for the Historic Lincoln Theatre.[6] The local fire department spokesperson said close to 800 demonstrators, both supporting and opposing the event, were present outside. The Young Democrats brought more than 200 protesters to the site. [54] Earlier in the day, Beck said 7,000 people attended the Evergreen Freedom Foundation's "Take the Field with Glenn Beck" at Seattle's Safeco Field. A few dozen people protested outside of the venue.[55]

Here we have a large paragraph that covers parts of a single day in the life of Glenn Beck, and demonstrates that (no surprise) he is (1) a celebrity and (2) controversial. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you there John. In fact, I thought there was consensus around a very limited inclusion here and here. Your thoughts have been repeated by several editors. I just noticed and was surprised by the addition of the lengthy inclusion, along with the undesirable bullet list that "Live events" has recently become. I would agree to keep the first sentence and maybe the second sentence, then place it in personal life or perhaps under the main heading of career if merged with a summary and financial success. I don't think the rest is anything worth including based on weight. Morphh (talk) 14:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

In recognition of his life achievements, Beck was awarded the Key to the City of his childhood hometown Mount Vernon in 2009, which drew both support and protest from local residents.[1][2]

I'd suggest something like the above. Morphh (talk) 15:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. Bytebear correctly edited out the phrase "local residents" as it was clear that the Young Democrats bused in over 200 demonstrators, as I cited. ObserverNY (talk) 17:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
Bytebear made that edit after I posted this... so I don't disagree with that change to the current content. One difference with this suggestion though is that it does not specify protest numbers that could be misrepresented. My intend is to delete all the other content and leave only that statement. It did draw protest from local residents, and they bused in people to express it. I wouldn't care to leave it off as it provides the context that it was a localized protest, not some larger protest, but I'm not attached to it. The protest of it isn't that notable in Beck's life, but I think getting the key is. Morphh (talk) 19:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I also think the cowardice of the City Council in backing away from the decision and Beck's generosity/philanthropy in matching the $10,000 is notable. Let me see if I can edit this down to something more acceptable (some cites may have to be fixed, this is for wording only):

Bud Norris, Mayor of Mount Vernon, Washington, announced on August 31, 2009 that he would award Beck the key to his hometown city in recognition of his achievements. In response to some local public opposition, the Mount Vernon City Council voted unanimously to disassociate itself from the award.[52] The key presentation ceremony was a sold-out event at the 850-seat McIntyre Hall on September 26, 2009. The event generated $10,000 through ticket sales which Beck matched for the Historic Lincoln Theatre.[6] The local fire department spokesperson said close to 800 demonstrators, both supporting and opposing the event, were present outside. The Young Democrats brought more than 200 protesters to the site. [54] Approximately 7,000 people attended the Evergreen Freedom Foundation's "Take the Field with Glenn Beck" at Seattle's Safeco Field, while a few dozen people protested outside.[55]

(reduced from 7 lines to 5)ObserverNY (talk) 19:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

  • IMO, the concise coverage of the narrative surrounding Beck's being honored and the honor's being protested, as ObserverNY has presented above, is exemplary of excellent encyclopedic practice and just plain good writing. Note that (a) mainstream media profiles (eg Zaitchik) and Beck himself have emphasized his small town origins and values; (b) there may be only one "Glenn Beck Day" proclaimed anywhere, through the remainder of Beck's life; (c) per WP:RECENTISM:

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

    -- and, finally, (d) per WP:WEIGHT:

    [...A]rticles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views; generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. [...].

    Yet, notice that, per WEIGHT, "minority" viewpoints (and, only by unwritten extension, minor events in a biographical subject's life) are not to be overemphasized in order not to misinform readers. Ah! but, how would readers be misinformed through WP's delineation of Beck's hometown honors/its being protested? After all, isn't everybody "with a stake" here mentioned, metaphorically having their briefs presented, through the means of this tableau?

    I appreciate the perfectionism of editors that would have WP be Encyclopaedia Britannica, if at all possible. However, in my opinion, even Britannica could not become written (at least on any "current events" subject) if its editors kept second guessing every phrase written by the assigned author, hyper questioning the prospect for this or that detail's ending up being considered truly notable, years hence. Yet one of the strengths of Wikipedia is its coverage of current events -- thus we should encourage, and not discourage, reasonable "initial sketches." After all, isn't any master's portrait hazy at first, a sketchwork presented, then vague washes, with only the crisp details being applied last? ↜Just M E here , now 21:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure adding the Council position really adds anything - their cowardice would seem to be unimportant for Beck's biography.

In recognition of his life achievements, Beck was awarded the Key to the City of his childhood hometown Mount Vernon in 2009, which drew both support and protest from local residents various groups.[3][4] The sold-out key presentation ceremony generated $10,000 through ticket sales, which Beck matched for the historic Lincoln Theatre.[5] Earlier that day, approximately 7,000 people attended the Evergreen Freedom Foundation's "Take the Field with Glenn Beck" at Seattle's Safeco Field.[6]

Here is another attempt... slimmed a bit more (reduced from 5 lines to 3). Morphh (talk) 21:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I would change "local residents" to "various groups" as it is more accurate to who was actually protesting the event. Bytebear (talk) 23:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the kind words JHMN. I'm sorry Morphh, but I feel your version fails to address controversy surrounding the City Council's disavowal of the resolution, the Young Democrats meddling and the handful of demonstrators outside of Safeco. Clearly, estimates of protesters are significant in both this article and the Taxpayer March on Washington and I feel it is important to document where the majority sentiment lies when it comes to controversial issues.ObserverNY (talk) 23:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
IMO (the opinion of someone who lives where this whole thing took place), you are really going overboard splitting hairs here and missing the trees for the forest. The statement is in regard to Norris' decision to give the key to a city that Beck grew up in. A number of residents of that town and the county were upset by the mayor's decision - especially since the decision was made apart from the city council. Those outside the county didn't get involved until the day of the protest. The statement you keep reverting is NOT about the protest the day of the event, but about the DECISON made by the mayor. The protest the day of the event was geared toward being anti-Beck. They are TWO separate events. If you want something to reflect the Young Democrats' involvement and the busload(s) of protestors brought in from elsewhere, make note of that in the article. But don't confuse the actual protest with the protestations of local citizens regarding Mayor Norris' decision to give Beck the key in the first place. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 23:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Noted, Kelly, see above. Thank you for clarifying the two separate protests. ObserverNY (talk) 00:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
ObserverNY, Out of crowd of approx. 7000, why are a handful of demonstrators outside of Safeco important? We don't say anything about them, there is nothing special about them.. they just don't like Beck. How is this historically important? I can agree that drawing a crowd of 7000 is notable enough (which does include these protesters), but why is it particularly important that we express "while a few dozen people protested outside" (why give weight to one half of one percent). That is not important for an encyclopedia and it's not important for Beck's biography. As for the local Council "controversy", how is it important to Beck? This seems to be summarized in the statement "..., which drew both support and protest from various groups." This is a biography about Glenn Beck, not the event, not the City Council, not the Young Democrats. We have to determine what parts are important in Beck's life. Looking back a year or two from now, is it encyclopedic for Glenn Beck's biography to include some local town council that distanced themselves from an event based on the objection from a dozen people in their local meeting? I don't think so... getting the key is probably notable enough, and maybe giving the donation is important in his life, but I don't think we should report the details of what is really a relatively small news story. Morphh (talk) 0:28, 01 October 2009 (UTC)
You raise very interesting and important questions, Morphh. Now, this is not a forum, so I won't get into a deep philosophical discussion with you, but I think the size of whichever group opposes a certain issue is important, especially as it concerns how elected officials respond to that opposition. When it becomes an historical biography, hopefully a long long way down the road, how the man will be remembered should reflect what the REAL public support and government opposition was to his words. ObserverNY (talk) 00:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
Philosophy issues aside, .5% is an extremely small minority and per weight it does not belong in Wikipedia. In this case, even looking from past to present in a historical context, I'm not sure those additional details would be important in Beck's life. Morphh (talk) 1:27, 01 October 2009 (UTC)

"In response to public opposition of Norris' decision to award Beck" can read like all of the public was against it. Been trying to do something about it.I'm going to remove "public" this time since we have established that some residents were concernned. Also, is the extra line about Young Democrats needed (amount of lines has been raised) and if so is an independent student newspaper a good enough source. The second wikilink that is being added is not needed per WP:LINK. Cptnono (talk) 08:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It has been reported and admitted to by the editor that most of the town was for Glenn beck. The petition was an unverified and online (basically anyone from anywhere could sign it and the email addresses were not checked) In response to this, a local commentator exceeded 16,000 within a day or so in a poll for Beck. This is sourced but I thought adding in more lines would be inappropriate.Cptnono (talk) 08:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

break

Good points Cptnono, but are you saying you want to keep the current content and just modify it slightly or do you agree with the premise that started this thread - too much weight being given to this story. Here are two rewrites of this area that have been suggested by myself and ObserverNY.

Current version
On August 31, 2009, Bud Norris, mayor of Beck's childhood hometown, Mount Vernon, Washington, announced that he would award Beck the key to the city in recognition of his professional achievements. The announcement drew both support and protest. In response to public opposition to Norris' decision to recognize Beck, the Mount Vernon City Council voted unanimously to disassociate itself from the event.[7] Norris stated that the award was not meant to be an endorsement of Beck as a political commentator, rather, recognition of a former resident who has obtained celebrity status.[8] The key presentation ceremony on September 26, 2009 was a sold-out event at the 850-seat McIntyre Hall. Ticket sales generated $10,000 which Beck and his wife matched as a donation to the Historic Lincoln Theatre.[5] Mount Vernon Fire Department spokesperson stated that close to 800 demonstrators, both supporting and opposing the event, were present outside the venue. Among the protestors were more than 200 Young Democrats.[9] Earlier in the day, 7,000 people attended the Evergreen Freedom Foundation's "Take the Field with Glenn Beck" at Seattle's Safeco Field. Approximately 30 protesters demonstrated outside the event.[10] [11]



Morphh
In recognition of his life achievements, Beck was awarded the Key to the City of his childhood hometown Mount Vernon in 2009, which drew both support and protest from various groups.[12][13] The sold-out key presentation ceremony generated $10,000 through ticket sales, which Beck matched for the historic Lincoln Theatre.[5] Earlier that day, approximately 7,000 people attended the Evergreen Freedom Foundation's "Take the Field with Glenn Beck" at Seattle's Safeco Field.[14]

ObserverNY
Bud Norris, Mayor of Mount Vernon, Washington, announced on August 31, 2009 that he would award Beck the key to his hometown city in recognition of his achievements. In response to some local public opposition, the Mount Vernon City Council voted unanimously to disassociate itself from the award.[15] The key presentation ceremony was a sold-out event at the 850-seat McIntyre Hall on September 26, 2009. The event generated $10,000 through ticket sales which Beck matched for the Historic Lincoln Theatre.[5] The local fire department spokesperson said close to 800 demonstrators, both supporting and opposing the event, were present outside. The Young Democrats brought more than 200 protesters to the site.[16] Approximately 7,000 people attended the Evergreen Freedom Foundation's "Take the Field with Glenn Beck" at Seattle's Safeco Field, while a few dozen people protested outside.[17] [18]

Based on my arguments above, I think several of these details are undue weight (like reporting that .5% protested an event, when weight clearly states that the opinion of extremely small minorities should not be included in the encyclopedia). What is about the event, and what is about Glenn Beck? In any case, here are the current proposals and the discussion above that let to the proposals. Morphh (talk) 12:55, 01 October 2009 (UTC)
Good discussion. Here's what I think are the key facts:

In late August 2009, the mayor of Mount Vernon, Washington, Beck's hometown, announced that he would award Beck the key to the city. The city council voted unanimously to disassociate itself from the award. The presentation ceremony a month later at the 850-seat McIntyre Hall was sold out, with an estimated 800 demonstrators, both supporting and opposing the event, outside the building. Earlier that day about 7,000 people attended the Evergreen Freedom Foundation's "Take the Field with Glenn Beck" at Seattle's Safeco Field.

I'm leaving out Beck's $10,000 contribution, since that's from a guy making perhaps $10 million per year. (The equivalent, from a household earning $100,000 per year, is giving a donation of $100; nice but not significant.) I'm also leaving out the small number of protesters outside of Safeco Field, and most of the details about the demonstrators in Mount Vernon, since that's available via the newspaper stories. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

(out dent) I'd be willing to concede the contribution and small number of protesters outside of Safeco, but you know what seems to have gotten lost in the sauce? The fact that it was called "Glenn Beck Day". [1]. So let me see if I can tweak JB's version just a tad (cites needed):

In late August 2009, the mayor of Mount Vernon, Washington, Beck's hometown, announced that he would award Beck the key to the city. Due to some local opposition, the city council voted unanimously to disassociate itself from the award. September 26, 2009 was designated "Glenn Beck Day". The day began with Beck performing at Seattle's Safeco Field which drew 7,000 fans, followed by the sold-out key presentation ceremony at the 850-seat McIntyre Hall. An estimated 800 people, both supporting and opposing the event, demonstrated outside the building.

5 lines, waddya think? ObserverNY (talk) 17:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Doesn't go into too much detail and says the facts. My primary concerns were it reading like all of the public was against it and going into too much detail about the protests when that is secondary.Cptnono (talk) 18:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Looks pretty good. I'd like to suggest that the "Glenn Beck Day" sentence be combined with the next one, perhaps removing "Take the Field with Glenn Beck" (not sure the name of the event is important). Perhaps something like "September 26, 2009 was designated "Glenn Beck Day" and started at Seattle's Safeco Field drawing 7,000 Glenn Beck fans." Morphh (talk) 18:34, 01 October 2009 (UTC)
That reads like Mt Vernon's mayoral designated "day" is related to Seattle or the event at Safeco.Cptnono (talk) 19:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh.. I thought they were related. If not, we could tell it from Beck's vantage. Beck started the day at... Morphh (talk) 19:18, 01 October 2009 (UTC)
That would be an easy enough fix. Looks like it was a big PR day for him.Cptnono (talk) 19:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
See if you like how it reads now. I made the corrections in the box above. I guess I should have struck the old but that gets confusing. ObserverNY (talk) 19:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
Do we need to give space to the Young Democrats? If we do (I don't care much either way) we need a better source than an independent student paper.Cptnono (talk) 20:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, I was the one who added that. I'm not married to it though. Let's see what others say. ObserverNY (talk) 21:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
I do like the proposal. I could see more added but balanceing would cause it to expend 10 fold if we were not careful. Nice work and I'm curious to see what others think.Cptnono (talk) 21:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Cptnono - How much longer should I wait for other editors to weigh in before making the change? Regards, ObserverNY (talk) 14:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
Looks fine to me, it has my support. Morphh (talk) 14:54, 02 October 2009 (UTC)
 Done wouldn't mind if someone double-checked the cites. Thanks. ObserverNY (talk) 20:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

(outdent)Please note that I just reverted the edit of Kelly Siebeke|SagitRiverQueen re this paragraph where she sought to reintroduce the 30 protesters outside of Safeco Field. ObserverNY (talk) 18:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

To those who are discussing this article to death and, IMO, starting to become overly heavy-handed regarding other editors not seen as "in the cliquie" - please stop and think about some of the reverts you are making. I asked a day or two ago for someone to please fix the paragraph regarding the key presentation to read that the two events on the same day are not related. No one took action. Today I did - and had my change reverted on the basis that a "consensus" was made as to how the sentence(s) should read. My question is, what kind of logical consensus would vote for keeping the paragraph reading in a confusing manner? The Safeco Field event and the Mount Vernon event are not related, the city of Mount Vernon declared last Saturday to be Glenn Beck day (not the city of Seattle as well), yet some editors continue to insist on the paragraph reading that way. Why? I thought accuracy and inclusion was the call for Wikipedia editing, not self-proclaimed ownership/exclusion and dishonesty/inaccuracy... Dismissing edits by others outside the "group" and not in line with a "consensus" is not in the spirit of what Wikipedia is about. Can some of you maybe step back for a moment and re-evaluate what you are starting to do here and see that it's not conducive to the purposes of Wikipedia and is really just becoming (IMO) a ego-driven exercise in article abduction? SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 19:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Addendum to the above - Here is the comment I received from ObserverNY:
"It was "Glenn Beck Day". If you are unable to comprehend that the two events were indeed related, I think you need to ask yourself who is being stupid. ObserverNY (talk) 19:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY"
Now, come on...the two events were *not* related - the city of Seattle and Mount Vernon are two different places, two counties away from each other. From what I've read and been led to understand by news reports and newspaper articles, "Glenn Beck Day" was a Mount Vernon thing, not a statewide thing, and yes...the two events were unrelated. The only thing they had in common was that they were held in the same state on the same day - probably because he was already here. The above from ObserverNY is a perfect example of the aforementioned heavy-handedness I was speaking of. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 19:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Let's include the whole exchange, shall we? I just reverted both of your recent edits. 1. The contribution amount was deemed to be "negligible" and not worthy of inclusion. 2. Your changing of the chronological sequence of events makes the paragraph confusing. 3. Please engage on the Talk page before undoing work which took other editors days to agree on. Thank you. ObserverNY (talk) 19:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
It took other editors days to agree on making the paragraph look like two unrelated events were related? How stupid is that? SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 19:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC).
The opportunity to discuss this paragraph was right here. Everyone came to a nice conclusion until you decided to ignore Talk altogether and single-handedly muck up the paragraph. You have said yourself: Okay - but I can guarantee you it's going to be "an actual story". The protesters (several of whom are personal friends of mine) are planning for it to be "an actual story".  ;-) SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 04:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC) pointing our your personal WP:COI as it relates to editing the specific paragraph in question. I would strongly recommend that you wait to hear from other editors such as Morphh or JustHearMeNow or Cptono before you go changing it again. Regards, ObserverNY (talk) 20:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
Observer, it wasn't my intention to leave anything out - so let's get that clear right off the bat. Secondly, my comment about the Glenn Beck appearance at Mac Hall in MV was never meant to be my "... personal WP:COI", so let's get that clear as well. You can assume all you like about my motivations, my reasons for the edits I've made and why I said what I did a week ago, but the fact remains that you are behaving, IMO, like a heavy-handed, agenda-driven despot who refuses to be wrong. (as a side note, I am a fan of Beck but happen to have friends and relatives on both sides of the issues and both were on each side during last week's demonstration - so please don't assume you know where I stand based on an off-hand comment meant to be off-the-record and somewhat humorous) Again, this is just my opinion and not meant to be an accusation, just my observation. And frankly, from reading your talk page, I am not the first to think so. I only ask that you take a moment and step back in order to reconsider the simple fact that as the paragraph reads currently, it is not being true to the events of one week ago when Beck was in Washington state. The two events of the day were NOT related, they just happened to be consecutive. The way the paragraph currently reads, the reader is led to believe otherwise. Finally, as fair disclosure, I have asked two admins to look into this as well as your conduct here today. When examined and dealt with as necessary, my hope is that it works out for the best for everyone involved. And foremost, to the benefit of the article and Wikipedia. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 20:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Editors expressed concern about your editing due to you being close to organizers of the event in Mt Vernon. You asked for good faith but it doesn't seem to be working as is since you have shown that you have a focus on the protests and make rash reverts. As I have said, we don't have to be happy with each other (God knows I've been jerky) but deflecting criticism doesn't address the issue. "like a heavy-handed, agenda-driven despot who refuses to be wrong" can be taken pretty poorly. Hopefully ObserverNY doesn't take it too harshly. Since we are being perfectly frank here as of late, you come across like someone who really wants to WP:WIN after our last couple of discussions. Its alright if you don't notice it and even disagree. Take the criticism as something to watch out for and change if you notice it. We don't need to agree (I don't like Beck even though my edits come across otherwise) but we don't need to attack attack attack. And if you notice me screwing up in the future (I'm sure it will happen sooner or later) I hope you will give me the same reminder. Cptnono (talk) 21:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Good grief - how many times do I have to explain myself here so more than one of you will get it? I A M N O T B I A S E D A N D H A V E N O C O I H E R E . Is that now clear? As I stated earlier today, I am a Beck fan and have close friends and relatives on BOTH sides of the issue. I do not edit with prejudice or bias. If you want to investigate, you will never find one of my edits or reverts in the last three years as being biased or classified as COI. Okay? SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 22:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
On to the important issue: Your reading of the article is different than others. We are supposed to be summarizing not listing. Mt Vernon and Seattle together make a tidy summary. If you want to add something to make it clearer that they are different it is OK. Them being separate actually was mentioned in the consensus building discussion. Tacking on protesters and other info when the edit summary says you are doing something else causes a concern, though so watch out for the that. This would have been a great instance where following the practice of WP:BOLD would have been better. You went for it and it got reverted but there was a discussion waiting for you to join here. Cptnono (talk) 21:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
"[My] reading of the article is different than others" - and that opinion is based on what? Did you take a poll of everyone who has read what's there or are you presuming to speak on behalf of all the recent editors of this article? I don't mean to sound rude, I just don't get how you can think you know what everyone else is thinking... Maybe "Mt Vernon and Seattle together make a tidy summary", but it's not an accurate and/or honest summary. Aren't we supposed to be concerned with accuracy rather than convenience out of being "tidy"? SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 22:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm open to rewording it as not to overly imply a direct relationship, but I don't think we should say that it is unrelated. That would be stating a fact where we have no sources to support it (WP:OR), and they are related to some degree. It's not a accident or coincidence they were consecutive (the events were coordinated and related to Beck being in the area for "Glenn Beck Day"). But I think we can better state that it was the Mayor of Mount Vernon that designated it Glenn Beck Day. Morphh (talk) 21:18, 03 October 2009 (UTC)

In late August 2009, the mayor of Mount Vernon, Washington, Beck's hometown, announced that he would award Beck the key to the city, and designated September 26, 2009 as "Glenn Beck Day". Due to some local opposition, the city council voted unanimously to disassociate itself from the award. [57] The day began with Beck performing at Seattle's Safeco Field which drew 7,000 fans,[58] followed by the sold-out key presentation ceremony at the 850-seat McIntyre Hall. An estimated 800 people, both supporting and opposing the event, demonstrated outside the building. [59]

I think that your revision is a good effort, however, it still leaves the impression that both events were related. Look...just follow the $$. Did Mount Vernon pay for the Seattle even (or vice versa)? No. The two events happened on the same day likely to fit Beck's busy schedule because he was here on the one day. I don't mean to be rude here, but I seriously don't understand why you guys aren't getting this... SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 21:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your input Morphh. I am fine with your re-wording. Regards, ObserverNY (talk) 21:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
Let's not be afraid to have our text edited, folks. Yes, the existing text was the product of consensus -- but consensus ne'ertheless is not cast in stone; so, maybe IMO Kelly A. Siebecke's|SkagitRiverQueen's edit shouldn't really have been reverted in whole but, per WP:PRESERVE, maybe could only have been modified only in part? (Eg, yes, maybe hi/r addition of a detail that another editor or editors believe adds too much WEIGHT could perhaps have been deleted for now and talked more about on the talkpage, whereas hi/r edit making the language clearer about the fact that Glenn Beck Day was proclaimed for Mount Vernon but not for Seattle could have been allowed to stand -- if only for it to be re-tweaked by yet another editor?) ↜Just M E here , now 21:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
They weren't related in the sense that they were organized by the same people. I don't know which event caused him to come to the region in the first place but being done in the same day and within driving distance to the airport do not make them related. I think one easy way to make it clear would be to state the name of the Safeco event. I think this might separate them enough to someone reading the paragraph. "That day Beck yada yada at a separte event at Safeco blah blah" might be an easy fix as well.Cptnono (talk) 21:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I rewrote it using the suggestions above... hope it works for everyone. Morphh (talk) 2:02, 04 October 2009 (UTC)
Good work morphh - I just made one wording change - designated to designating - other than that, it was perfect! SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 02:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

another break

I think a good idea for political articles might be [Note: Ignore the following, stricken phrase.] a sort of voluntary article "probation." This would mean our simply stingently enforcing existing editing rules: especially (a) no edit warring (which means 1RR and no more, except in exceptional cases) and (b) no discussing editors' behavior on the talkpage (discussing them instead by way of polite discussions or formalized "notice templates" posted on talkpages or, if considered necessary, other forums elsewhere). Visitors to the page can then be told we're following WP editing and behavior guidelines to the letter on this page, since the blp's political nature tends to produce steam on the page that tends to cause poor visibility w/regard to actual editing issues. Finally, perhaps we might be able to persuade Bigtimepeace to be a designated "go-to" admin to ask for counselling (and, only in egregious cases, blocks) with concern any issues that our self-policing wouldn't seem to be able to deal with (obvioulsly provided the editing issue at hand wouldn't have been one that Bigtimepeace had been personally involved in, of course). What do you all think? (And I'll ping Bigtimepeace's talkpage about this somewhat nebulous proposal here, too!) ↜Just M E here , now 22:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Bad precedent to set. There are tmeplates that already excist to remind users (new to the page or not) of certain things. Wikipedia's practices have consensus so fiddling with it on a single article is bad. You could always seek general santions 9Wikipedia:General sanctions).Cptnono (talk) 22:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but actually, Cptnono, those templates were the ones I was referring to using. And I also think our agreeing among ourselves to strigently abide by Wikipedia's rules and behavioral guidelines and to bring in outside advice or administrative action when we can't resolve our own issues would make for a fantastic precedent. (Would that all editors at all articles would endeavor always to do so, I say! Yeah! :^) ↜Just M E here , now 22:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I think you are getting suggestions from essays, practices, and actual guidelines confussed. If someone does something that an admin will block for report them or don't because that is all it really comes down to.Cptnono (talk) 22:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
No, read my suggestion again: "no edit warring" and "no discussing behavior on the article talk page, but instead discuss article content there" are both the most basic of WP policies. I think, in fact, that we're having a miscommunication or the semantics of something I said is confusing. I mean simply to agree among ourselves to follow existing guidelines. I mean absolutely nothing more formal than that. In fact, I'm going to strike out my formulation of "voluntary probation" since the name itself might give the impression of something quasi-formal! ↜Just M E here , now 22:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
D'oh... "Hey remember, don't be a jerk and remember the rules!" right? I haven't seen a policy that says discussing behavor on the talk page if it is negatively impacting the article (point me in the right direction if I am wrong, of course) but it should be done in a proper tone. I also don't agree with assigning a go to admin.Cptnono (talk) 22:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
W/re discussing article content and not editors, the off-hand formulation I've heard has to do with "talk about the edits and not the editor." And the only zero tolerance way to accomplish that is to simply not to broach editors' behavior other than in the most briefly oblique and innocuous terms possible, IMO (...but, in any case, I'll try and look up what the policies say about that, I guess -- thanks! <smiles>) And you are right, of course, about my poor semantics with regard to any quasi-"assigning" of a go-to admin. Of course, that is what is done anyway: we "go-to" who we know has understanding and interest in the page. I was just naming who that admin has seemed to have been, to some extent, and may likely be. But if that is a major hang up, forget I put any names in the hat on that one, I guess....) :^) ↜Just M E here , now 22:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
(Back, from stuff in'd'realworld.) Hey, offhand, the basic policy I was trying to think of about not discussing behaviors on article talkpages, at least all too much anyway, was "assume good faith," I think! :^) ↜Just M E here , now 01:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
"Everyone makes mistakes, both behavioral (like personal attacks) and content-based (like adding original research), and we can correct them with reminders most of the time." If me reminding someone looks like a personal attack please say so and I will attempt to word it in a manner that comes across more civil if needed.Cptnono (talk) 01:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Glenn Beck Day, 9/26

The Daily Kos and others are planning a protest tomorrow when Beck is scheduled for an appearance at Safeco stadium tomorrow. Now whether Yahoo news [2] constitutes a WP:RS, i don't know. I propose waiting until AFTER the event takes place to refer to it in the article, but I'd like some input from other editors. Thanks. ObserverNY (talk) 15:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Definitely wait until after the event, and this issue is connected to the "key" subsection of the talk page directly above, since the protest is about his being awarded the key to the city. Maybe the discussion about how much to discuss this (if at all) should happen in that section just so we keep everything in one place (or you could move this to a subsection of that which I think would be fine). Also the Yahoo story is actually an AP wire story, so it's definitely reliable, but we'll still have to wait for coverage tomorrow. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Bigtimepeace. I was reading the Key section and thought about putting my comment there, but I was afraid this source and comment would get lost in the sauce. Let's see what develops. ObserverNY (talk) 16:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
Just FYI: Yahoo link is sourced by AP so it would be acceptable.
On a more whiney note, they did it, too "Groups have demonstrated on the streets". All the pictures and reports I have seen show groups = a few people and most fail to mention that a good portion of the town are like "woo hoo!", Hopefully any overage after the event has actual numbers and isn't "in your face" reporting.Cptnono (talk) 20:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is a link to an interesting news photo of some creative sign work at the Mount Vernon event on Saturday, September 26, 2009:

http://www.goskagit.com/article_images/9-27-Glenn-Beck_74.jpg

--Lorem Ipsum Dolor (talk) 18:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The paragraph re: the key presentation has been coupled with the Safeco Field appearance in such a way that a reader unfamiliar with the two events would think they are related. They are *not* related. Whomever changed it to read this way...will you consider rewording it so it reads differently? Why not just put the Safeco Field event in it's own line rather than putting the two events together with the same bullet? SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 00:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Coast guard investigator mis-ref'd

The sentence "A Coast Guard investigator, referencing Mary's heart and psychiatric conditions, speculated she could have either fallen or jumped overboard." is referenced to ref#6, however nothing in the reference supports the statement. Should be changed to {{fact}} Kamb, Lewis (2009-09-26). "Among Beck's roots in the state lies a South Sound mystery". The News Tribune (Tacoma).

. -- 67.98.206.2 (talk) 19:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done thanks Morphh (talk) 19:41, 02 October 2009 (UTC)

Sisterhood of Mommy Patriots

There's a new movement aloft which has arisen as a result of Beck's 9/25 & 9/28 show about 9/12 Moms - A Sisterhood of Mommy Patriots - which will be organizing a Million Mom March and has given rise to [3] Disclosure: I was one of the 9.12 Moms on the show and therefore because of WP:COI don't think I should create the section, but am putting it out here for consideration. Regards, ObserverNY (talk) 00:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I think it could probably be added to the 9-12 Project, with a brief mention here. Morphh (talk) 13:04, 03 October 2009 (UTC)
-- When/if it might find mention in the legacy media? :^) ↜Just M E here , now 18:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Concur. Morphh (talk) 19:03, 03 October 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. I just wanted to give a head's up - the As A Mom site grew from 3,000 members when Beck's show aired on Fri. to almost 13,000 as of this morning. If it continues growing at that rate and if the group sets a definitive date for the March, it should hit the mainstream news at that time. Pure speculation at this point. Regards, ObserverNY (talk) 19:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Leftist meme using a right-winged "Mormon-conspiracy" subtext?

Wouldn't Wikipedi's calling First Media a "Mormon" company, as cited to Alexander Zaitchik in Salon, be similar to our terming Marriott a "Mormon" hotel chain? (Or, say, even labeling the Williams sisters a "Jehovah's Witnesses" sororal[?lex] tennis rivalry?) Refer to what might essentially be an "anti-defamation" opinion piece (in a media outlet that truly is "Mormon," namely, a Mormon-themed newspaper insert), here. ↜Just M E here , now 16:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with you (if I'm reading you correctly). The "Mormon" reference should be deleted - I didn't change it when editing this section earlier today because it was already there. However (this is unrelated to anything and just an aside of information), the Mormon Church does own a number of big-business corporations, and that could be why it was included by whomever inserted it. But overall, I don't see any need to keep it there - it doesn't add to the article at all. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 16:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

More details on Beck's career with Y-95 in Arizona warranted

I can't edit this article because it's semi-protected, but I believe more information on Beck's career at KOY-FM in Phoenix, now KYOT-FM, is warranted. Significant information has been written about his time there in sources already in the article; for example, his substantial feud with Bruce Kelly, culminating in Beck calling Kelly's wife on-air to make light of her recent miscarriage. 129.21.129.100 (talk) 07:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

KUBE Radio Employment

Beck could not have been working at KUBE per the dates implied here; KUBE did not go on the air until the 1980s. 67.102.173.74 (talk) 23:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

KUBE went on the air as the "New 93, KUBE" in 1981. Prior to that, it was KBLE-FM with a Christian radio format - and would fit into the claim that he hosted a program with Christian music on Saturdays. So...the reference is wrong in stating that he worked at KUBE and should probably say KBLE. Thanks for bringing that info to light. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 00:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
SkagitRiverQueen strikes again! ;^) ↜Just M E here , now 01:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
See? I'm not the devil in disguise at all...! SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 01:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
good grief...why is my text so big? SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 01:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Wow, SkagitRiverQueen, it appears that your effort to say "{big smile}" turned into something that inadvertenly coded "<\big>" for large print! ↜Just M E here , now 02:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Find a source or remove it.Cptnono (talk) 09:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Uh...excuse me, Cptnono, but just a couple of days ago you claimed that I was clearly speculating exactly when Beck worked for KUBE - and now you have made an edit that states exactly when Beck worked for KUBE (and without a reference to back it up)? What's up with that? SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 23:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

uh uh uh uh... it is in the source and I made a comment below.Cptnono (talk) 23:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I see...and - just for the sake of clarifying - when was that source put in? SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 23:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't mind admitting that I moved the source late. Next time don't try to badger an admission of guilt out of someone and try reading the edit summaries and the talk page if someone goes through the effort to provide a heads up with the source's name. Thanks.Cptnono (talk) 00:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I see. Interesting response. Oh, and as I said over a week ago - don't presume to think you have a right to tell me what to do, how to behave, and what to say, when in Wikipedia (or anywhere else, for that matter). SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 00:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
If you would stop adding in unsourced info (like you did again which is why the edit was made), writing condescending edit summaries (rolls eyes shrug good grief uh... sigh thank goodness...), and trying to argue on the talk page just to argue (see the previous winning and battleground wikilinks)I wouldn't be so jerky. Sorry if you don't like me telling you to stop screwing up and being rude. If you don't like it you can fix it, report what you think is incivility, or ignore it.Cptnono (talk) 00:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
So you're saying you've *never* added unsourced info? Are you also claiming you've *never* argued on a talk page "just to argue"? And what's more, you're saying that you've *never* been "jerky" nor "rude" in Wikipedia? Unless I'm mistaken, it seems you are now telling me that all will be ducky in my Wikipedia world if I just do things *your* way because you have been a model Wikipedia editor, right? <sarcasm on> Gosh, I don't know how I have been able to even function in Wikipedia before I met you here at the Glenn Beck article, Cptnono <sarcasm off> Good grief. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 00:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Upon reflection moving this to user's talk page instead of here.Cptnono (talk) 01:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Reversions of perfectly good edits

Cptnono - it seems to me that my edits have become a personal thing for you. Latest example: my edits re: Beck's DJing when he was a teenager. First of all, the Wikipedia ref I provided (which you deleted) stated clearly that KBLE became KUBE in 1981. How old was Beck in 1981? He was 17 years old. Now, granted, the article reference I provided stated Beck worked there before he was 18 years old, so it is possible that Beck worked for the station *after* it became KUBE. However...that same ref clearly stated that Beck was "in his midteens" when he sent the audition tape to the station manager. Midteens are, what...? 14-15? 16 at the very latest? Seems to me that since Beck was born in February, 1964 he would have *just* turned 17 when KBLE became KUBE in March, 1981. 17 is not "mid-teens", Cptnono. From a logical standpoint, Beck worked for KBLE *not* KUBE when he first started there. Now, he certainly may have worked for KUBE *after* the call letters changed, but in the beginning - I think what I have shown proves that to not to be the case. It is apparent to me that your reverts of my edits have become a personal issue since last weekend (9/25/09). It is also apparent to me that because there was obvious logic and deduction that fueled my edits of the Radio section of the Beck article - along with evidence from a perfectly good reference - that there was no "assumption" (as you once again asserted against me in the edit comments) and what I edited never should have been reverted. You are not working from the Wikipedia standard of WP:AGF when it comes to me and my edits (especially in your latest edit reversion where you stated, "please stop adding unsourced material or mkaing assumptions. the source says KUBE and nothing about the year or the other call letters so "as a teenager" will fit. self ref doesn't work here since we don't know the year"). Indeed, when it comes to my edits (and the edits of others, frankly), you prefer to work from WP:ABF. And I am forced to wonder why.

I would like to see other editors weigh in on this. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 23:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

You need to follow the sources. Anything else is original research and asusmptions. They aren't my rules.Cptnono (talk) 00:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I did "follow the sources" - Beck auditioned for the station in his midteens and in Beck's midteens, KUBE was not KUBE yet, but KBLE. Once again, with your statement, "Anything else is original research and asusmptions" you appear to insist on implementing WP:ABF in opposition to the Wikipedia standard of WP:AGF. And I still and forced to wonder why. Can you explain? SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 00:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
The source did not say a year so you cannot assume it. It is called WP:SYNTH. Find another source if you think this one is incorrect or reword the sentence (ie "he worked at a Seattle station") This isn't complicated. If it makes you feel better I am looking for sources still. PI and Salon say KUBE. This isn't about proving your point it is about following sources. I am also looking for a clarification on age (that is certainly more important and will settle what the call letters were in the year) but have not found anything yet.Cptnono (talk) 01:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
As am I. However, you might want to consider the following when doing your search... When one graduates from, say...Washington State College before it became Washington State University, the alumnus usually refers to being a graduate of WSU in conversation as well as on their resume and/or Curriculum Vitae. This is a common practice amongst academics and various college alumni. In the world of the broadcasting arts and sciences, the station one worked for which now has different, more commonly recognizable call letters, usually refers to their employment at the station's most recent call letters. In both cases, this serves to make for recognizability and keep the listener/reader from confusion. How do I know this? Not from "original research", but "personal experience". If Beck worked for KUBE when it was KBLE, it is no surprise that O'Brien referred to the station by it's current call letters, because that is a standard practice in the industry. You might want to consider this information in your search (or not). Just some friendly advice.
Oh, and I am still waiting for your explanation as to why you seem to continually choose ABF rather than AGF when it comes to reverting my edits, your comments regarding such edits, and your comments directed to me in this talk arena. Thanks. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 01:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
My response is that if you include unsourced material it will be removed. That is not assuming bad faith and is what we are supposed to do with a BLP. I don't see how that needs any further explanation. I also don't mind saying "now known/then known as" but we don't have the age so we just don't know. Sorry.Cptnono (talk) 01:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Dodge noted, Cptnono. IMO, your comments clearly show you have regularly enlisted ABF specifically in regard to your relations with me, on this talk page, for over a week (not to mention personal jabs and barbs). I have tried to AGF with you since our tangle last week here - because of your dodge above, I have no choice but to ABF when you address me or revert my edits in the manner you did today (and have done in the past). I would happily revert back to AGF in my dealings with you if you choose to no longer dodge the question (I have now asked of you three times) and answer honestly and without relying on Wikiese as your cover and scapegoat. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 01:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I think "Dodge noted" summarizes ABF pretty clearly. If you refuse to follow the guidelines and continue to turn the talk page into a WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND it is just going to cause a big fuss. I don't adjust edits made to this page becasue I want to upset you I do it because a couple of them have been inappropriate. I don't see how I can reassure you any more than that.Cptnono (talk) 01:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. If the sources are wrong, we should find new ones. Our wikilink will go to the same article regardless, so this isn't an error that's a big deal. Gamaliel (talk) 01:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Apologies if my response and clarification came across overly pointed at the notice board.Cptnono (talk) 05:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Just changed teenager to "junior year" per the source. He didn't have a car which points to 15 (the source mentions he started reading trade publications at 15 where he came across an ad) but most jrs are not 15 and don't necessarily drive (money). There is also a page in the archive discussing the potential fallacy in his age which makes it even more confusing. If anyone has any of his books on hand I would be curious to see if it is in there. For now sources say KUBE and he looks to be a teenager of some sort. Go ahead and remove the jr thing if it looks like Salon is incorrect but looked OK to me.Cptnono (talk) 22:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Beck's age is correct. The writer of the recent Everett Herald article where she admitted she made an error with Beck's birthplace (it's one of the references on the page at the beginning of the bio section) states she found Beck's birth announcement for February 1964 at the Everett Public Library, on Everett Herald microfilm. Just as an aside - I have corresponded with Michael O'Shea - the station manager of KBLE/KUBE when Beck worked there (he currently lives in Bellingham, BTW). One of his statements to me regarding the KBLE/KUBE call-sign change-over was. "We didn’t take over KBLE until March of ’81...The call letters were very probably still KBLE as we didn’t get filed for KUBE until sometime in ’82 as I recall..." So...that *does* settle the KBLE-or-KUBE question - however, I realize what he told me is considered original research, and is not Wiki-suitable since it is not an on-the-record reference. <shrug> SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 00:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
"Maybe"s and "recall" put it into question. Add to that the fact that we don't know if it was 15 that he started or just became interested means that we re using the sources correctly.Cptnono (talk) 00:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
There were no "maybe's" in what Michael wrote and the "as I recall" is good enough for me as as coming from someone who has the resume he does. I realize fully that what he told me is not Wikipedia-worthy - and stated as such above - but it does clear up what I already stated a few days ago as far as the timeline for the KBLE to KUBE change-over. Beck worked officially first for KBLE and then KUBE after the transition was complete. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 01:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh oops should read "probably" (more weight than maybe). I don't care about when the changeover took place I care if Beck was working there when it happened.Cptnono (talk) 01:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

9/12 - Less than 50,000

1.2 million? Yeah, right. I was there. Probably more like 40,000 OR 50,000. DO NOT EXAGGERATE.

This is more like it. 350,000 is their attempt at an accurate estimate. Certainly not 1.2 million, but a far cry from 40-50,000. Joshua Ingram 07:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:ELNO Period. This doesn't add needed information. We also have inline citations when necessary. Stop edit warring. (to clarify this was directed towards Jimintheatl edits that Bytebear was attempting to clean up) Cptnono (talk) 02:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Seriousley, wanna talk about it? WP:ELNO was mentioned for inclusion. Here are the reasons why ELNO says not to use it:
  • Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article.
  • Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints which such sites are presenting. ( fake pundit with a good portion of the segment joking about that aspect.)
Per links to be included: "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete sAlso, tatistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons." It is not neutral and not "factual" analysis. And it could be added in a joke section.Cptnono (talk) 14:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Also WP:NOTLINK, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and WP:NOTSCANDAL from what Wikipedia is not.Cptnono (talk) 14:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
The editor has again reverted. He hasn't given reasoning here and it comes across to me as disruptive editing. Does anyone have a concern with me reverting or can anyone provide reasoning that Colbert should stay as an external link?Cptnono (talk) 16:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
..The article already contains quotes/references to Saturday Night Live and the Daily Show. So I don't see any merit to your objection to including Colbert because he is a comedian. Beck himself claims to be a comedian, and can be funny(intentional and unintentionally). So a humorous take on him is wholly appropriate. One editor objected to the host sites; I've addressed that. Another editor implicitly approved the edit by fixing my spelling mistake. You seem to be talkng to yourself here. Colbert's take on Beck, if you bother to listen, makes many of the points made about Beck in the much referenced Time piece, and is much funnier. If you seriously think readers won't realize this a satirical take, then you have a very low opinion of WP readers....Jimintheatl (talk) 17:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Jimintheatl, gather up some legacy media mentions of Colbert's parodies. (Hey, when my sister visited nearby to NYC she visited a taping of the show!) Ahem. Anyway.
My next comment really doesn't belong in this section on the talkpage but here goes: It looks like (1) Beck himself has responded to the White House mentions of him/Fox News and (2) this mention in turn has been mentioned in the media -- so someone could throw in a mention about this into the article, IMO.
Beck's involvement in the vaccine controversy is garnering legacy media mentions and can be mentioned now, too.
Just a heads up, I may or may not ever get around to it; neither issue intrigues me much, personally.↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 23:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't aware someone else thought it was OK but they were wrong, too. I don't care about the information. It is against external link guidelines. Figure out a way to put it in the prose maybe but the external link section is getting long and this is an obvious cut per the style guidelines. Cptnono (talk) 23:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Jimintheatl, I notice that the "O'Reilly Factor" article has a parodies section. Maybe someone could contribute mention of Colbert at the "Glenn Beck (TV program)" article, with just, say, this (link) as a citation? since there probably would be less of a burden for notability there than here at the the BLP, I think.↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 00:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
(...BTW, Jimintheatl, I am unsure about the copyright thing being a reason not to link, since IMO linking doesn't raise a specter of copyright vio at all. But, as for a rationale to only link to things that could conceivably find mentions in the body of text of a fully-fleshed-out article, or else material that goes into more depth, etc., I'm torn and could probably see some rationale to include the link. (My shorthand for all that, by the way, is simply, "What would it hurt?") But I think "External links" purists do help to keep the sections from ballooning into free for alls, too. So that's why I only corrected your spelling, if you could follow all that. {smiles})↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 00:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
CR is not a problem but the fact that is not something that is factually accurate and neutral but cannot be presented due to copyright issues means that one of the primary reasons for external links does not apply. Cptnono (talk) 00:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Everyone who disagrees with you is wrong? I wasn't aware that you'd been put in charge....Your certitude is frightening. And way to keep those goal posts moving....That being said, I will work on JMHN's suggestion on incorporating the Colbert bit in the article alongside the SNL and Stewart stuff.Jimintheatl (talk) 18:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I haven't read through the discussion or watched the video but did see the link. If this is not an interview with Beck, that adds additional information beyond what the article would have as an FA, the link should be removed. At first glance, it looks like an opinion piece by Colbert, not the type of thing you add to the external links as a BLP (perhaps as a source though to footnote material if sufficient weight is present). Morphh (talk) 18:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I think we agree. I intend to attend to this tmw. In the interim, the Capt is free to wag his finger and tip his cap as he deems appropriate...goodnight now!Jimintheatl (talk) 02:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Grrrr... wagging my finger..... arg! :) It has nothing to do with saying your are wrong or you suck. It is simply against the style guidelines. If it is needed, an inline citation is the correct place for it. That is a completely different conversation and I don't really care if it is included or not.Cptnono (talk) 05:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Long enough. Let me know if it is a concern still. Cptnono (talk) 23:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Publishing

This section was converted from a list into prose and a "works" section was added per WP:LAYOUT. It was reverted so I have tagged it. My quick rewrite was poor so if anyone has any ideas on how to get this into encyclopedic text instead of a list it should be done.Cptnono (talk) 16:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this section should be written in prose. Morphh (talk) 12:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't say I think prose looks better for this section, but it's in the rules, so I went ahead and rewrote it. I will try to expand it later by writing a separate article about Common Sense. Joshua Ingram 06:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Cptnono, for removing the excess links. I didn't realize how stupid that looked till you removed them. Joshua Ingram 06:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
My pleasure. I don't recall what the actual style guideline is but a great GA cheat sheet says once a section.Cptnono (talk) 14:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced "Books authored by Glenn Beck" section

...moved here from article space:

Authorship and publishing.   Beck has authored five books since 2003. The Real America: Messages from the Heart and Heartland was published by Pocket Books in 2003. An Inconvenient Book was published by Simon and Shuster in 2007. This book was #1 on the New York Times Bestseller for the week of December 9, 2007. The Christmas Sweater was published by Simon and Shuster in 2008. This book was #1 on the New York Times Bestseller for the weeks of November 30, 2008, and December 25, 2008. America's March to Socialism: Why We're One Step Closer to Giant Missile Parades is an audiobook that was published by Simon and Shuster in 2008.

Glenn Beck's Common Sense: The Case Against an Out-Of-Control Government, Inspired by Thomas Paine was published by Simon and Shuster in 2009. This book is #1 on the New York Times Bestseller, beginning the week of July 4, 2009, and currently retains that position (10/17/09). Arguing with Idiots: How to Stop Small Minds and Big Government was published by Simon and Shuster in 2009. This book is #1 on the New York Times Bestseller, beginning the week of September 30, 2009, and currently retains that position (10/8/09). Glenn Beck is one of the few people to hit #1 on the New York Times New York Times Bestseller List in three separate categories: Hardcover Non-Fiction (Arguing with Idiots and An Inconvenient Book), Paperback Non-Fiction (Common Sense), and Hardcover Fiction (The Christmas Sweater).

Beck is also the publisher of Fusion Magazine, which is a play on the slogan of the The Glenn Beck Program, "The Fusion of Entertainment and Enlightenment."

↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 02:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and I restored it. BLP precludes the inclusion of controversial material - a list of his published works, and their rankings on a widely recognized sales statistics listing aren't controversial. Further, the material is sufficiently sourced by giving the publication (NY TImes) and the dates. If you don't like the wording, and that does has some minor issues, then fix it. ThuranX (talk) 05:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
When TuranX says "you" here, s/he means in general, not me (since I didn't remove the material, although I did post it, after its removal, to the talkpage, per WP:PRESERVE).↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 05:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for preserving it. It saved me time trying to source it. And I can't remember where I saw it, but someone said the words "well-renowned" should not be used to describe him. Well, here's the Merriam-Webster definition:
  • Main Entry: re·nowned
Pronunciation: \-ˈnau̇nd\
Function: adjective
Date: 14th century
having renown : celebrated
synonyms: see famous
Anyone who even makes it onto the Times bestseller list at #1 is considered well-renowned, and he did it four times. The fact that you don't like him does not give you the right to downplay his accomplishments. Joshua Ingram 19:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Authorship vs.Works sections

Reacting knee-jerk to this talk page edit which popped up on my watchlist, I tried to conform the list of books in the Media career and income -. Authorship and publishing subsection with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works). When saving the edit, I noiced that the article also has a Works section, and that the info there appears to disagree with the info in that other subsection. I'll leave it to editors more involved with this article than I to reconcile whatever might need reconciling here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Works is the way to go per the guidelines. Converting a list into a wall of text looks poor. I see now see that the editor was trying to convey the best seller info and not just all of the books. I think a simpler and less visually exhaustive way to show this is a simple: "Books 1,2,3,4, and 5 were best sellers upon their release" (or something like that) in the section. It would fit just fine. What info does not match?Cptnono (talk) 20:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Would it be a problem to move the entire Authorship section to the Works section? Joshua Ingram 21:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
It is important enough and there is some commentary on sales and the magazine that there should be something in the prose. The works section is laid out as a bibliography and not prose so expansion should not occur there.Cptnono (talk) 21:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Does Morph's further tinkering work? It is readable and keeps the reception info in so I like it.Cptnono (talk) 21:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)`
I'd like to see more in this section. I would think his works are important to his biography and life. It seems we should be saying more about his most popular books beyond when they were published and how many weeks they spent on the NYT bestseller list. I would support a couple sub-sections that provided a summary style to the main articles on his more popular works. Morphh (talk) 21:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I would think that if a small page was made on Arguing with Idiots, the publishing information and the reception should be good enough. If people wanted to know more, they could just go to the page for the book. Joshua Ingram 00:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Joshuaingram, you mean like this one: "Arguing with Idiots"?↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 00:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I suppose that's a...well, a highly POV'd start, but yeah, something like that. Joshua Ingram 01:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Now that looks a LOT better! Joshua Ingram 03:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Picture

Can anyone put a better picture up? Something that looks a little more official? It just seems...degrading to put him up there with a green polo shirt. I mean, lots of public figures have their professional pictures posted on their pages. Why not him? I would do it, but I don't understand the intricacies of licensing and such. Joshua Ingram 21:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with a little Polo. I hate that he has a foreign flag on the shirt! Flickr might have something with the appropriate license (I'll check right now) but Commons does not. Cptnono (talk) 21:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.foxnews.com/bios/img/headshot_beck.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.foxnews.com/bios/talent/glenn-beck/&usg=__SWSDaCzy7bk0bSvteDkI8vSjteE=&h=425&w=325&sz=19&hl=en&start=124&um=1&tbnid=igQZs67hXdJhhM:&tbnh=126&tbnw=96&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dglenn%2Bbeck%26ndsp%3D18%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN%26start%3D108%26um%3D1

What about his official Fox News photo? Joshua Ingram 00:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to work licensing wise. "This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.© 2009 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved." Copyrights and all that fun stuff come into play. Check out Wikipedia:Image use policy.Cptnono (talk) 01:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I've read through it, I'm just too lazy to fully understand it. I'll leave it to someone who knows what they are doing. Joshua Ingram 02:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah. There are a bunch of ins and outs that make it one of the more complicated aspects of Wikipedia.Cptnono (talk) 02:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Additional political influence

Pestritto? With an eye toward expanding our coverage of intellectual influences on Beck -- Steven F. Hayward in the WaPo?:

Yet Beck's distinctiveness and his potential contribution to conservatism can be summed up with one name: R.J. Pestritto. ¶ Pestritto is a young political scientist at Hillsdale College in Michigan whom Beck has had on his TV show several times, once for the entire hour discussing Woodrow Wilson and progressivism. He is among a handful of young conservative scholars, several of whom Beck has also featured, engaged in serious academic work critiquing the intellectual pedigree of modern liberalism. Their writing is often dense and difficult, but Beck not only reads it, he assigns it to his staff. "Beck asks me questions about Hegel, based on what he's read in my books," Pestritto told me. Pestritto is the kind of guest Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity would never think of booking.

↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 04:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Reading the article, I found this paragraph more interesting, and pertinent:

But he's on to something with his interest in serious analysis of liberalism's patrimony. The left is enraged with Beck's scandal-mongering over Van Jones and ACORN, but they have no idea that he poses a much bigger threat than that. If more conservative talkers took up the theme of challenging liberalism's bedrock assumptions the way Beck does from time to time, liberals would have to defend their problematic premises more often.

Bytebear (talk) 04:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Here's a suggestion from the blogosphere that tries to connect some of the dots with concern to Beck's political "stratum."

    "The way I see it, Beck is part of a broad movement to re-brand conservatives as the traditional protectors of liberty, to wrap the blanket of libertarianism around the entire conservative coalition.   ¶   It all started with Jonah Goldberg and his book Liberal Fascism that essentially argued that any action or enlargement of the state was inherently liberal.   ¶   Hence, fascists are liberals, not conservatives.   ¶   Beck has been deeply and explicitly influenced by Goldberg.   ¶   Mark Levin also played on the theme in his bestseller Liberty and Tyranny, which made frequent use of the term “Statist.”   ¶   The problem with these pundits is that they’re not really committed and consistent libertarians — they’re conservatives." TheVermontCynic

    ↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 18:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Fox - White House controversy

ChiTrib's MARK SILVA (link):

"FOX News Channel's Glenn Beck has become a spokesman for that anger, with a McCarthy-like on-air campaign against anyone in or around the White House who may at one time or another have voiced any appreciation for a radical thought or figure - witness the targeting of Anita Dunn, the White House communications director, for voicing her admiration for Mao Zedong (while Media Matters notes that it was Karl Rove himself, the icon of the right, who once allowed that former President George W. Bush had recommended Mao's biography to him.)   ¶   And Alaska's Sarah Palin has become something of a patron saint for that anger - with Palin pointing her followers on Facebook to Beck's outing of Obama advisers."

-- (and):

"We suspect that Dunn, a veteran of Democratic campaigns, will survive the latest Becking of the White House on FOX[...]."

↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 05:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

You should not imply that this is a ChiTrib source. It is not. This is a blog called "Swamp Politicis." This is implied credibility when it is simply mud slinging partisan opinion. Bytebear (talk) 18:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
@ Bytebear: Isn't The Swamp blog under the editorial supervision of the Chicago Trubune? (Cf WP:SELFPUB.)
Here's a snippet from yet another pundit's blog:

"Glenn, get off your high horse, forget about the White House and your red phone (give me the number and I will call it, I guarantee you). Don’t play demagogue and don’t engage in your own “red-baiting.” It is demeaning and it is uncivil and it is a cheap shot. ¶ It doesn’t become you, it doesn’t add to the discourse, it doesn’t move America forward. ¶ There are not communists or socialists or fascists in the White House. Really, Glenn, there aren’t even radicals there, just human beings trying to do their jobs. Policies are fair game; guilt by character assassinations is not."---The Hill (newspaper)'s PETER FENN (link)

↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 18:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Whether it is or not, you should not give credibility to a blog by claiming it as a news source. Come on, you know the difference, and you should know better than to make such implications. Really, you know better than to present such biased opinions in the first place. Bytebear (talk) 19:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Let me quote Wikipedia:Rs#Statements_of_opinion:
Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material.
Bytebear (talk) 19:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Bytebear said, "[...Y]ou should not give credibility to a blog by claiming it as a news source."
Actually, I am aware that The Swamp is a blog. Yet, per the following
  1. Is the article you're sourcing via a blog of a biographical nature, about a living person? If so, is the blog hosted on a reputable news website? Is the news source in question typically fine to use on Wikipedia on other biographical articles as a source? Is the author a journalist? Is the blog post just a quick--or detailed--news report that happens to be technically formatted as a blog post? If you can answer yes to each of these questions, the source is probably fine to use in a BLP. If the post is expressing an opinion of a named individual, rather than a pure news source, the content added to our BLP article must be attributed to the specific speaker or writer. Such as, 'According to James Smith...'"---WP:BLOGS
  2. "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves."---WP:NPOV's "A Simple Formulation"
  3. "Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article—even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out."---BLP's section, "Wellknown"
-- I knew that it was a sterling source for opinion by the ChiTrib's Mark Silva about Glenn Beck...as would be so referenced.↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 23:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
When did Mark Silva become such an authority? Soxwon (talk) 00:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Soxwon, as it turns out, Silva is the world's foremost authority at least on what it is that he thinks.↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 00:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Let me rephrase, what makes his opinion so important that it should be included? Soxwon (talk) 02:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually, Soxwon, I don't think those two snippet of Silva's are so important but what I was impressed with is how his blog has provided a well-written (if "progressive-slanted": true!) -- uh, summary of the tits and tats of the feud/war that I named this section about and for that reason I think his blog could serve as a good background tool to provide coverage to the issue. (I probably should have said just that in my introduction to the piece: "Hey, this dude has followed these developments and catalogued most of its most obvious particulars! But, unfortunately, I lazily only linked to it, instead -- then, as an after thought, threw in couple of somewhat random quotes from Silva's blogposts.)↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 02:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Uh...being an unapologetic Glenn Beck fan, I hate to say that I agree with Justmeherenow. (That is, on the first two articles. I'm not clear on the implication about the third article, but if it is being said that the third is a neutral point of view, that's BS.) I don't see a problem with this article being used in the main page. Joshua Ingram 03:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

If you are going to use terms like "McCarthy" and whatnot, you should have a reliable and/or notable source to back it up. Soxwon (talk) 03:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, they did say "McCarthy-like." While I realize they are trying to slander him with it (or, in the case of print media, libel), that was really the only thing close to badmouthing him, and, to me, it came off more explanatory than badmouthing. Because, in the beginning, McCarthy really did go after actual communists, and only later began pretty much pulling names out of a hat. Besides, the guy writing that blog had ample opportunity to make him look bad directly, but only tried the indirect, quoting-the-nice/reasonable-sounding-things-Obama-and-his-minions-said approach. That's probably about as neutral as it's going to get. Joshua Ingram 04:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I could not disagree more, if it is truly noteworthy, it will be covered in a neutral manner by reliable mainstream sources like the the USA today. Soxwon (talk) 13:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
USAToday's David Jackson, in admittedly a very balanced fashion, has linked to some very interesting points made about this issue by various sides in the USA Today's political blog:

"Michael Scherer at Time magazine offers this take on what looks like a coordinated White House effort to push back on what it considers unfair coverage.   ¶   It's not exactly a war, but there is one very obvious battle between the White House and the conservative leaning Fox News. The Oval's old pal Mark Silva explains over at The Swamp.   ¶   Of course, some conservatives might scoff at the notion that the press is hard on Obama. This one, for instance.   ¶   As we've pointed out ourselves, President Obama himself has taken on the role of media critic.

↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 16:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Soxwon said, "If it [the recent "White House - versus - Fox" controversy] is truly noteworthy[...].
For those new to this page, way up above I'd listed "Time, NewsMax, The AP, ChiTrib, Television Business Report, Yahoo! News" as evidence for a controversy/rhetorical dispute beginning to brew between specifically Glenn Beck and the Obama Administration and, to be honest, I was completely unaware that anyone thought the issue was not notable by this point in time (Sincerely!) And it was only on the assumption that the issue was notable that I'd come to post here on the talkpage links to the Silva/ChiTrib blog as sources giving many of its granular details. But, in any case, I'll come back in a moment and will list below a random collection of mostly legacy-media "cites" establishing this issue's notability so that we can move on from this question once and for all. BRB!↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 14:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not trying to take sides, but I think Soxwon was saying that we should only use actual journalist reporting, and not opinionated bloggers, no matter how reasonable or neutral they sound. However, in defense of Justmeherenow, there aren't too many journalists or newspapers that haven't started turning their normal news stories into opinion columns (or, in the case of the NYT, progressive hit pieces). Joshua Ingram 15:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate that some wish to avoid mention of the various, notable, political commentaries about some particular, notable, political commentator in hi/r Wikbiography, nevertheless, Wikiguidelines say it's important, actually, to provide such notable opinion encyclopedic coverage. (Eg Wikipedia can observe that certain observsers believe Beck is campaigning against [seeming] corruption and [supposed] radicalism in the Obama administration or whatnot and that other observers believe Beck to be [allegedly] demagoging &c.)
{|(...Hey BTW Alexander Cockburn has an has an interesting take (viz that a competent WH campaign against Fox could conceivably be won!))|}↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 15:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Why on earth would that be a good thing? If they can shut down Fox, they can shut down anyone, including CNN, and NBC, and CBS, and ABC, and all of them. Joshua Ingram 18:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not trying to take sides, but I think Soxwon was saying that we should only use actual journalist reporting, and not opinionated bloggers, no matter how reasonable or neutral they sound.
That is indeed what I was getting at. We should concentrate on neutral presentations, not blogs and pieces that deal in loaded phrases and language. Soxwon (talk) 19:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
@ Soxwon: Fair enough. Of course, sometimes opinion sources contain news, too, in which case we just have to proceed with caution.
@ Joshua: Cockburn seems to be talking about raw hand-to-hand combat in the court of public, political opinion. [Hey... Say that Governor Palin says you pal with terrorists? Then subtly work for left-leaning humorists to paint her common-man's -- or is it common woman's? -- hero status as her being an uninformed hick, then wait to see if she's able to parry your thrust adroitly enough; if not, Palin's opponents win! And that's the game that's being played with regard to Beck. Beck's critics paint him as an unstable, oafish bigot, etc. Beck parries back with genuinely effective propoganda and humor coupled with Beck's becoming a major "opposition research" king of the -- well, I dunno, either Republican Party or at least whatever forces are out there that oppose the Democrats and Obama.] But, what Cockburn seems to be advocating is that instead of ignoring Fox, maybe the administration should take them on, in the court of public opinion, but do so more effectively. But, regardless of whether what Cockburn's advises is, uh, advisable, the O administration seems to be taking this tack (instantly, BTW, making the battle of note, as far as Wikicoverage of it is to be concerned). So, pass the popcorn and watch how it plays out!↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 19:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not going to pretend that I don't watch Fox, or that I don't prefer Fox, but here's how I see this happening. The WH jumps up and attacks Fox in general, and Glenn Beck in particular, and then Beck and Fox keep doing their thing, Fox's ratings keep going up, and the WH keeps doing the same thing, not realizing that their method of attack was moronic because they couldn't prove it, only allege it. Glenn keeps throwing the phone in their face, and they are too proud to admit it. One day, they just give up, because pride becomes a smaller issue than political capital. The only way they can win is if Fox actually starts reporting things that can be proven false, and doing it often.
The WH cannot possibly win. Period. All they are doing is wasting their time, and ours, and playing political games at the expense of the country. Joshua Ingram 21:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Yet, Joshua, I'd tend to agree with Cockburn that if -- if -- Democrats (...as I don't know if the White House is the best front to advance on this) -- are gonna take on the various Fox pundits and the FNCers echoing them, it had better do its own research (heck, even some items mentioned on this talkpage!) and get specific, cos, as I'm sure you and I can agree, slender talking points simply ain't gonna cut it. (MATT GURNEY, of a newspaper published some 700 kilometers northeast of Chicago, blogs):

"Somehow, the White House[...]has come off looking foolish in comparison to ... Glenn Beck. Newspapers and TV hosts are wondering who's going to win the 'war' between Obama and Beck.   ¶   ¶   ¶   [...] There have been some reports that the White House's decision to take on Beck has been motivated at least partially by a growing sense of frustration that all the President's lofty rhetoric and beautifully written speeches can be negated by Beck's rather unpolished showmanship. That makes sense, but if the White House truly wants to lead the American people to some wonderful if as-yet-undefined future, it's going to need to focus on how to raise the discourse, not drop to the lowest common denominator that Fox News appeals to."

↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 22:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done* Since this topic is as equally about the White House as about FNC, I think it probably deserves its own article rather than to be covered either solely at the article about Fox News Channel controversies or the one about the Obama administration. (BTW I've moved many of the references I'd posted on this talkpage section to the top of the new article's talkpage, here: Talk:2009_Fox_News_–_White_House_controversy.↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 01:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Miscellaneous Beck controversies du jour

Alleged ethnic insensitivities

"Criticized for 'hatemongering'" ( --> in lede?)

I've moved the following addition to the lede to here (for anticipated tweaking?)

He has been criticized by many Democrats and independents for "hatemongering", while being defended by many Republicans and libertarians.

IMO, the independents don't necessarily as a body criticize him for "hatemongering," per se, do they? This may well be the best shorthand for Democrats' criticisms, though, I don't know. Suggestions or comments? ↜Just M E here , now 02:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I have not seen anything from a politically independent person accusing him of 'hatemongering'. I've seen that exact term used by liberal astroturf groups auch as Media Matters and by political commentators from the left (and all of that is, in and of itself, notable and there's nothing wrong with presenting that in the articles). But not by independents. The Squicks (talk) 03:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Can you suggest how to phrase the hatemongery charge, Squicks?
(A pair of commentary items with regard to Beck's "Obama is a racist" commentary):
  1. MSNBC's Joe Scarborough: "You cannot preach hatred. You cannot say the president is racist." (Link.)
  2. Jonah Goldberg of the National Review:

    "According to the progs, Beck is a racist because he called Obama a "racist," adding that Obama has a deep-seated hatred for white people. ¶ That statement sparked the Color of Change — Jones's old hangout — boycott attack on Beck which in turn may have prompted Beck to launch his investigations of Jones. ¶ Now my chief problem is simply this: Beck's comments aren't really racist, are they? I don't agree with Beck on the substance; I don't think Obama has a deep-seated hatred for white people. But I don't think his criticism of Obama is itself racist either. Beck's accusation wasn't meant as a compliment, was it? I know the man thinks racism is a bad thing. So how exactly is Beck's accusation racist? Is it just because Obama is black that such criticism automatically becomes racist? Is it really racist merely to call a black person racist? I think Jeremiah Wright is something of a racist. I'm convinced that Louis Farrakhan is a racist. Does that mean I'm racist?" (Link.)

    ↜Just M E here , now 05:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
If someone willingly makes false accusations against another person in the public (in the way Beck did here), then this can perhaps be called libel or slander but not racism. Although racism might very well be the reason behind this manifestation of a lack of decency in public discourse - yet, we don't know this, the reason behind could be just as well, that he got pressure/greed for higher viewing rates or a mental illness or that he's being instrumented politically by people who prefer to stay out of public eye. If the latter case were true, then indeed could you call it hatemonger - whereas if his motivations have to do with viewing rates, you could call it deeply irresponsible and dangerous - but if he suffers from a mental illness, then he would be unfit to plead and in need of help. Conclusion: From an encyclopedic view point, I'd expect mention of his highly questionable discourse (way beyond satire or decent provocation) complemented by some cited examples and the additional information, that his reasons for doing so cannot be verifiably identified (maybe followed by a little exemplary enumeration of the possible motivations - these are of interest, because they should be linked to topics of their own, as they also in an academic sense (i.e. without connotation to Beck) deserve public awareness in a democratic world of media - see examples mentioned above). (JoergB)
Partisan opinions have no place in the lede. Bytebear (talk) 21:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
But there does need to be something in the lede about his controversial & caustic nature. 173.88.154.149 (talk) 06:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

A twitter ("tweet"?) by Beck

is being reported on now in some news sources and blogged about (it would appear, not generally positively). (Link.) ↜Just M E here , now 02:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The bloggers want to moan and that is part of the reason they are not reliable sources. The Jewish Exponent (I assume from a quick check through) and JTA are RS say "Beck said this" and there is 0 commentary. There is no coverage and not really any story.Cptnono (talk) 03:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, speaking of controversies...

Beck has so many (and, now that his profile has been raised as high as it is, there are now even more than there were before) -- since this is a fact related to his career, aren't WP:BLP and WP:WEIGHT concerns for the most part overridden as far as allowing as neutral as possible cataloging of whatever of these controversies have become of note, per WP:RS? (Eg I direct any who might be interested here.) Each controversy by itself seems so minor. But perhaps a sampling of them give a taste to his style and its reception, no? ↜Just M E here , now 03:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

But we can't make contraversies. If RS does not care we can't put it in. If RS does cover it but the percentage is miniscule then there is no reason to give it prominance here.Cptnono (talk) 03:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, Cptnono, I think that reliable sources should trump all -- unless there is a compelling reason per the guidelines not to give a notable event or thing coverage. To pick and choose which noted controversies of Beck's to cover in WP is a fool's errand; let's do 'em all! For better or worse, he's noted as a type of controversialist. (Thus, those who argue that our giving room to them would be WEIGHT/BLP vios apparently simply haven't fully considered the exceptions or reasoning explained in that sub-section within BLP of WP:WELLKNOWN.) ↜Just M E here , now 03:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps the fact that it was the Most Holy Jewish Day which Beck arguably ill-advisedly chose to encourage non-Jewish people to fast and pray on will not find mention in the MSM. But if it does, so far the most balanced criticism of Beck's choice seems to me to the one by Politics Daily's David Gibson (here). ↜Just M E here , now 04:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm not saying we need to cherry pick but if it gets one mention in a good source then there is no reason to give it any play while excluding something that gets significant coverage. I don't think that is anyone's intent but it is something we need to watch out for. Furthermore, it will turn into an excuse to include as much garbage as possible. Although I am not calling for censorship, I do think we need to keep a focus on "Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. (WP:BLPSTYLE). Attempting to figure out a way to include negative remarks over calling for a day of fast and prayer is the perfect example. We shouldn't provide a platform for relatively unknown "controversies". I'm alright with a case by case basis since each incident needs special attention. This is a BLP so we need to be diligent. Editors should also try not adding a new paragraph each time something juicy comes up. How about slapping it on an already exciting line to expand how it summarizes the subject and his career? Also, "our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic"(emphasis mine) (WP:INDISCRIMINATE). Since this runs the risk of creating a frowned upon criticism section the quotes at WP:NOCRIT should be viewed.Cptnono (talk) 04:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
I do find it humorous that negative stuff with 0 importance gets space and editors are seeking more while at least one thing that might be positive of Beck (credit received for the ACORN stuff) still has no mention. that isn't sensationalism picked up by rags, it was something major and respected news outlets considered important. We can discuss these two instances somewhere else on the page, though.Cptnono (talk) 03:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
The coverage that Beck has given to Van Jones's past controversial statements [edited: ACORN] is certainly notable. Why is it not mentioned in the article?
A commentator is known for what they comment on. Not to give this coverage, when notable, citing BLP, rather would be but a vio of encyclopedic duties under WP:WELLKNOWN, IMO. ↜Just M E here , now 04:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Show us some sources and we can go from there. Also, there is a paragraph devoted to the recent Van Jones stuff. This is also a biography of Beck so his general commentary might be better for Wikiquote in some cases.Cptnono (talk) 08:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be some misunderstanding of policy here. Nothing trumps BLP. WP:BLP is there to shield the foundation from legal action by preventing libelous material about an individual from being hosted on foundation servers, as such this policy is inviolable and non-negotiable. The number of sources covering something is irrelevant, if an edit violates BLP then the edit gets excised. L0b0t (talk) 12:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
L0b0t said, "Nothing trumps BLP."
Reading the policy in its entirety, a belief that an advocacy for adhering to WP:WELLKNOWN would in any way, shape, or form hope to trump or violate BLP is incorrect, revealing such a sentiment itself to be a misunderstanding of BLP policy, since WELLKNOWN itself is a part of BLP. According to BLP, to leave out a responsible and balanced coverage of information conceivably thought "negative" about a public person is a dereliction of encyclopedic duty. ↜Just M E here , now 13:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
You misunderstand me. BLP has nothing to do with protecting an article's subject from (reliably sourced) unflattering information. It is simply to protect the Wikimedia Foundation from legal action by keeping potentially libelous material off of their servers. This has nothing to do with balance, weight, POV, opinion, etc... Yes WP:WELLKNOWN is a part of BLP, it's the part that says BLP has nothing to do with censoring information that a subject may find unflattering. As it is part of BLP, where you get the idea that I think BLP trumps part of itself is a mystery. Nothing trumps BLP, of which WELLKNOWN is a part. The fact remains, any and all potentially libelous material must be removed on sight. L0b0t (talk) 13:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Indeed.
"Potentially libelous," BTW, would be according to the laws of Florida, the legal jurisdiction of WP's servers. ...Not, say, those of the U.K. (I'm no expert -- well, I have seen the spine of The Associated Press Stylebook And Briefing On Media Law with Internet Guide and Glossary 35th ed. on my reporter friend's bookshelf. So if any info from inside this book transferred to me through osmosis, I'm good to go. ;^) -- but, in any case, I don't think I'm going too far out on a limb to say that in the U.S. generally, and, therefore, granted to us Wikipedia contributors from around the world, is an extremely broad leeway to legally discuss the public statements or acts of public persons.) ↜Just M E here , now 14:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the Wikimedia servers are physically located in the great State of Florida, so they fall under US and FL law. The standards for Wikipedia, however, are somewhat stricter than those statutorily called for. For example, we require material to have already been published by reliable sources before inclusion, we do not include rumor or innuendo, and our copyright/fair use policy is stricter than required by US law. I am in no way suggesting that material that a subject may not like be excluded (provided, of course, all other policies/guidelines are followed); what I am saying (and what BLP demands of all editors) is that potentially libelous material (and here, if in doubt, we err on the side of caution) that is, material that could conceivably be actionable must be excised. If one disagrees with this policy then one is welcome to take it up on the talk page for the policy but I think that dog won't hunt. L0b0t (talk) 14:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
No, we should not cover such NEWS or detail some indiscriminate collection of information. You're labeling these "controversies", but they're not controversies - it's just daily news (often opinion pieces and pushed with an agenda). There are controversies here, and we cover them.. Van Jones for instance. Each little news story doesn't collectively make anything for our purpose as an encyclopedia. We are not the news, we are not a tabloid, we don't synthesize information, we are not a list of criticism or praise - this is an encyclopedia, a historic biography of a person's life. Wikipedia:News_articles Take into account the historical significance of each story over the career and life of the biography. I'm about to put some form of banner or FAQ on this talk page, because I'm tired of repeating the same thing over and over every time someone comes in with the latest titillating claim about Beck's life. Please, stop the madness. Morphh (talk) 16:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Morph, the larger point I was making did not advocate SYNTH at all -- nor even making WP articles into mere lists of criticisms and praises. (Nice thrusts and parries against such a strawman, though.) In Beck's case, he happens to be a subject who makes his living as an "anti-establishment" commentator, and thus he thereby engenders no small amount of criticism/praise of his viewpoints and style of their delivery. And for Wikicontributors to up and insist on some hurdle that is higher than the one Wikipedia has intelligently set up in its editing directives would simply render anemia to the coverage we grant this subject, IMO. ↜Just M E here , now 17:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Note - Joanna Brooks writes in Religion Dispatches:

    "[...Beck's] Twitter-issued September 19 call: 'Sept 28. Lets make it a day of Fast and Prayer for the Republic. Spread the word. Let us walk in the founders steps.' This call to fasting and prayer may indeed have been an appropriation of the Jewish holy day of Yom Kippur, but it is also rooted in the traditional Mormon practice of holding individual, familial, and collective fasts to address spiritual challenges." ((link)

    ↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 01:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

"Refused to elaborate"

This was contributed to the article with concern to Couric's asking Beck about the "white culture" reference on Fox and Friends. If my memory serves right, however, the context of Beck's responses to Couric was that Beck had already covered what he had meant by what he had said in complete depth on Beck's radio show but that he considered Couric's query to be but a "gotcha" question difficult to answer with anything other than some all-too-likely damaging soundbite.

I have not heard the audio of Beck's radio show which Beck is referring to here (however, I'll go and check it, in a moment, if possible). Nonetheless, judging from the context of what depth of an answer that Beck had given to Couric's question, I would imagine that Beck's radio show would have explained that his controversial statement on Fox and Friends would consist of a very convoluted train of thought where, I believe, Beck had started out by explaining to the Fox and Friends hosts that Beck has begun to believe that Obama might harbor some kind of "reverse-prejudice" [in my turn of phrase, there] againt whites -- immediately after which Beck attempted to correct himself as he wondered (asking this in a questioning tone of voice) if what Obama would be prejudiced against, instead, was with concern to not white people, per se, but against "White culture" (without Beck's trying to define what this "white culture" might be that he speculated that Obama could conceivably be prejudiced against).

See? it is impossibly convoluted in meaning -- hence Beck's refusal to offer a sound bite on the topic, other than (1) to say to Couric that he had said on Fox and Friends that he wondered why Obama would jump to the conclusion that the Cambridge Massachussetts police officers were wrong unless Obama were prejudiced against the white officers involved, due only to these officers' race; yet (2) that Glenn didn't know if it would be that Obama was prejudiced against white people or against white culture -- without Beck's even venturing a guess as to what such a prejudice (the one against white culture) might entail.

Phew!

I'll check his radio show on the topic in addition to refreshing my memory as to Beck's interview by Couric now.↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 12:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

____
First the Couric-interview transcript with regard to her query of Beck about his use of the term white culture -- which is here. --> (Link)↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 12:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
It is actually quite straight forward. To acknowledge that it was a 'gotcha' question illustrates that Beck realizes that it was somewhat of a poor statement to make. This is perhaps emphasised by the ambiguity of his statement "..a deep seated hatred for white people, the white culture, I dont know what it is". He then asserts that "you can't sit in the pew with jeramiah wright for 20 years and not hear some of that stuff and have it washed over", thus attributing his initial opinion to the fact that Obama was linked to Jeremiah Wright. Beck also refers to Obama's response to the police incident, and uses it as an argument for his statement. Whether or not that justifies the statement is obviously debatable, but the fact is that it can easily be explained. The fact of the matter is that Beck did not elaborate on the statement, and that is what I added to the article. There is nothing wrong with adding that to the article, it is not slanted, it simply states the fact that he did not explain it to Couric. He may have explained it again on his radio show, but he did not explain it to Couric. I suppose that the addition of an explaination would clear up the 'controversy', but that would obviously constitute as original research. -Reconsider the static (talk) 13:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
RTS: Fair enough. Anyway, here's the transcript:

      A twitter question is, AdrianInFlorida: What do you mean by white culture?

Um, I, I don’t---

      <interrupts> You said he had a deep-seated hatred for the white culture, what is that? What is the white culture?

I guess it’s--- Gosh. I’m so tempted to make news here today.

      No no, I’m just curious, this was actually AdrianInFlorida.

What to do? What to do? Adrian, Go to GlennBeck.com. Listen to it. You can hear all of it.

      No, but you didn’t really address white culture, I think, in your explanation about President Obama, I haven’t seen the whole show, but can you? Just for our purposes?

Just for your purposes? So this will be a little secret between us?

      No, for this show, can you explain what you mean by the white culture? Because some people say that sounds kind of racist.

Really? It’s amazing to me that, for the first time, I think in history somebody can ask a question and say, “Don’t you think that maybe we have several pieces here?” We have several pieces; George Bush says my grandmother was a typical African-American that had, that had her views bred into her. You don’t think maybe we would ask questions about that comment? How is it that the first time I think in history, you should check on it, somebody says, “Hey. There’s some red flags here maybe we should look at?”--- How am I? How am I the target for asking questions?

      People just want to know. What is white culture?

I’m going to see if I can play your game. People just want to know.

      You know, well, Adrian wants to know.

That’s good for Adrian.

      No but I mean it’s fine if you make a statement though, shouldn’t you be able to defend exactly what you mean by it. I’m not---

<interrupts> Katie, how many times have you said, how many times have you said something where you’re like, “I didn’t think. What’s white culture? I don’t know. What’s the white culture?” <pauses> What? What is the white culture? I don’t know how to answer that that’s not a trap.

      Mhmm.

You know what I mean?

      Yeah I’m not, I’m just, I’m not trying to trap you, I’m just, I think people wanted to know what that meant exactly.

Well we know Adrian does.

      Yeah, and you’re not going to answer her?

I’m not going to get into your sound bite gotcha game which we already are. We already are.

      No we’re actually, this is completely unedited so if you felt like you wanted to explain it, you have all the time in the world.

Mhmm.

      No? Don’t want to go there?

Nope.

      But basically, you stand behind your assertion that in your view, President Obama is a racist.

I believe that Americans should ask themselves tough questions. Americans should turn over all the rocks and make their own decisions.

↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 13:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

  • (Here's a liberal site's paraphrase of of the rest of the interview):

    Beck was suggesting that Obama's comments indicated a mind set that, to Beck, somehow “proved” Obama was not only a racist but held a deep-seated hatred for white people or white culture. Couric later asked Beck what he had meant by "white culture" and he refused to say.

    After Couric suggested that perhaps the prism Obama was viewing the incident through might be the history of racial profiling in this country (and he had said as much), Beck said, “Isn’t that important to know?”

    “Is that the same as saying he’s a racist?” Couric asked.

    “I’m sorry the way it was phrased,” Beck said. But he went on to indicate that that’s exactly what he thinks or at least that he plans to continue to characterize Obama as such.

    Beck said the accusation was a serious question that deserved a serious answer, and that he had given it on his television show. But rather than summarize his answer (and I think Couric let him off too easily here), Beck went on to accuse Obama further. “If George Bush would have sat… in a pew for 20 years where he had a preacher saying black people are wrong and bad, black people are poisoning white people. Would you not question if he immediately made a snap judgment on something and said the black cop was wrong?”

    “So you’re bringing it back to Rev. Wright,” Couric said.

    “That’s one example… We could go longer on that,” Beck replied.

    ↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 14:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
To put it simply, while there is an obvious problem with attempting to define "white culture", Beck could easily explain, in a roundabout manner, that he believes that Obama holds a sense of animosity towards White people due to his association with Wright, and the police incident. I'm just providing my reasons for adding the sentence, though in hindsight maybe it not necessary. -Reconsider the static (talk) 13:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
RTS, consider, nevertheless, that from Beck's point of view, were he to simply repeat his point from Fox & Friends, he might somehow step into the self-same trap he'd somehow fallen in before -- yet this time with a non-sympathetic interviewer. (BTW, to refresh our memories, here is the transcript of Beck's statements on F&F):

This president, I think, has exposed himself as a guy, over and over and over again, who has a deep-seated hatred for white people? -- or the white culture? I don’t know what it is.

      {Brian Kilmeade asks how such a question about Obama can be reconciled against the fact that Obama has such advisers who happen to be white as Axelrod, Gibbs, Emanuel.}

I’m not saying he doesn’t like white people. I’m saying he has a problem. He has a --- This guy is, I believe, a racist.”

↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 13:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I will say it again. Primary sources (transcripts, interviews, YouTube) are not reliable sources, especially for controversial "sound bites" since they do not demonstrate notability. This is especially true of BLPs. Bytebear (talk) 15:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Incorrect. It is how we use them. "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge."-WP:PRIMARY (policy) And Just a reminder: Wikipedia is not a mirror of public domain or other source material. In Wikipedia articles, quotes of any original texts being discussed should be relevant to the discussion (or illustrative of style) and should be kept to an appropriate length.-WP:NPS (guideline) and keep within the principles of the WP:SELFPUB list of do nots of the WP:VERIFY guideline.Cptnono (talk) 00:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but the source in question is not be used as a supplementary source to a primary source. Bytebear (talk) 00:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't even paying attention to the discussion (sorry about that) I just wanted to make it clear that such shows can be used as sources if done correctly. I also don't think it is worth mentioning. "OMG HE DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT IT SO LETS INCLUDE IT IN WIKIPEIDA" Does the paragraph in question even desrve expansion?Cptnono (talk) 01:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Couric: "I thought it was interesting that he [Beck] actually seems himself as more along the lines of Jon Stewart than a journalist and that he wants to be judged accordingly. I think the problem is, because he’s on Fox News and it’s a news network, people feel that he is more along the lines of a journalist." (link)↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 02:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Zaitchik's assertion wrt Beck's being uncomfortable around minorities, including Jews

Latest anti-Beck "Anonymous" Internet meme?

This is something I wonder, from looking at the context, if Zaitchik didn't come up with through deduction merely from a self-deprecating comment by Beck made about how whitebread his home town was(?)

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

Some questions. Would the Catholicism of Beck's youth be considered the majority religion of that place and time?

Who was it that made the generalized reference to Beck's being uncomfortable around ethnic minorities, was this a self-admission of Beck's or something that Zaitchik only read into Beck's "admission" about how the demographics of Mt. Vernon, Washington, vary, say, from Brooklyn's? If Zaitchik here was simply making polemical hay, playing off the hatemongery charge against Beck because of Beck's "Obama is a racist" charge, I think this should be sifted out.

Anyway, Zaitchik's perceptive, or else bizarre, assertion (and which one it is, I can't yet be sure!) is now taking on legs in the political blogosphere (See for example here.) -- where it has mutated first into, "Beck has admitted he feels uncomfortable around minorities and Jews," and then even to "Beck says he has no friends that are Jewish because he feels uncomfortable around them." Still, if my guess is mistaken and it's not a case of people's picking up Zaitchik's weird rhetorical football and running with it and if Beck made some actual admission in this regard, I would be interested in finding it, with a mind to consider contributing a mention of this controversy in this BLP.↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 20:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The political blogosphere is irrelevant to this article. They will always and continually make outlandish claims about any and everything regarding Beck. Attempts to make these pseudo-issues noteworthy through brute force is why we must take special care in choosing only the most reliable sources possible. We really need to avoid this and similar criticisms like the plague. They simply have no place on Wikipedia, especially a BLP. Bytebear (talk) 22:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't support the inclusion of material from the "blogosphere". Hopefully in time Beck's life, works, and ideas will be covered in published books or journal articles. Until then, I believe we as editors should strive to use the most reliable and notable sources out there (right now those unfortunately appear to be Time & Salon magazine amongst others).   Redthoreau (talk)RT 22:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, unreliable blogs should not be used when it comes to BLP articles. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Media spats

Beck - The View controversy

To refocus the discussion: I had brought up as an example the deletion of material -- NPOV stuff composed from a consensus carefully reached in the middle of July -- which concerns mention of the "Beck - 'The View' tiff."

An interpersonal conflict arose in 2009 between Beck and both Whoopi Goldberg and Barbara Walters of the television show The View. Previously on Beck's radio show Beck had made a passing reference to his observation that Goldberg and Walters had received special accomodations on Amtrak. (Cite The Independent) During a guest appearance by Beck on The View, Goldberg, who said she did not necessarily dislike Beck personally but disliked Beck's views, termed Beck "a lying sack of dog mess" for the way Beck had characterized their meeting on the train and Walters questioned Beck's professionalism in his reporting of the incident. Goldberg and Walters have continued to maintain that no seats were reserved for them on the train and their rebukes of Beck have received much airplay and numerous mentions in the media. (Cite the Illinois Daily Times, Salon, Entertainment Weekly and The Week.) Beck has stood by the basic integrity of his original observations and has come to reference the details of the feud within his "Common Sense" stand-up comedy show. (Cite Time magazine and a The Glenn Beck Show transcript.)

Per WP:N, material drawn from WP:RSes giving coverage to this inter- broadcast personalities' squabble deserves mention, despite some Wikicontributors belief otherwise and their claims about the material's mere "tabloidish," since we follow the lead of the reliable 2ndary sources, which, in this case either allude to this incident in specific coverage or else general Beck profiles that can be found in 20/20, Salon, the Independent, Time, Entertainment Weekly, etc. (See especially WP:FANCRUFT.) Per our basic editing guidelines (see WP:PRESERVE) our encyclopedic coverage of this topic/incident can be summarized to a briefer mention, expanded further for more nuanced balance, moved to a mention in a more pertinent article elsewhere, or else moved to the talkpage to elicit more discussion or proposals with concern to it (the last choice of which I'm belatedly performing now.) ↜Just M E here , now 18:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a complete exposition of all possible details. Rather, an article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Treat verifiable and sourced statements with appropriate weight.(WP:NOT).
Yes, this is tabloidish. If it can be worded in a manner that furthers the readers understanding of the subject's career in the existing prose it would be hard to argue that it would be too much weight. Unfortunately, a list style article will result if all news reports are just thrown in without any regard for actually summarizing the subject's life. The prominence of a new section or paragraph would be too much. If the article had more details including more noteworthy controversies (eg ACORN) and maybe mentions of other relatively unimportant tidbits then it would clearly be OK. Start figuring out a way to place it in excising prose or start proposing/wait for other additions to the article so this "controversy" does not receive undue weight with its inclusion.Cptnono (talk)

checkYPer a recent wikicontribution to the article's mainspace and per the discussion in this subsection (and the bottom of this subsection), I have restored the above material to the article.↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 06:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

White House mentions of Fox News and Beck

Time, NewsMax, The AP, ChiTrib, Television Business Report, Yahoo! News. ↜Just M E here , now 03:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

If you are going to mention this, then you need to also put in that Beck opened his show with a "correction" on Thursday, that he meant Calgary, not Vancouver. But the TIME piece is so poorly written it never addresses what the "lies" actually were. I mean Doocy? Doocy lied? naaaaaaaah. ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 10:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
Oh God... I'm going to stick out of this one since I heard him saying some silly stuff the other day about it.Cptnono (talk) 11:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I guess we will find out this morning whether or not Chicago gets the nod. If it doesn't and the WH blames Beck for not landing the Olympics, that will be notable. I think we should put this on the back burner until the topic develops fully. ObserverNY (talk) 12:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
Chicago and Tokyo eliminated. Just announced on FOX - [4]. ObserverNY (talk) 15:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
Reading the Time source, it seems the White House blog was critical of Fox News in general, not Beck specifically. Wouldn't this issue be better served on the Fox News article. 68.5.11.175 (talk) 01:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Good suggestion. ObserverNY (talk) 01:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
Kind of. Rio was way ahead of Chicago without Beck of FOX. Any suggestion about the release here or at FOX should put it in the context of one single piece of the continuing friction between FOX and the White House. Hopefully the coverage won't go to nuts about this since it will be contradictory to previous sources and common sense along with causing all sorts of headaches.Cptnono (talk) 01:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
The IP said, "the White House blog was critical of Fox News in general, not Beck specifically."
IP, please read the links at the top of the thread. In fact, even the Time piece you reference said that the lies that the "Call 'Em Out White House" specified "concern the utterances of Fox News' Glenn Beck on Tuesday night and Steve Doocey on Tuesday morning." And the remainder of the sources note the unusual aspect of an adminstration's calling out specific pundits in this manner, such as The AP, which wrote, "The White House's target was Glenn Beck...". Also Google and read the score of legacy media articles' ledes -- such as this one here at TV Guide: "President Barack Obama may have failed to bring the 2016 Summer Olympics to Chicago, but the White House doesn't have any regrets — and lashed out this week at Fox News and Glenn Beck for criticizing the president's efforts."
Here's the primary source:

"[...]Fox News' Glenn Beck program has shown that nothing is worthy of respect if it can be used as part of a partisan attack to boost ratings.

RHETORIC: BECK SAID VANCOUVER LOST $1 BILLION WHEN IT "HAD THE OLYMPICS."

Glenn Beck said, "Vancouver lost, how much was it? they lost a billion dollars when they had the Olympics." (Transcript, Glenn Beck Show, 9/29/09)

-- with Beck's name repeated a score of times throughout thet rest of this White House blogpost. It's final line is

"For even more Fox lies, check out the latest "Truth-O-Meter" feature from Politifact that debunks a false claim about a White House staffer that continues to be repeated by Glenn Beck and others on the network.

↜Just M E here , now 06:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
So your point is that the white House is calling him a liar. I actually happened to be flipping through the channels and heard his original statement about Vancouver losing money. Ridiculous statement that made me want to throw my remote at the TV but it could also have been a screw up (they have spent x amount of money would have been accurate). Regardless, it isn't Beck's fault that the Olympics aren't in Chicago (Obama threw a last play hail mary while down and the receiver didn't catch it) and I doubt you will be able to find the amount of sources required to add this without overweighting the section. "Although Chicago was more than likely not going to receive the games per sources x,y,z the White House took the opportunity to call Beck a liar for saying Vancouver lost money according to b. Other lies pointed out were blah blah blah but Beck counters that the White House are just being yada yada yada." I'm ot saying you shouldn't try but that I think it is a tall order and don't know if it is even neccasary.Cptnono (talk) 07:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Per most of these sources, what's striking and notable is the White House's having called any pundit a liar, or called out a media critic specifically, regardless of whatever are the actual particulars. And so, per WP:RSes, the fact of the WH's having singled Beck out for opprobrium is notable. ↜Just M E here , now 07:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Matt Gurney in the National Post: "While the White House bloggers do effectively rebut several of the points raised during the segment on Beck's show, you have to ask yourself when the White House decided to duke it out with television pundits." (link) ↜Just M E here , now 08:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I find the utilization of new media against opponents as equally or more important since the Executive Branch calling someone out isn't new. That is a discussion for another page though. As long as any inclusion doesn't read like it was Beck's fault that the Games aren't in Chicago it is worth pursuing since it is noteworthy that they are pissed at him.Cptnono (talk) 07:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Cptnono, I disagree about it being common for the WH to criticize a specific media person, but we agree, both on the new media aspect (use of the White House blog) and on your last point about any blaming of Beck for Chicago's loss of the bid. ↜Just M E here , now 07:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, "common" would assert too much for sure.
I would rather see a paragraph summarizing it in general with mentions of specifics over a bulleted list. I don't know if it will be possible since they will more than likely be trading barbs for awhile.07:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I bet the WH will decide to stop mentioning Beck by name, based on the recent history of when Obama himself (as was likewise considered unusual) had uttered the barb against Limbaugh -- which may have been repeated by Gibbs, I can't remember. However, thereafter, the WH corrected course and didn't name Limbaugh specifically in any defenses of policy or ideas after that. In fact, I'll check and see if this tit-for-tat got contributed to Limbaugh's blp and if so, in what form. BRB. ↜Just M E here , now 07:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Here 'tis, such as it is: Rush Limbaugh#"Leader of Republican Party". On March 4, 2009, Limbaugh challenged President Barack Obama to a debate on his radio program. Limbaugh offered to pay all of Obama's expenses including travel, food, lodging, and security.[5] On March 6, 2009, Limbaugh told Byron York of the Washington Examiner that his ratings for his radio show had significantly increased during the feud between him and the Obama Administration.[6] ↜Just M E here , now 08:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Just a thought, but wouldn't this sort of information be more appropriate on the Barack Obama page? ObserverNY (talk) 12:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ObserverNY, I understand your concern, I think, whether in this instance the reaction of the Obama Administration to Beck has bee proven to be of importance to or within Beck's career or not. IAC, so far what has been included, information-wise, in this thread has just been "heads up" links but no proposals of text, yet were I, for one, to contribute text to the article w/re the Beck Show - versus - White House tit-for-tat it would be based on reports in the legacy media that would establish its notability w/re Beck, such as, say, referencing Beck's reactions or acknowledgement of the White House's mention of him (moreso, per se, than how Beck's piece on Jarrett was reacted to by the Administration). ↜Just M E here , now 18:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Beck spoof website

Too lazy here to check the archive to see if it was already known previous to this piece on the subject in Adweek that the spoofer is an Isaac Eiland-Hall. ↜Just M E here , now 19:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It's in there, up in the archives and history. That user outed himself here when he posted to apologize for so many people trying to link to his little website. He claims he started all this mess "to help the meme grow". L0b0t (talk) 20:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
The spoof has been discussed many times on the talk page (though not Mr. Hall) but deemed not notable for inclusion by the glennsturbators. (e.g., I posted this on Sept. 11, 2009: "The rape/murder hoax is starting to get wider coverage. [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. Its incendiary, so it will likely take more time to establish itself on Beck's page (if ever)..."). Then it was on politics daily on 9/17[12]. AdWeek is definitely a step towards mainstream coverage. --Milowent (talk) 21:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I had never heard of Glenn Beck until I saw the internet story in the UK. I came to this page to find out who he is! I guess that shows the story is significant at least. Fig (talk) 10:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
There has been a step towards mainstream coverage as mentioned by Milowent. As it looks now, it is still tabloid trash and inclusion might cause a weight issue due to the percentage of sources actually mentioning it. ACORN coverage > rape satire coverage but there is some coverage so the idea of inclusion shouldn't be completely shelved.Cptnono (talk) 11:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Unless and until there is an actual lawsuit and that lawsuit is covered by reliable sources, the "satire" has no place whatsoever in this article. The only thing notable about this whole situation is the theory that tort action cann be brought on the basis of a URL alone rather than the content of the website but until action is filed (and covered by reliable sources, which Gawker, Boing-Boing, Hotair, Politicsdaily, and Thefirstpost most certainly are not) there is nothing here to report. This is a general purpose encyclopedia not a place to list every stupid thing subject utters and certainly not a place to list stupid things that people say about the subject. L0b0t (talk) 12:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
If we do include anything (and I don't think we should yet), I think it should be conservative and encyclopedic. Something like "Beck has also been the subject of online satire, which resulted in claims of defamation and a lawsuit filed against the website owner." I can not see us repeating the domain name or the meme. Morphh (talk) 19:02, 01 October 2009 (UTC)
Beck HAS filed suit with the World Intellectual Property Organization in Geneva (strange that he chose socialistic Europeans over American justice) against the website in question. I'm still unclear as to why the minutiae of most notable public figures' lives is considered notable, yet there are "editors" of this article that feel it's somehow 'stupid' to mention such an issue as this. If *I* were someone wanting to learn more about Beck, I think the website and it's implicit critique of Beck's style of "if he didn't do it, why doesn't he deny it" and "prove to me that you aren't working with our enemies", is VERY relevent and would make for a MORE balanced article. Beck seems to have followers of his that deem anything critical of him as 'trivial' and 'stupid'.Cinemageddon (talk) 23:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
No, no he has not. WIPO is not a court, no one can "file suit" with them. Beck's representatives have engaged in WIPO's domain name dispute arbitration process. This has nothing to do with any feelings about "American justice", it's just the first stop on the trademark infringing domain name resolution train. While there have been a couple attempts (this on included) on the talk page to actually discuss this rationally, the vast majority (if not the entirety) of the attempts to include the info in the article have been nothing more than WP:POINTY efforts to get the accusation itself edited in verbatim. This behavior has been tiresome and very annoying to those of us here to actually improve the encyclopedia. The accusation that the article is being censored by "followers of Beck" is unfounded, unwarranted, and demonstrably incorrect. Why is inclusion of this meme so important? How is this meme more worthy of inclusion than the Richard Gere gerbil meme that has been consistently censored from his article (and had coatrack articles deleted)? Again, if a lawsuit is filed it might be notable as IIRC it could set a interesting precedent about URLs themselves being damaging (rather than the content of the web page itself). Until then, inclusion would be giving undue weight to a position held by a tiny minority. L0b0t (talk) 00:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
WIPO is not a court?! I guess it depends on your definition. Has Gere ever filed a suit or complaint, either in a court, or 'arbitration process'? As far as trademark infringement, if that is the claim Beck is going with, then that is quite notable in itself, as no one, not even the most moronic user of the internet, will confuse the URL in question with Glenn Beck's trademarked name. That is what an infringement claim boils down to, you know. I suggest you read Beck's submission to WIPO, as well as Marc Randazza's response. If you TRULY feel that you are here to "improve the article", how can you honestly feel including such an issue detracts from the quality of it? Wikipedia has REAMS of trivial internet meme articles, yet this one, which has consumed so much time and emotion on Wikipedia is somehow the focus of a 'tiny minority'? I know some editors here are focused on "defending the honor of Confederate soldiers", and such. Perhaps they should examine their OWN neutrality.
This experience has been my most disheartening I've had to deal with on Wikipedia. I signed up very idealistically about contributing to the body of human knowledge, but instead have to argue with shortsighted zealots that have a chip on their shoulder. I personally don't care one iota about Beck, I just thought it was interesting and relevant. I mentioned this controversy weeks ago, and was promptly reverted because it was 'stupid'. I simply thought it was interesting and may be of interest to those that looked up Beck's name.
For a site that has no problem devoting hundreds and even thousands of words enumerating in excruciating detail the plot points of Japanese anime, Simpsons episodes, etc; the inclusion of a minor sentence or two seems to get some 'editors' all worked up and upset. Guess what, people are going to learn the facts about Beck through other means than your preciously guarded Wikipedia article. And more than a "tiny minority" have SERIOUS concerns regarding his method of discourse. The 'satire' website addresses those concerns, and if you can't see the relevance of that, then have fun defending the honor of Beck against the "tiny minorities".Cinemageddon (talk) 00:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Please no personal attacks. You have to understand that a biography of a living person is treated differently on Wikipedia than other articles. It's not a minor sentence or two - it's major, as major as it gets. We have to be very careful with topics like this, which borderlines on a defamatory change. It is probably one of the most restrictive and heavily enforced areas of policy. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment. We've discussed this issue several times on the talk and the consensus has been not to include it at this point. Morphh (talk) 1:14, 02 October 2009 (UTC)
(ec)Again, if there is an actual lawsuit that stems from this and it is covered by reliable sources, then there may be grounds for inclusion. As of yet, no coverage in reliable sources has been presented and, as I stated above, all of the previous attempts to insert the claim, just tried to insert the claim verbatim (that Beck has been accused and never denied the accusation), never any context, never any back story, and certainly never any proper sources. As for notability of trademark infringement, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Trademark differs from copyright in many ways, one of which is that mark holders have to actively defend their mark against dilution or they lose their monopoly, so disputes over infringement (even disputes that to a layperson seem "moronic") are fairly common. Also, you seem to be mischaracterizing slightly, here is the relevant section, nobody called you or your edits stupid, in fact, you were told (politely, by 6 different editors) the same thing you are being told in this thread. As of now, lacking coverage in reliable sources, there is no place in the article for the information you wish to include. I'm sorry your rose-colored glasses were knocked off while you were trying to idealistically contribute, I truly am but if this has been your most disheartening experience here, you got off pretty easy; check out the collection of lamest edit wars. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 01:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Hey, guys, both Adweek and Ars Technica (see eg piece here) fulfill the requirements at WP:RS (are not self-published nor fringy). ↜Just M E here , now 03:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Per multiple comments above it is not just RS. As I mentioned, I am not completely against it but would like to see things that have a signifigantly higher amount of coverage get inclusion also.Cptnono (talk) 03:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
(@ Cptnono): Fair enough. ↜Just M E here , now 03:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
If the rape-hoax was about O.J. Simpson, it would be in his article with all these sources at this point. Obviously Richard Gere and the gerbil is not making a political point, though it keeps cropping up here anyway because people can't believe there isn't an article on it. The same thing will keep happening with Beck.--Milowent (talk) 16:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Most of the sources are not reliable and the ones we have are not sufficient to put in such contentions material. Material that has been stated to be defamatory by Beck's lawyers. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high quality references." Morphh (talk) 16:51, 02 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh come on. A number of the sources cited (Adweek and ars technica as another editor just noted above) are perfectly reliable for the information reported, and, in fact, no one is denying that the key facts out there about the hoax, and Beck's steps against it (which generate the most coverage) are accurate. Reporting on both side's moves is not defamatory. The real reason its not in the article, and not being covered by most major news outlets, it because its unseemly. We should just be honest about that. Thus, when googling ("glenn beck rape") in the news, people are finding the non-RS sources (like this [http://www.examiner.com/x-19545-Anchorage-Liberal-Examiner~y2009m9d10-Did-Glenn-Beck-rape-and-murder-a-young-girl-in-1990 hatchet job] (#3 in google news, #5 in google in general) because they top the searches. As a result, arguably the rumor is spreading farther than it otherwise would.--Milowent (talk) 18:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
NPR has the story now. So at some point very soon we're going to have to abandon this "reliable sources" canard and start genuinely discussing the matter. Gamaliel (talk) 20:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
LOL, NPR even references that its not on wikipedia. I await the claims that NPR is not a reliable source. Its quite clear that the legal case is highly notable.--Milowent (talk) 20:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
So because an antagonistic source comments on a lie it makes the lie more noteworthy? I don't understand the logic. Bytebear (talk) 21:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh give it rest, you don't want to understand, Bytebear, I already know that. EVERY source is antagonistic if they report on this story, right? The notability lies in much more than the hoax, due to the legal proceedings which it has now generated at this point. I am not going to edit the Glenn Beck article anymore because its fruitless, and frankly, I'm think he's too much of a basket case. Also, btw, the brief the domain holder filed is hilarious, full of cites to wikipedia about internet memes like Leeroy Jenkins, even Gere and the gerbil. Don't let the folks participating in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Raptor_Jesus_(meme) know they've been left out!--Milowent (talk) 21:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Nice. If you can't discuss an issue like an adult, don't bother. Start a false rumor, get a lot of people to report on it (none of them reliable and most of them antagonistic) and then call it notable. Give me a break!. Oh, and maybe you should review WP:CIVIL before responding. Bytebear (talk) 21:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Citing WP:CIVIL should be like Godwin's law, frankly. I can discuss the issue with you with some color because you are an adult and I respect your intellect to understand the color. We both know this isn't about a false rumor, its a parody that is a commentary on Beck's own style. "Getting a lot of people to report" is the dirty reality that creates notability on anything, from Paris Hilton to Nostradamus.--Milowent (talk) 21:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Parody is commonplace. Should we include the SNL Skit, or the various mentions on John Stewart? What makes this more noteworthy than those? Bytebear (talk) 21:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Bringing a legal or pseudolegal action against the parodist in front of a world governing body is not so commonplace. Gamaliel (talk) 23:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
And you have a third party reliable unbiased source to back up the notability? Bytebear (talk) 23:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
You mean besides the many links already posted to this page? Gamaliel (talk) 01:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
That's on a blog at NPR (so not sure where that falls), and it doesn't reference that its not on wikipedia. It states "Before you run off to check Wikipedia about the alleged incident, there's no truth to it whatsoever." Morphh (talk) 21:05, 02 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, you have quoted it accurately. I didn't intend to mislead. They probably are reading this thread. --Milowent (talk) 21:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Since we're now getting some additional sources, I've asked for some guidance from User:Bigtimepeace, who has helped us in the past with guiding content. I removed an addition of the meme until we have gained some agreement for inclusion and wording. I don't think we need to repeat the domain name or the particular satire allegation to describe the existence of the online satire and lawsuit, but that is something we'll have to discuss. Please keep a look out for better sources (most reliable sources) that report this, since it is such contentious material for a BLP, it would be best to have the highest valued sources to support inclusion. Morphh (talk) 19:24, 03 October 2009 (UTC)
If neither the domain name nor satirical allegation is included, then the addition would be meaningless. The entire point of Beck's filing the complaint was over the name of the website and the purported defamatory allegation. The information may be potentially offensive, sure, but that's essential to why it's notable. I contend that it is the place of Wikipedia to catalog as neutrally as possible the notable information for each entry, not to boil out "contentious material" with an eye toward appeasing someone's hypothetical interest in not having demeaning-but-true information repeated about them. Wikipedia is not Glenn Beck's PR secretary, and I object to your removal of properly-sourced, neutrally-worded facts from this article. If you don't like the phrasing, you are free to re-write it and wait for the most acceptable version to win over the editing gestalt, but it is, to be quite frank, not your place to remove sourced and notable information that makes you squirm. These censorious impulses are inappropriate. --Ewok (talk) 20:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
First rule of BLP - "Do No Harm". Having a source is not grant for inclusion. There are many requirements for a BLP, weight being one of them. Particularly with something like this. It's not your average criticism, it is described as defamatory, so we have to be extra cautious. We're discussing it.. so give it a little time to gain consensus. This is one of those things we need to work out on the talk before we include something in the article. I may start an RFC. Morphh (talk) 20:39, 03 October 2009 (UTC)
Rumor website parody of Glenn Beck

I boldly I moved ObserverNY'sa paragraph about the site, that had been contributed to this blp, over to its own article space, "Rumor website parody of Glenn Beck," since I believe Eiland-Hall's creation is notable in its own right. (Yet, this despite that Beck's legal actions against its domain name may or may not be a notable aspect of Beck's career or image?) Can anybody think of a more encyclopedic name, since the most obvious name would itself be a BLP vio, I think? Btw, if ObserverNY [Edited: EwoktheMoid] or another Wikicontributor were to expand the article, might it save it from "redirection" or deletion? :^( ↜Just M E here , now 20:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

JHMN - THAT wasn't MINE! In fact, I don't think I even ever commented in that section! ObserverNY (talk) 20:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
Whups -- mea culpa! ↜Just M E here , now 20:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking last night that a quick single line with the SNL and Daily Show lines would be appropriate. Not sure if it deserves a paragraph but its own article makes it easy since we have wikilinks.Cptnono (talk) 20:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Cptnono, actually, the article isn't about parodies of Beck (in the plural: which article btw would not be a bad idea) but is instead about a single parody website. (Note that I chose the new article's ambiguous title cos the website itself has a domain name that itself arguably constitutes a BLP vio(?); ne'ertheless, my title of the actual article that was newly created is simply awful.) ↜Just M E here , now 20:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Huh? You must have misunderstood. We already mention goofs on this article so adding another may not upset the balance anymore. A devoted article does not screw up this article so I don't care if that one is about the one satire or several.Cptnono (talk) 21:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
(A little slow sometimes but -- ) got it. ↜Just M E here , now 21:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I've also posted a few questions to the Bio of Living Person Noticeboard; see here. ↜Just M E here , now 15:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I was meaning to do that myself to get some outside opinion on how best to deal with this topic. I also left a message for Bigtimepeace to perhaps give us some guidance. I agree that the Beck V. Eiland-Hall would probably be a better name. If we move the article, it should automatically put in a redirect. It seems the notability lies in the law aspect, not necessarily the meme or satire itself. Morphh (talk) 16:13, 04 October 2009 (UTC)
I'll make a couple mentions at the main article. Just to reiterate, if someone added a line like "in 2009 an internet meme began... satire... yada yada" in the paragraph detailing recent prominence and SNL I would be much less against it. I assume a good source + a single line would certainly alleviate concerns for many people but a line at all might still come across as too much weight to others.Cptnono (talk) 02:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I suggested something similar above when we received some high quality sources. ... "Beck has also been the subject of online satire, which resulted in claims of defamation against the website owner." Morphh (talk) 12:40, 05 October 2009 (UTC)
An editor contributed a paragraph on the subject, after which I replaced it with something close to Morphh's proposed line, as a summary (containing a Wikilink to the article on the WIPO arbitration case).↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 14:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
The Colbert parody is trivia. He has also been parodied on SNL and probably by countless other comedians. It isn't reliant. The other incident led to a lawsuit, and deserves a link to the lawsuit article (but adding references is probably overkill since the reader can get all the details on the lawsuit article, which is well written by the way. Good job there. Bytebear (talk) 19:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
In reading the section on parody, I think we are really abusing the sources. The content currently says, "He was also parodied in an impersonation by Jason Sudeikis on Saturday Night Live.[84] "Finally, a guy who says what people who aren't thinking are thinking" was a quip from The Daily Show's Jon Stewart.[85]" but both sources only mention the parody in passing as a larger point. Stossell's whole essay is about how what Beck says rings true to the American people. I would much rather have the content of that source fleshed out with what Stossel observes about Beck rather than being used to cherry pick some pseudo notability of the parodies about Beck. Currently, the article is taking the trivia from the references and highlighting it, but ignoring the real message of the authors of the sources. Bytebear (talk) 19:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Every parody and joke doe snot belong simply due to the fact that it will be an exceptionally long list. I felt that way about SNL and Stewart but someone went for it. I don't think it is a huge deal but we might need to limit what is being included. I think the rape thing should get a mention. It should be a line with a wikilink in whatever section regarding his recent popularity. It could also be moved right after the racism line since the website's rebuttal relates to it according to one source. I think that might be cherry picking/synthy without more, though.Cptnono (talk) 23:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
I'll add it to "See also." I personally don't believe this arbitration matter rises to a level of sufficient notability in Beck's public reception to be mentioned in the text there yet. (Its secondary sources are much more meager, for example, than the Beck - The View controversy, which isn't mentioned but probably should find its way toward some kind of mention. "Beck - The View" has multiple media mentions -- an NPR broadcast, 20/20's John Stossel, Time, Entertainment Weekly, The Independent of London, Salon, The Week, and on, while the Beck - Eiland-Hall arbitration is but mentioned in but, really, The Boston Herald and an NPR blog.)↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 14:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Hehe... I said snot up above. I don't mind a quick line about the rape thing in the prose. I also am not against the View since it did recieve so much press but we do need to watch out for turning it into a list or a random collection of silliness.Cptnono (talk) 16:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

"Political Views" wrt upcoming H1N1 vaccine?

I believe he has expressed his opposition to the upcoming H1N1 vaccine. Stonemason89 (talk) 01:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Great, find a reliable third party source, please. Bytebear (talk) 02:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
How about this: [15]
"That stance contrasts sharply with his statements on a show Sept. 29, when he said his inclination was to attend a “flu party” where people deliberately expose themselves to the virus. (The thinking behind that unorthodox idea is that in this way people will strengthen their immune systems — what they see as a sort of natural vaccination.)

“People just feel in their gut, ‘I don’t trust these people any more’, ” Beck said Sept. 2 of the government and its representatives. “They think our government could be so incompetent that they don’t have any clue as to what they are doing.”" Stonemason89 (talk) 02:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't like the unprofessional opening description "Conspiracy-theorist-in-chief." It's just unprofessional and diminishes the reliability of the source. It's also a blog (The Vote Blog), which fails again on reliability. In fact, in reading the blog, it looks like just another hit piece to try to reveal the supposed hypocrisy of Beck's various positions. I have a hard time considering this and other blips that pop up in the blogosphere notable since they lack any kind of mainstream coverage. Bytebear (talk) 02:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Here's a piece by Discover magazine. --> (link)↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 22:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

NJ elemetary school's Black History Month performance

...YouTube highlighted by Beck. (News report: Counter protestors at school)↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 15:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2009930887_beck24m.html
  2. ^ Bryan Johnson. "Mount Vernon to award Glenn Beck key to city". Seattle Post Intelligencer / Komo News. Retrieved 2009-09-01.
  3. ^ http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2009930887_beck24m.html
  4. ^ Bryan Johnson. "Mount Vernon to award Glenn Beck key to city". Seattle Post Intelligencer / Komo News. Retrieved 2009-09-01.
  5. ^ a b c d Cite error: The named reference Skagit Valley Herald 2009-09-27 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  6. ^ "Glenn Beck gets ceremonial key to hometown city". Associated Press. 2009-09-26. Retrieved 2009-09-28.
  7. ^ http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2009930887_beck24m.html
  8. ^ Bryan Johnson. "Mount Vernon to award Glenn Beck key to city". Seattle Post Intelligencer / Komo News. Retrieved 2009-09-01.
  9. ^ Atkinson, Anna (29 September, 2009). "Beck's new key provokes protest". The Western Front. Retrieved 30 September, 2009. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)
  10. ^ "Glenn Beck gets ceremonial key to hometown city". Associated Press. 2009-09-26. Retrieved 2009-09-28.
  11. ^ Beck met by protesters, supporters in Seattle - King5news.com, 9/26/09[16]
  12. ^ http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2009930887_beck24m.html
  13. ^ Bryan Johnson. "Mount Vernon to award Glenn Beck key to city". Seattle Post Intelligencer / Komo News. Retrieved 2009-09-01.
  14. ^ "Glenn Beck gets ceremonial key to hometown city". Associated Press. 2009-09-26. Retrieved 2009-09-28.
  15. ^ http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2009930887_beck24m.html
  16. ^ Atkinson, Anna (29 September, 2009). "Beck's new key provokes protest". The Western Front. Retrieved 30 September, 2009. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)
  17. ^ "Glenn Beck gets ceremonial key to hometown city". Associated Press. 2009-09-26. Retrieved 2009-09-28.
  18. ^ Beck met by protesters, supporters in Seattle - King5news.com, 9/26/09[17]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Glenn_Beck/Archive_6&oldid=1268344919"