Talk:Glenn Beck/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

A new compromise.

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

Yes, it's absurd that the most notable thing Beck has ever done is excluded from the article, yet the utterly non-notable "9/12 Project" gets an entire section to itself (and even at one point had a separate article!). 75.76.213.106 (talk) 07:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

In the past week, Lawyers.com, Procter & Gamble, Progressive, S.C. Johnson, GEICO, Men's Wearhouse and Sargento have all pulled advertising as a result of his comments. This needs to be mentioned, obviously. I would do it myself but I can't because of semi-protected status. Patriot Missile33 (talk) 14:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

And you have primary sources that covered this extensively? It is making news? I haven't seen anything, certainly nothing more noteworthy than anything else going on. Second, this is an issue about the show, not the person. Bytebear (talk) 15:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Primary sources? Wikipedia relies on secondary sources, that's a matter of policy. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 16:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

This Glenn Beck controversy is certainly making news. Check out this article, http://rawstory.com/blog/2009/08/more-advertisers-pull-support-for-glenn-beck/ I found this as one of the top stories on Digg.com. Patriot Missile33 (talk) 17:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Blogs are not reliable sources. Second, if we included every real news article out there, GM would be discussed far more than these issues. Bytebear (talk) 17:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Bytebear, I have no idea what GM article you talking about but I suspect it's a redherring. Do any of these articles qualify in your opinion: http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/fnc/glenn_becks_racist_comment_sends_advertisers_elsewhere_123710.asp ; http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/06/glenn-becks-obama-racist_n_253264.html ; http://www.adweek.com/aw/content_display/news/media/e3i41bbbd5e87896f552892f979ef325932?imw=Y ; http://www.reuters.com/article/peopleNews/idUSTRE57C07920090813 . If you do a google search for "Glenn Beck Obama Racist" there are approximately 1 million results. As I said, it's a top story on Digg.com which, if you are not aware of, is extremely popular (#127 in the world according to Alexa.com). Are we starting to get the picture? This is a big deal and should be treated as such. Patriot Missile33 (talk) 17:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is newsworthy, but it is not noteworthy. It will fade over time. Wikipedia is not a news service. and we cannot add titillating facts just because they are currently making headlines. Bytebear (talk) 20:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand that you have the opinion that people will forget about the "Obama is a Racist" comment and the related chain of events, over time. I, and others here, do not agree with you. I would like to remind you to assume good faith, and realize that we are simply trying to add information about this controversy in a WP:NPOV way. You can claim that we just want "titillating facts just because they are currently making headlines", and I can claim that you are aggressively protecting this page from anything (including notable WP:NPOV information) that might potentially be damaging to Beck, but that doesn't get us anywhere.MichaelLNorth (talk) 20:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

That's your opinion, Bytebear, and you're welcome to it. However, since you seem to be the only one (or at least, one of the very few) who opposes including this in the article, it seems to me like we've got a clear consensus to include. And since we have legitimate sources and there's no reason it can't be included in an NPOV manner, there's nothing in policy that would require ignoring the consensus. — Red XIV ^(talk) 22:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

By my count I have at least four other editors who agree with me. How many other commentators believe Obamas statements were racist in nature? I think that is a fairly common conclusion by a lot of people. It is certainly not unique to Beck. And it isn't notable to Beck. Please carefully read WP:BLP carefully. It's not enough that you can prove a fact. No one is disagreeing that Beck said what he said. You have to prove with significant reliable third party sources that this issue defines Beck's notability. I say it does not. You say it does. I have not seen any references that even come close to convincing me. They are either primary sources, or blogs. The few reliable sources that do mention the issue are general articles about Becks persona and on air personality. And I cannot imagine this issue lasting more than a few weeks, let alone forever. Beck will never be described as "the radio personality who called Obama a racist." That is just not a defining attribute of the man, no matter how offended you may personally be by the accusation. Bytebear (talk) 00:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

This is not a page about Obama, it's a page about Glenn Beck. We are not having a partisan battle here, we are trying to complete a wikipedia page that is lacking in critical information. "Fairly common conclusions" do not qualify as good wikipedia content, unless they are supported by proper sources. Your "I have not seen any references that even come close to convincing me" statement is indicative that this is really turning into edit warring. It is also concerning that you have chosen to remove all information relating to this controversy (saying that it is WP:NPOV) instead of editing it so that it is properly neutral. To be clear, NPOV is not subjective, whether Bytebear feels like this is probably notable enough to include is certainly subjective. Here are some sources that are not blogs: http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheat-sheet/item/glenn-beck-loses-advertisers/backlash/ , http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/fnc/glenn_becks_racist_comment_sends_advertisers_elsewhere_123710.asp , http://www.flcourier.com/news/2009-08-14/National_News/Beck_Show_loses_advertisers_over_Obama_racist_rema.html , http://www.reuters.com/article/peopleNews/idUSTRE57C07920090813 , http://www.seattlepi.com/tvguide/409258_tvgif13.html , http://www.outcomebuffalo.com/beck-pulls-813-2009813001.htm , http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2009/08/13/beck_townhalls/ , http://www.mediabistro.com/agencyspy/people/the_gecko_waves_goodbye_to_glenn_beck_124272.asp , http://www.afro.com/tabId/551/itemId/4410/Beck-Loses-Advertisers-After-Calling-Obama-a-Racis.aspx , http://www.fcnp.com/commentary/national/4866-glen-becks-blatant-racism.html , http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=111585 MichaelLNorth (talk) 00:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I have no problem with the content that was recently added. It was a good start, although it needs a lot of NPOV polishing. The problem is, it's in the wrong article. It needs to be in the Glenn Beck (TV program) article. Bytebear (talk) 00:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I already addressed this, and like you, I dislike having to repeat myself. The notable incident occurred on Fox and Friends, not on his TV show. The various companies that pulled their advertisements are only a reaction to the notable incident, not the notable incident its self. This has nothing to do with the Glenn Beck TV show, other than these companies have chosen to no longer associate themselves with Beck by having ads during a show that he hosts. MichaelLNorth (talk) 00:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of where he made the comment, the protests are directed toward his show, and that is where the focus of this event should be. It also alleviates the issues with WP:BLP which have much stricter restrictions than does the show article.Bytebear (talk) 02:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Once again, it is protest directed at him, in the form of no longer wanting their advertisements being shown during his show. This is not a boycott for political cause, it's the companies' desire to no longer have potential customers associate them with Beck. The notable event is the controversial quote, not the repercussions. The content belongs here, and WP:BLP only dictates that it be well-sourced and not libel. MichaelLNorth (talk) 02:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Am I to understand that your position is that the blurb should be about a withdrawal of advertising that just happened to be about some incendiary comment he made? To me, it seems that the real notable event is the cause, not the effect. It is sounding as if we will have to move forward with some more official dispute resolution processes. MichaelLNorth (talk) 13:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

No, but it was covered because of the boycott, hence why that part should be covered. The comment should be mentioned of course, but the fact that the thing was only news b/c of the boycotts, means it's more show related than bio. Soxwon (talk) 16:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Wrong section

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

Moving forward - Keith Ellison and the Arab community

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

Please review these sources:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I had not added the sources above yet, so feel free. -- Morphh

I expect we should summarize a small bit from Beck's response. "My message is clear: Islam is a peaceful religion for over 90 percent of the world's Muslims," he said. "I have urged viewers repeatedly to understand this, while asking all of the proud, peaceful Muslims here in America to take a more visible role in our fight against those who make a mockery of the Quran. I also make airtime available, at any time, to any Muslim organization to help reinforce this realistic, peaceful view of Islam." Morphh ^(talk) 21:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's my problem with this paragraph. The statement, "Beck's penchant for speaking his opinions candidly has spurred controversy" is POV and OR. Who says so? Do we have a reilable third party source calling his comments controversial? Other than the criticism by the Arab League (which is a first party source), do we have any specific third party source that has specifically targeted this incident as controversial? Or do we just have an overview of his on air persona with various examples both positive and negative. If anything, you should say, "News source XYZ has cited example ABC as controversial". You see, no incident is controversial until someone says so, and you need to apply NPOV to who is making the claim, but not directly, but through the report of a third party. I don't see that happening in any of these references. They either talk about incidents involving the show, or they are talking about his persona on the show. And, again, this is a news item which will fade over time. It is a poor argument that this or even the Obama comment will be the lasting image of Glenn Beck. It simply isn't true. Bytebear (talk) 21:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Repeating myself again. 1) The boycotts are relivant to the show, 2) the boycotts are primary sources, not secondary ones. I can call for a boycott of Swiss cheese, but until a substantial amount of media attention by neutral parties pick up on my boycott, the issue is not noteworthy to the Swiss cheese article. 3) Wikipedia is not a news source. This issue did make some news, but it is a blip, as much as Beck's past criticism of Michael Moore. It is not what Beck is noteworthy for. This incident is just that, an incident, and one where even the opposing party says it was no big deal. Bytebear (talk) 22:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is another example of POV. I could be requesting that the article say Beck believes that "Islam is a peaceful religion" per the San Diego source. But the fact is, Becks opinions of Islam, good or bad are not what Beck is known for. It's irrelevant to the article. I hope this helps you understand why I am fighting to keep this POV out of the article. Bytebear (talk) 22:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

1) The show isn't talking, he is and it is HIS opinions. 2) The Associated Press article documenting the boycotts is a reliable third party source. 3) Documenting the most famous controversy of his does not make this article a tabloid or a new source. And indeed, the Arab community finds Beck's comments "not a big deal" despite the six sources that I just posted above. The attention drawn to him by the incident is palatable, it does deserve a mention. Just a simple, NPOV mention, is all ive been trying to include in the aritcle. Wikipedia does not discourage Criticism or Reception. Wikipedia does not discourage Criticism, as said above. {Novalord2} 22:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Deciding what the "most famous controversy" is subjective. What makes this incident more weighted than his previous "controversies?" It certainly isn't a proliferation of sources. They are short lived. They were news, but are not any more. They may be "palatable" to you, but, again, that is your perspective. To Michael Moore fans, I am sure they have different issues they would like to see highlighted. If I do a Google search on "Glenn Beck" I get the Glenn Beck Program, then Glenn Beck Radio, then FoxNews.com, then some videos of Beck, talking about National Debt, Ron Paul. Then I get some news articles, on GM, Health Care, and Mike Malloy. Then I get his Twitter site, and then his book Common Sense. So, what do you think his most prolific attributes are? This single incident? Hardly. There are as many sources talking about Beck's comments on GM (350k vs 47k google results - News gives 25 articles on Beck and GM vs. 2 on Ellison), and yet, you declare that this is his "most famous controversy." I really don't see it, other than to add "titillating" content. Bytebear (talk) 22:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

It's seems obvious to me that you're not so much "fighting to keep this POV out of the article" as fighting to keep anything potentially negative about Beck (no matter how clearly notable and well-sourced) out of the article. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 07:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I am keeping things in context. Beck has BY FAR more articles about his comments about GM than about any of these incidents, and yet, you seem to think that this is more noteworthy. I have not seen any evidence presented that corroborates that conclusion. The only argument that I have seen is WP:ILIKEIT. Prove to me that these issues out shadow all the other things Beck discusses on his show, and I will change my position. Bytebear (talk) 15:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

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

• I also object to some of these so-called "controversies". Niteshift36 (talk) 09:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Even though I'm helping write them, I'm also very hesitant on including them. They're too detailed for my taste. I'd would rather not get into any details or specific incidents. I think it would be best to just describe the persona, criticism, and controversial nature in general, rather than any specific event. Morphh ^(talk) 13:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
    • This would be fine with me. This should not be a page for smearing Beck, but reading the page should give you an accurate idea of what he's about. Since he is a political commentator, a critical part of this is how he is received by his audience and critics. MichaelLNorth (talk) 20:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• "Beck's quick wit and candid opinions have helped make his shows successful,<ref>{{cite web|url=[http://www.glennbeck.com/content/program/about/ http://www.glennbeck.com/content/program/about/]|publisher=Premiere Radio Networks|accessdate=2009-07-13}}</ref>". Can we get a better source for this than Beck's own website? Fences&Windows 22:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what you are trying to show with this source, but it is self published, so can only be presented as such. Also, the source is about the show, not the man. It's also borderline plagiarism. Adding one line of "praise" is not balance, and it is not NPOV. Bytebear (talk) 00:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I updated the source to one from Reuters. What I was trying to do with the sentence was set the stage (tie it into his media persona and aspects of notability) for the criticism. Leading in that this aspect of his media persona has been both positive and negative for him, then going into an example. As far as NPOV, it appears both positions are fairly represented. Several of the statements are neutral, some Beck's pov, and some criticism. Overall, I think it may be undue weight for the story, but I think it needs that much content to be represented fairly if it is going to be represented. Morphh ^(talk) 0:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it was a good start toward NPOV. But the section is about boycotts of the program. As such, the content is in the wrong article. I have no problem with you adding it to his show article. But it doesn't belong here. Bytebear (talk) 00:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

There was never a call to boycott the Glenn Beck show, only to stop HIM from getting hired by ABC. Thats why it is about him specifically, even if the statement was made on the GB show. Novalord2 (talk 00:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

My apologies. I got my "controversies" mixed up. With this issue, I have seen no third party coverage of the boycott other than blogs. It certainly doesn't warrant more weight than other things reported on Beck. This is clearly just not a notable event to Beck. It is covered fairly NPOV in the Ellison article, although some of the sources are questionable. Bytebear (talk) 02:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but this section of the talk page is for the Ellison incident. We have more than sufficient third party sources for it. Novalord2 03:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not a matter of verifiability. It's a matter of noteworthy status. As I said, I am fine with it being covered in appropriate articles. Bytebear (talk) 03:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion of whether it is noteworthy is in fact injecting your WP:POV that it is not noteworthy. If we held everything currently on his page to the same requirement of notability that you're looking for, we would have to erase virtually the whole thing (i.e., why is it notable that he is a member of the LDS church? Where has this been reported on by third party sources? Why is the 9/12 project notable?). MichaelLNorth (talk) 13:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Making a Mockery of Assuming Good Faith

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

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

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

RfC regarding notability of controversies

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

• Glenn Beck's consistent provocations have made him a polarizing and controversial figure. While all of his sporadic controversies may not be notable individually, a section on his public image, with a brief mention of his most notable controversies, including the mainstream racism one, is due. The Homosexualist (talk) 17:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• • Most of the more constructive discussion has occurred in the talk page sections "Moving forward" and "Moving forward - Keith Ellison and the Arab community". Please review them for an idea of what is being proposed and to see the drafts of the proposed content. (this isn't directed at you) novalord2 —Preceding undated comment added 19:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC).

• Include, but not in detail. Beck's polarizing and controversial nature is very notable, but the details of most of the controversies surrounding him are not. The "Obama is a racist" comment, and the withdrawal of advertisers in response are certainly worth mentioning specifically, but not in their own section. MichaelLNorth (talk) 19:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Put in show article The RS's centered around the boycott of Beck's show. They should go there appropriately. Soxwon (talk) 20:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Create a Reception section, include both in some detail I think the criticisms are appropriate for his article because the boycotts/protests are directed at him and his views. Glenn Beck is not notable enough outside of his show and commentaries to warrant a major incident in his show being excluded from his person. novalord2 21:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Bestselling books and a seperate radio show? I think that it would go better in the television article, as it chronicles a very important event and the RS's center around him losing advertisers. The other half of this is that it's so hot off of the presses, we haven't given a chance for the dust to settle (or even see that it will settle). It might help to give this a week to wait and see what further developments (if any) occur. Soxwon (talk) 22:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand he has best-selling books and a radio show, but even still, Im fairly sure most of his fame comes from the show, and i still dont think he is at such a famous level with such a long resume list that incidents like these don't impact him directly. novalord2 00:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• Have you even read the article novalord? Beck was an author and had a radio show before the TV show. Those are what got him the TV show. His radio show was nationally syndicated in 2002. His first book was published in 2003. He didn't get his first TV show until 2006. How can you say his fame comes from the TV show? The #3 radio talk show in the country with over 8 million weekly listeners would indicate something pretty substantial. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I just did a quick google search, Beck averages 2 million viewers each night. It is safe to say that he is best known for his show. novalord2 08:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• It's not safe to say that. If he wasn't already notable and popular, he wouldn't have that show. He was a proven commodity before anyone gave him a TV show. Your splitting hairs at this point. Many notable hosts in the talk industry that you've heard of (Imus, Liddy, Prager) don't even get 2 million listeners a week. There are only 3 that get over 6 million a week. And do you really think that even half of the viewers don't listen to him at all on the radio? You do know that people can both listen to him on the radio and watch him on TV, don't you? I suspect that you hadn't heard of him before he went on TV, so you just presume that is the case for everyone.Niteshift36 (talk) 11:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Aye, but are sponsors dropping his show more relevant to him or to the show itself? Soxwon (talk) 00:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The comments in question were made by Beck when a guest on Fox and Friends and sponsorship was consequently pulled from his show. Events have centered around Beck the individual; advertising was pulled from The Glenn Beck Programme because it was fronted by Glenn Beck, nothing about the show which wasn't Glenn Beck related caused the sponsors to backtrack. It would misrepresent the facts to suggest that this is about his programme and not about him.--85.189.35.71 (talk) 02:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

You don't think he was acting as a persona when interviewed on the same network as his own show. This incident isn't like Mel Gibson's drunken tirades. Beck was acting as a media personality, and as a representative of his show. Bytebear (talk) 16:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

What do you have to support that theory? Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 16:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

It's the same thing he said on his show earlier that week, except he explained his position and why he came to that conclusion. So he placed a context around the remarks. Morphh ^(talk) 16:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, I think there's something in what Bytebear says. Kinda a "Rush Limbaugh effect," and capturing that core demographic. Soxwon (talk) 16:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Then note what he claims, but that can't be taken as truth with no verifications from someone who would be more neutral and removed from the incident. Unless you can find multiple instances of neutral parties related to the incident that agree with his claimed defense and that he was acting under a fake persona, not his actual self, then it should be in this article, not his show's. Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 17:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

That's a double edged sword. You would have to do the same for your point. Bytebear (talk) 17:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean "my point"? All I said that as long as there isn't any reasonable evidence presented to suggest that he was acting under a fake persona, it should be included in his own article. If any is, it should still be included, but under the article of his show. Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 19:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• Its argued above that the bit about Glenn Beck calling Obama racist should be excluded because (a) it doesn't "define his notability" and (b) because lots of people think Obama is racist. Since the second reason is offensive and ridiculous, I'll ignore it and focus on the first. The assertion that his comment doesn't define his notability is entirely correct, but just as entirely irrelevant. There is a great deal in the article already that doesn't define his notability, and it all stays because that isn't the standard for inclusion (in any article, BLP or otherwise). If its significant to his life, significant to his image and information that readers are likely to come to Wikipedia to find, then it belongs in the article. This controversy is the subject of a New York Times article published today, which describes the reaction to his comments and its impact on Fox and his show (seen here). As linked above, there are many other articles from news organizations that demonstrate the significance of this event. There hasn't been a strong argument made above for its exclusion, and before its removed again I'd like to see some arguments that are reasonable and don't misconstrue the requirements of policy. Nathan ^T 01:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, I think it should go in the show articles, or at the very least in a more appropriate section of the bio. I think it's noteworthy, but badly misplaced where it is. Soxwon (talk) 01:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree to an extent. The emphasis of this is article is on events surrounding Glenn Beck the man, but they have clearly impacted the Glenn Beck Programme in a very significant manner as well. It should be discussed with appropriate focus in each of the two articles. --85.189.35.71 (talk) 02:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• Include here. Beck has made comments on his show, in his books, in public speeches and interview, all of which have received media attention. Regrettably, I came to this article through WP:AN today, after a Reddit link criticizing this article was posted. The comments there were adamant that our page is biased, and having looked at the page, there's not a single negative statement anywhere. I don't mean 'Beck is a poo head' negative, I mean, not one bit of this article implies or states and fault in the man. By this article's current views, Beck should be made the first holy saint of the USA. Having slogged through about 2/3 of this talk page, then giving up because it got predictable, I can see that any single item is 'non-noteworthy', no matter the volume of coverage, under something of a RECENTISM argument, and any body of his statements and criticism is disallowed as either advancing a POV that Glenn Beck has said controversial things, UNDUE weight to include chronologically throughout the article Beck's attention-getting stupidly said things, or a STRUCTURE violation to allow a section of his stupid things. All of these opposition arguments are brought up over and over by about three or four editors, against what looks to be approaching, if not exceeding, two dozen others. Seems that a consensus for inclusion on merit-holding arguments was reached long ago, but because these few editors are adept at splintering things off over and over, each proposal has one or two editors for, and the same three or four against, painting any one section as an 'anti-inclusion consensus', when the whole talk page demonstrates a pro-inclusion consensus'. The bias in this article is palpable. ThuranX (talk) 14:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

To me this all smacks of recentism. In 5 years Beck and all of his controversy will be as relevant as Zoë Baird or Fawn Hall. There seems to be way too much tit-for-tat edit warring going on which does not (to me anyway) seem conducive to crafting a quality encyclopedia. Perhaps it would be best if the ideologues on both the right and left stayed away from the wiki entirely if they are unable to check their particular POV at the door. L0b0t (talk) 15:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

You're confusing RECENTISM with relevance in an extreme manner. To report on whatever the comment of the week is in depth would be recentism; to NOT report on his theatrically absurd objections to Obama, as a man and a president, at all in the name of preventing RECENTISM is to deny that for the next three and a half years, his criticisms of Obama, and the way in which he criticizes, are relevant as well. ThuranX (talk) 18:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Relevance, Glen Beck is irrelevant and will be remembered by very few people in the future. Why are we making a mountain out this molehill? C'mon, we're talking about a television comic who couldn't even finish an undergraduate degree. So, yes, I deny that his criticisms of the president and certainly the inarticulate, jingoistic, pseudo-populist way in which he criticizes is relevant. L0b0t (talk) 19:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• He "couldn't finish college", yet 6 million people a week listen to his radio program, 2 million a day watch him on TV and he's a best selling author. Not bad for a college drop-out. How many people a week listen to your opinion? My sarcasm isn't a personal attack. It's just there to illustrate the absurdity of your rant. You can use all the negative adjectives you want, but millions of people do find his opinion interesting and relevant, even if you don't. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Just because you don't like him doesn't mean that he isn't an at least somewhat influential person who is notable. He's a long-time media personality who gets a fair bit of attention. An aggregate of his opinions, controversies, etc. should definitely be included. I'm pretty sure you're the only one here questioning that. Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 19:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Settle down folks (mmmm...Men at Work). So roughly 2% of the US (0.001% worldwide) hear him on the radio, 0.007% of the US (0.0003% worldwide) sees him on the telly-box and he moves a lot of books (although, frankly, any author Oprah mentions on-air becomes a best seller). In my view, that speaks more to notability than relevance. However, "a long-time media personality" he is not. Compare Beck's 9 years of bloviation with Larry King's 52 years or Andy Rooney's 67; Meet The Press has been on the air weekly since 1947. On the other hand King's article makes mention of controversy and Rooney's is dangerously close to character assassination. Look I'm not arguing against Beck's inclusion, or even the fact that he has both ardent proponents and opponents. What I do think is that some are putting an awful lot of energy and emotion into arguing over an article that in the larger wiki as a whole (and certainly in long view of history) is rather inconsequential. It's not like this is the Barack Obama article; it's the article about a young man who is paid to nay-say our Party Chairman of the Supreme Soviet President. So, find the 2 or 3 gaffes Beck made that caused the biggest stink (most mentions in reliable sources), put 'em in the article and call it done. L0b0t (talk) 00:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to know where you got those statistics, because, as I have been informed, 70.6% of all statistics are made up on the spot, and those don't seem particularly accurate considering Fox News is the most-watched of the big three news stations in the U.S., with pretty much everyone I've ever met that's over the age of 15 knowing who Glenn Beck is. Also, picking the major controversies is what we're trying to do...with, for example, this discussion. Your time argument to make this all seem less notable really doesn't work considering those are a very few select commentators that have been around since early television. Beck's 9 years is pretty considerable in the scheme of things as they stand right now. If you really want to try to pull the time argument, then none of these television personalities are notable, along with 99% of actors, politicians, etc. Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 00:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The statistics were from Niteshift36's above post of 6 million weekly listeners and 2 million weekly viewers divided by estimates (very rough estimates) of a US pop. of 300 million and world pop. of 6 billion. As for your friends being aware of modern, pop-culture figures... well, you & I probably live in rather different parts of the world and likely have disparate tastes in entertainment; that's the sort of diversity that IMHO makes us richer as a people. Again, I'm not arguing against Beck's notability just his long term relevance, he's no Josephus or Samuel Clemens or even a Walter Winchell or Charles Kuralt. Also, in my opinion, editors shouldn't work themselves into a lather over something as trivial as the amount of criticism in this article. Have a spot of tea and some nice cake, add the most notable Beck gaffes and let's move on. L0b0t (talk) 01:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I never said my friends, nor did I say that they were interested in following Glenn Beck for entertainment (not that it's really relevant, but I almost count that as an insult, and I don't want any misunderstandings regarding this, even to a complete stranger :P). I'm a U.S. citizen and Beck is a commentator for a U.S. broadcaster, so my point was simply that he is well-known in all parts of the country that I've ever lived in for any period of time, as far as I can tell. I do not doubt that 50 years from now he will be just another face in the crowd, but to keep his article downsized when plenty of notable information is available is really just an unnecessary precaution for some kind of prevention of Wikipedia becoming monstrously large in the distant future or something. These things are plenty relevant to the Glenn Beck article since they're some of his more notable controversial acts, and thus to the current U.S. population, and anyone else that cares about American news media. I'm sure that if Wikipedia survives for a century or two, there will be future generations adding plenty of things that will only be relevant to people of a 20 or 30 year span, but it's still notable enough to meet Wikipedia guidelines. As far as the "getting lathered up" bit goes, any frustration is all just over matters of principle (or at least for me). Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 02:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Yet again, you're being ridiculous in your estimations of the timespan required for proper consideration. It would be recentism if we could be sure Glenn Beck was forgotten in six months. Your argument is that in 100 years we will forget him. Probably true, but this encyclopedia is written for people here and now. Beck's commentary and bombastic style have been discussed, by diverse reliable sources, as citations linked here in this and other sections demonstrates, for months on end, and some into last year and earlier. His character in this regard being well established, it should be reflected here. To argue that eventually we'll forget him is to ignore the here and now of Wikipedia for an absurdly long view that precludes almost all our BLPs, in favor of a 'wait till they're dead to prove they are important enough' atitude which is thoroughly unrealistic. ThuranX (talk) 03:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It would appear that you misunderstand me. Again, I am not arguing against the notability or inclusion of Beck and his works. Rather, I'm positing that his lack of long term relevance precludes, in my opinion, the need for so much partisan bickering. Consider it a call for more congeniality & common sense; we don't want a puff piece nor do we want an attack page. Valid, reliably sourced criticism has to be included; all the other commentator's (Is that what this fellow does?) articles have criticism, just look at Andy Rooney. L0b0t (talk) 03:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• Amazing. I thought you were exaggerating, but then I read the article. I can understand that we don't want a bullet point list of every mini-controversy and ridiculous statement he makes, but this article has gone too far in the other direction. It accomplishes the herculean task of making Beck look like a reasonable guy, and from reading it you'd never know that a large percentage of people consider him a mentally unstable charlatan. Our policies protect articles from becoming hatchet jobs, and rightfully so, but a sanitized article is just as much in violation of NPOV as a hatchet job. So I've tagged it and I'll try to help beef this thing up in the next couple weeks. Big job, I think. Gamaliel (talk) 14:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• I think everyone agrees that the controversial content should be included in Wikipedia. I think the main issue is where is the best place for it. Beck has several articles. If we put the content on the show articles, to what degree to we summarize it here. Unfortunately, there has been a lot more complaining and accusations than actual productive discussion about the article. So hopefully that will change with some additional participants. Morphh ^(talk) 15:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Please pick a spot to discuss

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

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

Attempt at compromise

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

I don't see anything wrong. I would, however, like to see other items that could justify, not a criticism section per se, but a more thorough idea of what ppl keep bringing up as being offensive and noteworthy. Soxwon (talk) 14:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it is written well and in an appropriate manner novalord2 21:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Ugh, what a mess. I tried to add some context, but it is so POV, that it is ridiculous. You can't just say, "Beck called Obama a racist." That is POV. And that wasn't covered in a particularly noteworthy way. The boycotts are covered far more, and have given the story some life, but that's why it's more important to the show article, and not to his personal article. And now the article is filled with context that isn't really relevant to Beck's notoriety, and in a few months will be forgotten. Bytebear (talk) 22:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The very plain fact that you are questioning is as NPOV as any statement can possibly be. You seem to be the only one who doubts at this point that this information is relevant to the article. On that note, I think the piece is written very nicely and am thankful for your attention to this article, Morphh. Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 23:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

That's simply not true. There are several editors who agree with me. Bytebear (talk) 00:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It very simply is, and no there aren't, not that any such thing is even remotely relevant. At this point, it's becoming very clear that you've been very set on keeping as much criticism of Beck out of the article from the beginning, and that are you are not willing to meet reason or any compromise. Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 00:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Are you serious? You think no context should be given? That criticism should just be put out without knowing why or how it came about? Seriously? Read WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. Thinking it over, I will cut you some slack. it is strucutred that way, because it was just a list of critical events, with an attempt to give it some context, but as I said, it is a mess. Bytebear (talk) 00:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

You must not understand English well, because he didn't say any of that. He only said that he wants more of the specifics regarding the criticisms already included, i.e. the stories behind them. He is calling for the exact opposite of what you think. Also, please stop linking to WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. You've done it in several of your posts, so I'm pretty sure that if anyone wasn't already familiar with them, which they should be if they're discussing this on the talk page with us, then they should be at this point. If you want to reference anything regarding BLP and NPOV, then link to a specific section or quote it, as doing otherwise is pretty useless. I'm pretty sure that we're all experienced editors here for the most part. Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 00:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I do have some issues with some of the additional information added - it now presents the criticism in some detail, but lacks Beck's position. I'm going to try this again. I'll try to re-summarize it including a little more content from both sides. Please keep in mind that adding additional material from one side will likely result in additional material from the other. We need to keep this as a brief summary, otherwise I think we'll degrade back into the battle. I am attempting to cover it in a short, neutral way, and direct them to the detailed content. Please consider this version. Morphh ^(talk) 4:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

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

The absurdity of Beck's comments may make them seem like they were taken out of context, but no, he actually said that. We did originally have the full quote included alongside Beck's apology and Ellison's response that he wasn't offended, but several editors here objected to discussing the incident in detail. The transcript has been posted in the talk page, or can be easily found via google. novalord2 05:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It's covered quite well in the Ellison article. Bytebear (talk) 07:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I added the quote as a footnote and then added a wikilink to "poorly worded question" that links to the coverage in the Kieth Ellison article. Morphh ^(talk) 11:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

That's insane! "You can go google it" is the response of Wikipedia editors? That's not the goal here. The quote belongs here. As to the 'It's at Ellison's page', Why should an incident provoked by Beck not be on his page as well? Leaving it only on the victim's page and not the offender's? The whitewashing of this page by a tiny number of rabidly biased editors grows more transparent daily. ThuranX (talk) 14:31, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I worry that if we add the quote, then it might require us to also quote Beck's response for POV. My concern is that all that would then require additional context, digression, next you have an entire paragraph or two on the exchange and undue weight and notability issues. That would then lead to, as it always does on these types of articles, an area for trolls to add a paragraph for each new criticism of the day. I think we need to keep it short, sweet, and relevant to his notability and I don't see that having the quote in here is particularly important. The references are there if people want to learn more about the incident and what was exactly said. It's enough that we cover the controversial exchange and the protest. I think the details of what was said is fairly unimportant in his biography and it makes the section a bit long. Morphh ^(talk) 16:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

ThuranX, there is too much weight given in entire quote for Keith Ellison. If we include all this, than we have to include Beck's pov and response. "My message is clear: Islam is a peaceful religion for over 90 percent of the world's Muslims," he said. "I have urged viewers repeatedly to understand this, while asking all of the proud, peaceful Muslims here in America to take a more visible role in our fight against those who make a mockery of the Quran. I also make airtime available, at any time, to any Muslim organization to help reinforce this realistic, peaceful view of Islam." Again, this is just too much detail for this particular incident. There is no need to get into the particular quote and response on this article. If we do include something for "more context" it doesn't have to be the entire quote. We can just take the notable parts and put it in our own wording. I'm not sure why saying '"I know you're not" but "prove to me ..."' is really any different than '"prove to me ..." and saying "And, I know you're not"'. I don't see as you stated, a "Holy whitewash! Totally falsifies the context of beck's statement that way". Please explain. I'm trying to reduce the verbage of the quote so we don't have to get into the details of it. Is the last sentence of the quote notable or relavant? I don't even think the quote should be included at all, but if we do include it, there is no good reason to include the entire thing, and several reasons to keep it summarized. In fact, the current statement changes the context. This is the correct statement. Glenn Beck interviewed Rep.-elect Keith Ellison (D-MN), who became the first Muslim ever elected to Congress on November 7, and asked Ellison if he could "have five minutes here where we're just politically incorrect and I play the cards up on the table." After Ellison agreed, Beck said: "I have been nervous about this interview with you, because what I feel like saying is, 'Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies.' " Beck added: "I'm not accusing you of being an enemy, but that's the way I feel, and I think a lot of Americans will feel that way." Not exactly how we have it portrayed. Again, I don't even think we should portray it. Just state that it happend and the protest for it. Morphh ^(talk) 20:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Mmm. LOvely. Right back to the no coverage at all, then. This is disgusting. You and BYtebear are committed thoroughly to protecting this article. Simply disgusting POV pushing. and you're worse for pretending to be trying to compromise. Your compromise is to take it all out because if we put it in it's too much to put in. lovely compromising there. ThuranX (talk) 01:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I try to present some reasoning for a discussion and I get a personal attack and uncivil charges. I didn't even revert the changes you made. And I did not suggest no coverage at all, nor have I argued that in the past. I said the quote only provides a misleading piece of context and doesn't really add anything to the event. I think this just falls under WP:ILIKEIT as you're arguing with emotion instead of discussing the actual merits for inclusion and how it is pertinent to his notability per WP:BLP. It seems to me that for NPOV policy, if we include it, we should include the other context as discussed above. I think no quotes are better than presenting a critical quote without providing Beck's context or explanation. To be clear, the only thing I suggested we take out is the Ellison quote. So instead of leveling insults (which is only disruptive), why don't you explain your viewpoint so we can best work to move this forward. Morphh ^(talk) 12:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Morphh, your efforts to make this article comply to WP:BLP are laudable. In that spirit, you insist that any fact, news, event, incident etc involving GB, to be included in the article, no matter how notable it may be itself, must also be relevant to GB's notability (verifiably). But this is not what BLP requires. BLP restricts this criterion (relevance to the subject's notability) to criticism and praise. Consider, a neutral description of something GB did or said, is neither criticism nor praise, as long as it does not judge, disprove or otherwise comment, and therefore the criterion does not apply. Furthermore, BLP demands, regarding well-known public figures: If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article - even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. Otherwise, keep up your excellent work! --Captain Blood (talk) 20:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll reread that section to make sure I fully understand it (or at least where I think I fully understand it - haha). I agree with what you're saying. The criticism and praise is a sub-specification of the general well-known public figures statement in this case. I guess the question on this is if we can include such a statement without describing the published criticism around it. I guess saying there is criticism or protest would be a neutral description as it itself is not the criticism, but the expression of the criticism (like charges of anti-Muslim prejudice) would be criticism and thus would fall under that policy - is that what you're saying? Morphh ^(talk) 21:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

That's indeed a good question. As I understand BLP, the criterion (relevance to the subject's notability) applies first and foremost to isolated criticism or praise. I guess a reaction to an incident, be it criticism or praise or any other notable and well documented reaction, may be mentioned, if leaving it out would make the description of the incident incomplete or unclear - if my interpretation of BLP is correct. --Captain Blood (talk) 22:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment on content, not contributor. Could you post a copy of how you think it should look Thuran? Soxwon (talk) 01:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

What I reverted to is fine., It shows Beck's attempts to pull back from it being a dire3ct accusation against Ellison. I'm fine with that version, which I did not write. ThuranX (talk) 01:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Your conclusion directly contradicts what both Beck and Ellison say about the "accusation." How do you propose to put that in the article, per NPOV? Bytebear (talk) 03:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

We report the FACTS. The facts are 'Beck said something stupid. ELlison dismissed it. Other groups, offended by beck's insinuations, did NOT dismiss it, and reacted. If we could actually include any of Beck's dipshit comments ,we might not have to focus on this one as much as you think we are, but since you refuse to allow ANY criticism in, we have to build it piece by piece. Stop protecting him in the biased fashion demonstrated earlier today. ThuranX (talk) 03:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow, and you call me POV. This is the exact thing I warned against from the beginning. Add minimally noteworthy events, and someone wants to present them as "Beck's dipshit comments." Yup, that's the right attitude! Bytebear (talk) 04:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

You ARE POV pushing. No matter the sources and citations, you opppose the inclusion of any amount of criticism of Beck. I seek a legitimate amount., I have no interest in a full catalog of every dumb thing he says ,I seek either inclusion of comprehensive reviews of Beck's faults, or the creation of a section which accomplishes the same by including multiple notable incidents for which he was criticized. He says stupid stuff. Whether it reflects his convictions or his ratings hunger, either way it happens, and it should be in here. ThuranX (talk) 04:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

A drive by comment from an uninvolved editor, who isn't going to bother saying anything beyond this: Bytebear, cut out the accusations of POV pushing. Looking through the recent page history and talk archives, as well as your own userpage, and it's apparent that of the major editors on this page it is you who has the clearest conflict of interest here. Accusations and deflections only make that more apparent. Please work collaboratively with others and discuss changes before revising them (that's general advice for everyone else too.) Also in that vein, restricting references from progressive blogs and the like is a good step towards reducing some of the issues; BLP requires high quality sources, and these web pubs are often anything but. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

what fuchs said is absolutely correct. bytebear, you should try to step away and come back with a new approach. you seem to say that you are open to including things about beck that dont make him look like a saint, BUT every time someone tries to include such info you always find a reason (not always logical) to exclude it. i know you will try to argue that each instance is different and really you are open to including things if only... (insert something miraculous), but i think the only person you are fooling is yourself. also, most of the info should be here- not on the show article. this is where people come to find out about him and to try to hide anything negative about him on a less heavily trafficked article is just that: hiding it. i understand that everything has its place, but when the man is the show it makes it difficult to try and separate the two. also, the "obama hates white people" statement was not made on his show. i have also read where someone said that the boycotts were more of a story than his statement itself and i would say that is incorrect. we can work together to make this a good article- it doesnt need to be a hatchet job or a whitewash. and it is already looking less (very slightly less) whitewashed than last time i checked. --Brendan19 (talk) 05:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Brendan19's comment is completely accurate. Beck didn't come out with his ridiculous "Obama hates white people" remark on his own show, it was on fox & friends if I'm not mistaken. So putting details regarding that on the Glenn Beck show article doesn't even make sense. And the incident where Beck "joked" about poising nancy pelosi, which was a major reason for companies boycotting his tv show, isn't even mentioned.

This article as it stands is sadly still an almost total whitewash: small stumped paragraphs, weak contents arrangement, and sentences confusingly and bizarrely worded — as well as being loaded with WP:words to avoid. This is what happens when an article is aggressively guarded by a cabal who have no intention of improving it, just making the subject look good. No wonder google ranks this wikipedia article so low. ʄ!•¿talk? 08:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Quite frankly, the amount of time & effort expended by some to keep this article free of any mention of the many provocative things that the subject has uttered is baffling to me. We are, after all, discussing an article subject who's entire career consists of saying provocative things, that's what Beck does for a living. That said, the bar for inclusion for this material must be necessarily high. As Beck says provocative things for a living, WP:UNDUE precludes an exhaustive (or even a thorough) listing of his gaffes. Beck's saying things that upset left leaning viewers is no more notable than a bartender mixing a drink, a teacher instructing students, or a baker making a cake; it's all part of that person's job description. Articles about, for example, athletes don't mention every single game or every mistake in practice or play, just the major events. Again, I would urge everyone to relax, have a spot of tea, perhaps check out articles like Charles Kuralt, Walter Winchell, Hedda Hopper, Larry King, Wolf Blitzer, or the hatchet job that is Andy Rooney to see the amount of criticism in articles about those who have actually been in the business for more than 9 years (I also posit that people are dramatically exaggerating Beck's influence & we could have a great discussion about the utter inaccuracy of statistical sampling re: television/radio audience shares, not to mention the lack of correlation between viewing/listening and taking action, but that is another topic for another article.) Bytebear, at this point it might be most helpful for you to back away from the equine carcass & put down the crop you seem, in my opinion, to be editing this article with rather unfashionable eyewear and it is growing tiresome. L0b0t (talk) 15:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem I have is with the lack of reliable sources. There are plenty of left leaning sources talking about these incidents. but if you look at the fairly well covered incident on the Keith Ellison article, there is only one source that is actually a third party reporting of it. [1] And it's more a commentary than actual news coverage. If this is a truly notable incident, where are the rest of the reliable sources? Where is the coverage by CNN, CBS, NYTimes? There are a few articles that talk about Beck's personality which mention the incident secondarily, not even mentioning Ellison by name. I understand that many people see this incident as crucial for inclusion, but really, is it? Now, do you really want me to get started on the accusation of pushing a conspiracy theory. That reference is just ridiculous to include. Bytebear (talk) 16:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that anything short of WDN is too far left for you, and WDN isn't a reliable source for the color of the sky. There are sources from those sites about the incident,this was the first hit I got, there were more. Clearly, you're either not looking at all or deliberately ignoring them. I venture both. You don't look and ignore those from others. I think you should heed the advice given above and move on. ThuranX (talk) 16:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I just reviewed the article, and there are more sources, although the source you link is not. It's better. The Ellison article still needs additions though. It is weak. Bytebear (talk) 16:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

That's not even a statement. The source I link is not what? It's a perfectly fucking fine source to everyone but you. It sets the premise that he's been criticized for the Ellison piece, and of course, 'it's not'. I hold this up as proof that even when Bytebear asks for the NY Times, He doesn't intend to accept anything. It's obstructionism, pure and simple - an intentional, deliberate and planned resistance to any sort of constructive progress at all. ThuranX (talk) 16:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a fine source to me. I'm also a bit confused by your statement, doesn't quite make sense... Morphh ^(talk) 17:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Whoa dude, calm down ThuranX! The editing process can be stressful but there's no need to be profane about it. If you look at how the page has evolved over the last couple weeks, I think you would agree there has been progress made towards including some of Beck's more notorious comments.--The lorax (talk) 17:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

What I see is that it takes six men to budge Bytebear, in the role of Sisyphus' boulder, UP the hill a nudge, and I have little faith that it will do ought but slide down quite soon, as it's already trying to do. ThuranX (talk) 18:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Bytebear, PLEASE review the section of this talk page titled "Moving forward- Keith Ellison and the Arab community". I have posted six sources about the incident there, INCLUDING coverage of the incident by the Associated Press and the Columbia Journalism Review. It has been beyond well established that there is enough reliable sources. This talk page stopped discussing sources like a week ago, and you are the only one conjuring this strawman. novalord2 20:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Novalord2 (talk • contribs)

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

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

If there is sufficient agreement, I'd be fine adding some additional content if properly summarized and NPOV. I think such would be acceptable for WP:WEIGHT as you describe, but I also think there are other areas that could use attention as well and maybe we should look at it in a different way. The article has like one sentence for each NYT bestselling book, with no description or reception regarding the books (this is another place to tie in a critical comment or two). They are easily relevant to his notability, and lack of attention in these other areas can give the perception that criticism is given too much weight in relation to other content as it grows in one section. Unfortunately, most editors are not interested in the other aspects and the attention always goes to the criticism section on these types of biographies. We just need to find those aspects that we can agree are properly significant enough to be tied into his notability and place it where it best ties in to the biography. I think we could use some generic statements that he's been criticized by fellow commentators for being eccentric, emotional, etc, but not going into the detail as to who (it's in the ref - no need to list names of people like O'Reilly, Miller, Scarborough, etc - not pertinent). My concern is, and you can see it with just the recent edits in the last 24hrs, the focused section becomes a troll magnet (not calling anyone a troll, it's just the term used) for adding in good faith random criticism. That's the big issue with such sections in general, it becomes a list of criticism. The more incidents (or detail) you add, the more likely people are to say.. "well what about this one" and tack it on. The line gets less defined as what relates to his notability for the section and what is significant. That's why I think it is important to keep it very limited, relevant, and brief. I have no interest in future patrolling of this article and reverting content I (or we) deem to be unworthy. I'd like to remove it from my watch list and move on to other topics. I'm hoping that we can somehow set up a structure, watermark for notability relevance, and properly open and close the paragraphs to limit future stuffing and paragraph additions of unimportant trivia news and criticism. Probably too lofty a goal for such a politically charged character and I certainly don't want to go through another debate on what is significant, but there it is... Morphh ^(talk) 13:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Morph -- I understand that there is concern over the criticism/reception/whatever section becoming a POV magnet, but I stand by my opinion that potential POV magnets do not justify TOOFEWOPINIONS. A person like Beck will always be a target for vandalism and random good faith criticism, so there's no avoiding that. I'll try to find some time this evening to flesh things out a little, and to make the language of the criticism more "closed". MichaelLNorth (talk) 14:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, Morph. I have some wiki links that you would benefit from reading. First of all see WP:what is a troll(to see why I am not one like you suggested), then read Wikipedia:Don't call editors trolls(to see how you breached WP:goodfaith(and no a weak Glenn Beck style "I'm not saying such and such" and then going on to say exactly such and such isn't going to cut it in the real world, sorry)). The criticism I added to the article was not "random", it was very specific. Beck is largely alienated from his conservative peers in the media, yet this is totally overlooked in the article. Adding something like "Keith Olbermann is critical of Beck" would be an example of something random. You can't get away with cocooning Beck from his own outlandish remarks, and whitewashing this article to make it seem like he is just a regular joe — this is a guy who makes a living out of comparing the president of the United States to Hitler, and the article should reflect that. ʄ!•¿talk? 20:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I am missing something, but where exactly were you called a troll? Bytebear (talk) 20:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Unbelievable. ʄ!•¿talk? 21:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I specifically stated in my message that I did not call you a troll for the very reason that I was not referring to any specific entry but the activity with regard to what we've been working on with criticism. I don't know you or your edits enough to label you anything. Sorry if you misunderstood. I was talking about the activity and how it applies to criticism type sections (see Jimbo's quote WP:CRITS). As for cocooning, whitewashing.. give me a break. The article will follow the policies laid out in WP:BLP and reflect what reliable 3rd party sources state, not the criticism of the tiny minority. Like I stated above, I think it's fine to include that he is criticized, I just think it's undue weight to list each person that does so unless it's significant (like we did with the ones above). Morphh ^(talk) 21:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

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

I think Morph's point was that regardless of how many people are critical of Beck, we must still use third party reliable sources that report on that criticism. As to your other comments, please review WP:AGF. Bytebear (talk) 21:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Who said that a tiny minority are critical of Beck? Stop twisting my words. I stated how policy states the article is to be written, which is not based on making sure this article reflects "a guy who makes a living out of comparing the president of the United States to Hitler". Morphh ^(talk) 21:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Well Hitler one day then Stalin the next. This is a complete joke, I'm done with this article. ʄ!•¿talk? 21:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, how I love Godwin's Law. Bytebear (talk) 21:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Well that explains your interest in Glenn Beck, seeing as he invokes Godwin's law on an almost daily basis on his show(sorry, I couldn't help it — that was just too rich. Now I'm done). ʄ!•¿talk? 23:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Now 20 companies have pulled their ads

[2] Stonemason89 (talk) 12:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Glenn Beck as a Mormon

I find it unnecessary to include "Religious beliefs" in the main info pane on the right side of the page. That's definitely pertinent information to include in the "Personal life" section. I've looked at several other entries for other political pundits and religious beliefs are not a main identifying factor. HostileApostle (talk) 16:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

This makes sense to me. I am indifferent as to whether content should be removed, but giving it a separate section seems like WP:UNDUE to me. To the best of my understanding, he is not known for being a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, as much as for being a political pundit.MichaelLNorth (talk) 16:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

He's made the Mormonism notable, because he's spoken of it repeatedly as a part of his recovery from addiciton. He opened the door, we've just put a sign over it saying 'door'. ThuranX (talk) 16:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you believe that it warrants its own section (as seen in the current version of the page), or should it go with his other personal life details? MichaelLNorth (talk) 16:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused... I don't see that it has its own section and it does appear to be part of the other personal life details. Am I looking at something different? As far as the InfoBox, doesn't matter to me. Some have that info and some don't. Also depends on what infobox you use. We're using the celeb infobox here, where we could just as easily use person or {{Infobox journalist}}. Morphh ^(talk) 18:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

MichaelLNorth, this discussion was raised in regard to its presence in the InfoBox, and since Bekc has repeatedly made it notable, then I'd assert that in his case, it is notable. ThuranX (talk) 19:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, this was a case of information overload (multitasking to the extreme). Please disregard my previous comments pertaining to this issue. I think that his religious beliefs are notable enough to include in the main info pane, especially considering that his political views (what he is known for) are undeniably intertwined with his religious views. MichaelLNorth (talk) 20:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Beck forced on Vacation?

A concern for recentism should delay any immediate additions, but this might be something to watch for:

Glenn Beck's vacation this week from his Fox News show was not planned. We hear Beck was told to take this week off to let some of the heat surrounding him die down. That heat began July 28 on "Fox & Friends" when Beck said he thought Pres. Obama has "a deep-seated hatred for white people," adding, "This guy is, I believe, a racist." In the days and weeks that followed an organization called ColorofChange.org mobilized an effort to get advertisers to pull their spots from Beck's show. Earlier this month, a Fox News spokesperson told TVNewser that the advertisers simply moved their spots from Beck to other programs, "so there has been no revenue lost."

[3]

--kizzle (talk) 20:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that qualifies as a WP:RS. Soxwon (talk) 03:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Lack of neutrality

Beck's controversial comments keep getting edited out of the article. I feel that if they're referenced with reliable sources we should keep them. ByteBear, if an edit is backed up with a source like the Associated Press, shouldn't we include them?--The lorax (talk) 19:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Trying to define Glenn Beck by one personal belief is sensationalizing the issue. You don't happen to see it his way so your trying to label him as something bad. This goes against the policies of wiki and any statements about Glenn Beck calling BO a racist should be removed. Do a seach on the net for who called Bush a racist. If you believe it is noteworthy to place those comments here then you should also be placing them on every bio for every one who ever called any president racist. This is a none issue and should be dropped immediately by wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.63.2 (talk) 18:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I completly agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pockets71 (talk • contribs) 01:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Your sources are left wing blogs. Another reference is to the home page of the Washington Post. WP:BLP is clear. We must be very careful about being reliable, removing POV and making sure that the article is not a collection of non-noteworthy POV snippets. Your edits are in violation of all those points. Neutrality does not mean you must present negative and positive aspects in an article. What it means is whatever you present as facts must be presented without bias. You do not seem to understand the difference. Bytebear (talk) 20:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Do these statements follow the posted guidelines for wiki? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.63.2 (talk) 16:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, Bytebear, do you consider the Washington Post to be a reliable source for inclusion into wikipedia articles? --Hardindr (talk) 20:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's start with the "Obama is a racist" comment. Here is what I had posted:

^{On the July 28, 2009 Fox & Friends in response to President Obama's criticism of the arrest of Henry Louis Gates, Beck said that Obama had "a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture." When rebutted by Brian Kilmeade, who said many of Obama's staffers were white, Beck replied, "I'm not saying he doesn't like white people, he has a problem. This guy is, I believe, a racist." Fox News SVP of Programming Bill Shine said in response to the comments, "Glenn Beck expressed a personal opinion which represented his own views, not those of the Fox News Channel. And as with all commentators in the cable news arena, he is given the freedom to express his opinions." MSNBC commentatorDonny Deutsch called for the advertisers on Beck’s FNC show to pull out of the program. NBC's Chuck Todd also criticized these remarks on his blog, saying, "What's most amazing about this episode is that what Beck said isn't a fireable or even a SUSPENDABLE offense by his bosses...There was a time when outrageous rants like this would actually cost the ranters their jobs. But not anymore; if anything, it's now encouraged." Conservative Morning Joe host Joe Scarborough responded via Twitter, labeling Beck's remarks "outrageous".}

Here are the sources:

• Article on the comments by the Associated Press.
• Donny Deutsch story from Mediaite.
• Additional comments from Chuck Todd sourced by Politico.

Would you agree that these sources are from reliable sources?--The lorax (talk) 21:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

wait are you disputing he said what he said? Are you high or stupid? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.68.250.6 (talk) 02:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

"shouldn't we include them?" Not if it doesn't follow the other aspects of the policy. Reliable sources are a requirement for inclusion, but not the only requirement. We should include criticism, but it has to be done in a way that presents proper weight, balance, and follows the polices for a living person, which were some of the reasons given for removal. As it was, the section had issues with both NPOV and BLP. We need to look at the material removed and think of how best to included it. Morphh ^(talk) 20:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The above text (Iorax's proposal), I believe, can be included. i dont see it violates any wikipedia policy and is certainly notable. --L I C 22:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It does not belong here. Perhaps in the arrest of Gates article to which it is related, but not here. Beck was simply stating "his" opinion, that some others think he is crazy for having that opinion doesn't mean that his opinion is somehow controversial. Since the whole Gates thing happened I have heard several people either say or imply that Obama was racist. If some action occurs because of his comments then it may deserve some mention, but otherwise it is simply not that notable. Arzel (talk) 23:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

so, the argument is it is not a big deal that a notable media commentator calling a President racist. interesting... --L I C 23:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

How big a deal will it be in 3 days? 3 years? When Beck dies? Should we include every crazy comment by these talking heads in their bios? I have been on break and I admit I know zippo about this "deal" and really don't want to, but from the little I have seen of this guy, he seems pretty wacky so we would have to include a ton of "stuff" if all we went by was "well I have a reliable source that says....". If I had my drothers(sp?), I wouldn't include ANY material into bios that happen in the last year. I am sure I can make that into a policy :). Anyways, good luck :) --Tom (talk) 00:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I dont know if he is whacky. but if that is true and that can be attributed to reliable impartial opinion and sources, we could just add that instead. doesnt sound like a bad idea. --L I C 01:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Just because it's news (supposedly notable - though sources are scarce) and you have a source does not make it relevant to Glen Beck's notability, which is required for inclusion in a biography of a living person. To quote the policy:

Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to particular viewpoints, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article.

So just from this one bit of policy, here are the issues that I see with the suggested content. The paragraph suggested is not relevant to the subject's notability, it's given (undue weight) for the topic, it takes sides, it's not presented conservatively or neutrally. It gives disproportionate space to that one viewpoint, with no explanation of Beck's context. We can barely scrabble together reliable sources, so it's a minority view being prominently represented. These are just some of the issues, not even getting into blog and twitter comments. The other paragraphs have similar issues. We need to summarize the criticism into something relevant to Beck's notability where appropriate, with proper weight and balance. Morphh ^(talk) 2:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe inclusion of this would work on a different tack. How about we start a new section in the article on Glenn Beck's shock jock persona. He admits as much in ABC's interview where Beck said "I am like Howard Beale," said Beck. "When he came out of the rain and he was like, none of this makes any sense. I am that guy." He has a history of provocative statements and that's all part of the shtick of his show.--The lorax (talk) 03:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the best solution would be to weave it into the article were appropriate, but a section describing his style may also work, so long as we take care to follow Wikipedia:NPOV#Article_structure. I think your definitely thinking in the right direction here, as his style is part of his notability, which sometimes gets him into trouble. He has been criticized by x,y,z for comments on topics such as a,b,c... Morphh ^(talk) 11:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, it started off great with your first two paragraphs and the new section, but your recent edits are at issue with article structure and undue weight again. It's actually worse than before. Remove all the sub-headers and condense all that stuff into about two paragraphs. Remove all the quotes and put it in your own words as it relates to his notability. Morphh ^(talk) 21:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I removed the POV Specifics and some stuff that was unsourced. There was a good Time Magazine article on Beck, but the context of the text in the article did not reflect the content of that article, and several POV unreferenced examples were tacked on to the end of the paragraph, so I removed it, but I am ok with the source summarized in his persona section. Bytebear (talk) 22:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I think we're getting closer to finding common ground on what to include. I thought the gasoline skit fit into what the Time article was talking about with his Jenga prop; I'll try to find a source for that - you thought that example was POV? As for the other examples, admittedly they need to be cut down. I'll see if I can chop down these examples into shorter sentences as Morphh suggested above.--The lorax (talk) 22:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think a hyperpartisan like Donny Deutsch's opinion is really very apt in this instance. He appears to be using this as a way to attack republicans in general. Arzel (talk) 06:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps just a general statement describing some of the organizations that criticized his remarks. Something like "MSNBC, the NAACP, among others criticized Beck for his comments, some calling the remarks "outrageous". Morphh ^(talk) 14:50, 01 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I made some changes similar to that stated in my prior comment. Morphh ^(talk) 16:23, 01 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks great, I think we've fixed neutrality concerns.--The lorax (talk) 17:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I have read the article and talk thoroughly and I have to agree that this article lacks neutrality. I don't agree with a 'Controversy" section for the sake of it but this piece is seriously lacking in any references to some of the many controversial events surrounding Beck. I don't think that Liberal blogs can be considered acceptable sole sources but the article reads like a PR piece. 93.96.144.130 (talk) 07:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not comfortable using transcripts as citations. Unless an incident is covered extensively by third party sources, it is not noteworthy. Several of the examples given of controversial incidents are presented more through original research and conclusion than through third party commentary. I think we need better sources or the material needs to be removed. I also still feel we are cherry picking incidents that aren't noteworthy to Beck. For example, nothing is written about the content of his one man shows, but we pull out incidents that only server to make Beck look bad. Hardly neutral, and certainly not noteworthy.Bytebear (talk) 23:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

this article appears to be whitewashed. i have read what everyone says above and i agree that we dont want to focus on minutae, but to read this article as it stands now would not give an uninformed reader the whole picture. this man is very controversial and this article makes no mention of it. he has many supporters and many detractors. this isnt evident in the current article. i will be back soon to see if it is more well rounded. if not i will probably support the inclusion of some of the recently removed material- possibly the 'barack is a racist' stuff. --Brendan19 (talk) 23:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought we had a fair compromise before with including some of his more controversial comments.--The lorax (talk) 17:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I just read the article and agree with Brendan19 - this article does not reflect in any way the persona of Glenn Beck. His outrageous comments are part of it for sure (whether it's just lies for publicity sake or not). Obama isn't even mentioned at all - his comments about "Obama being racist" alone are noteworthy, but thats just the tip of the iceberg, isn't it? --Thomas (talk) 13:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

We're still working on including these aspects and to what degree. Their is a difference in something being notable or flash news, and being part of someones notability (BLP). Sources are being put together from third party reliable sources to show that these particular criticisms are worth including and do not violate undue weight. We have to be careful when dealing with living persons. Morphh ^(talk) 13:44, 04 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I added some of the content back in. So lets work on the talk to get a compromise on this section. What do we need to snip, trim, expand, reword, ... Please try to address specifics, what sentence don't you like and why. What sources are lacking and what can be done to fix it. What stories would better portray this aspect of his notability? Morphh ^(talk) 14:21, 04 August 2009 (UTC)

I reverted your changes Morphh. I cannot in good conscience allow Beck be labeled a racist. I also think the whole "use of props" is ridiculous. If you read the Time article it is using the Jenga example as a metaphor, and the editor here is using it literally. This is why I added a paragraph that actually summarizes the main points of the article. The best course of action is to review each reference for reliability and notability, and then only present the points in a non-POV way. That is not happening as it stands. That is why I reverted your changes. Bytebear (talk) 16:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

ByteBear, I don't think the statements labeled Beck a racist. It stated that he called Obama a racist. I don't follow the logic that because he called someone a racist, he himself is a racist. I thought we had clarified Beck's context for the statement so this was not misunderstood. I think the "use of props" is funny and true (I love his use of props, like when he jumped out wearing Lederhosen (hilarious), who else does that - no way you would see Bill O'Reilly, Hanity, or Shepard Smith doing that.) I guess "fusion of entertainment" could cover that but it doesn't really portray his style like the other sentence. Perhaps it could be reworded to better fit your ideas. I agree with reliability and notability concerns - we just need to make sure it follows weight for the overall article. I had maintained the content that you had added regarding Time Magazine, I thought it was a good closer for the section (not sure if you had noticed that). Morphh ^(talk) 18:56, 04 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, and I should have chosen my words more carefully. The Beck statements are not defining enough to make it to his bio. Second, the use of props should really be covered in his show article and not in his bio. We cannot blur the lines between the person and the persona, and the person from the show. Bytebear (talk) 20:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we need a review of what Neutrality really means. It does not mean the article is balanced with both positive and negative commentary. That is what seems to be the pushing agenda with the comments above and it introduces POV. Neutrality means after we agree on notability and reliability of a point, we present that point in a neutral way. That is clearly not being done. For example, Gawker.com, an opinion blog, is not a reliable source, and we cannot present opinion as fact. And it is potentially defamatory, which is a violation of WP:BLP. It has no third party reliable sources reporting on the issue, and is being presented as a negative. All of these scream POV.Bytebear (talk) 16:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I think a simple solution would be that commentary from the show - for example the "Obama is a racist" - could be covered in the article Glenn Beck (TV program) article, rather than the bio article. This will solve the issue with BLP as you can present the criticisms toward the persona of Glenn Beck instead of the person. Plus, these specifics are more applicable to the show anyway. This article should be about the generic person, not about specific events from his show. Bytebear (talk) 16:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

BLP violations shouldnt be included in any article in wikipedia. It is matter of relevance which should decide whether it should stay here or in his TV program. --L I C 20:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Besides, including what comes out of his mouth should be no BLP violation. If not convinced, put it in WP:BLP/N. --L I C 02:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Even quoting someone can be a violation, if that quote is taken out of context or used to defame the person. This is why we use reliable third party sources, and not primary sources, so we as Wikipedians are not commenting directly on what someone says, but only stating what someone else observes or states about the quote. And even then we must present that in a NPOV way. Bytebear (talk) 03:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

well, i never said quoting someone out of context to defame the person is not BLP violation. you are the one who said including the same in a different article will somehow override BLP violation. --L I C 12:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I never said that. What I said was making comentary on his on air persona was a violation of BLP, but putting it in context in the show article may add the context needed to restore balance. Bytebear (talk) 18:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Error in registered user's version

"Gun Rights" is not a proper name and should not be capitalized I don't think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.107.24 (talk • contribs) 13:12, 25 August 2009

Done Thanks for pointing that out. Celestra (talk) 14:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

True, though according to BLP that section shouldn't have a title at all as "subsection headings should reflect important areas to the subject's notability." Gun rights is not important area to the subject's notability. Morphh ^(talk) 14:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Question about article section title

I'm curious about the title of the section "Media persona and reception." I'm not sure when this title was added or whether it had consensus, but what was the thinking in terms of the word "persona?" I'm not aware of a precedent in terms of describing hosts of TV talk shows as being "personas" when they are on the air. For example in our BLPs on Oprah Winfrey, Bill O'Reilly, David Letterman, Keith Olbermann, and even Jon Stewart the word "persona" never appears in the article text, much less in a section heading. Our article on Stephen Colbert describes his "alternate" and "fictional" persona, but that's obviously because Colbert is blatantly playing (and satirizing) a "character" whose views are actually quite different from his own.

In labeling the on-screen version of Beck a "persona," we seem to be suggesting that in some way what he does on air does not actually (or at least fully) reflect his real beliefs or opinion. If we are going to suggest that, we would need pretty bulletproof sources, and from what I can tell right now we have nothing.

For example, the first sentence does not at all accurately reflect the article to which it is sourced, a March New York Times article. That article simply does not, as we say, describe "Beck's on-air persona," rather it says "With a mix of moral lessons, outrage and an apocalyptic view of the future, Mr. Beck, a longtime radio host who jumped to Fox from CNN’s Headline News channel this year, is capturing the feelings of an alienated class of Americans." That is, the quote is absolutely about Glenn Beck the real, actual man—not about "Glenn Beck's on-air persona," which is not something even mentioned anywhere in the article.

At the very least that sentence needs to be altered to accurately reflect the source, because what we have now is quite misleading. But from what I can gather, none of the sources in that section discuss Beck as having an "on-air persona" that is somehow distinct from Glenn Beck the real-life person, and as such the section title might need to be rethought. I'll leave it to others to come to a decision about this but I wanted to raise the issue as the section title did really jump out at me as a departure from similar articles. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I think the first paragraph of the "Media persona and reception" section would be a good opening to the "career" section(as it describes his self-designation and style), and the rest should be left under the title "notable incidents" or a similar title. ʄ!•¿talk? 08:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Good point - I think we were trying to avoid issues with WP:NPOV#Article_Sturctue and having a criticims section. We were trying to tie the criticism to his notability, and then produce a section header that reflected that. Personally, I was for adding criticism throughout the article in the different areas where appropriate, others wanted a criticism section. So I think this was some sort of half-way point, though I don't know that it's working that well. Morphh ^(talk) 13:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Much better, I think this change by Morphh addresses the issue. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

No Controversy section?

Glenn Beck has made some outrageous statements and had some equally outrageous hosts, including one that called for Osama Bin Laden to attack America to "Wake up" the people. Why are right-wing wikipedia scrubbers allowed to suppress these? [[4]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.254.193.190 (talk) 17:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

There is some debate about this, but I think the general view is that "controversy" sections are not desirable. Rather, critical views or descriptions of controversy should be spread throughout an article when appropriate. That has happened here to some degree, though if you feel there are other things that should be discussed you might want to propose them here on the article talk page.

As a side note, I would point out that your same question is routinely asked at Barack Obama (about "left-wing wikipedia scrubbers" instead of "right-wing wikipedia scrubbers") and I routinely give the same answer there. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I would say that a controversy section for a political pundit on a conroversial channel to begin with and a controversy section for the President of the United States of America is just slightly different. There will always be controversy over Presidents, as half of the country is opposed to what they stand for and how tey think the free society should be run. Every single President would then have a controversy section, when in reality, these should be saved for people who have had a serious issue in their Presidency, (e.g. Clinton impeachment, Watergate, etc.). A pundit who, to me at least, seems to just be as offensive as posible and as hateful as he can be to people who disagree with him clearly needs a controversy section. Just my two cents. Leviathanlover (talk) 19:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Well even if there isn't a controversy section there should be a criticism section. Radio and TV personalities alike has criticised Beck (Bill Maher, John Stewart, Stephen Colbert, Bill O'Reilley too I think), that shouldn't be ignored. Had I never have heard of him by the looks of this article I'd say there was no issue with this man, while the fact remains the he is widely criticised. 86.61.67.169 (talk) 10:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Such a section is undesirable and discussed in our policies on NPOV. As Bigtimepeace stated above, such points should be distributed throughout the article where appropriate with proper weight. If you want a list of criticism, go to Media Matters. This is a Encyclopedic Biography. Morphh ^(talk) 3:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

How do discuss the guys biography and omit things like, he called autism a faked disorder, stated that he hopes America will get attacked by Bin Ladin again, interviewed a muslim elected official and asked him what its like being the enemy and also, very notably, called the sitting president is a racist. If you don't want to put a controversy section in, then fine, put it in with his general bio, but quit letting right wingers deface the page in an attempt to cover up and rewrite history. 75.187.53.11 (talk) 17:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

See WP:NOTNEWS#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information, WP:Notability and WP:Trivia and WP:BLP. Bytebear (talk) 18:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

ve== Beck's comments regarding Obama "hating white culture"/"is a racist" ==

I favor inclusion of his comments that Obama "is a racist." This statement by Beck seems notable in the fact that Fox News actually released a statement: "[Beck] expressed a personal opinion which represented his own views, not those of the Fox News Channel. And as with all commentators in the cable news arena, he is given the freedom to express his opinions." Chuck Todd also blogged that "What's most amazing about this episode is that what Beck said isn't a fireable or even a SUSPENDABLE offense by his bosses. There was a time when outrageous rants like this would actually cost the ranters their jobs."--The lorax (talk) 17:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Bytebear and was about to revert this myself. The content should be relevant to Glen Beck's notability per BLP policy, not something that is just news worthy. It's also cherry picking a statement and doesn't present the overall context. Having TVNewswer Web site question a Fox VP about it doesn't seem to me as an official statement of defense from Fox News - it was a canned statement when asked about a comment. I haven't see a publication, announcement, or apology by Fox News or Beck - there was barely any acknowledgment. Blogs are not reliable sources for Wikipedia, but there has been some publication, so I'd be fine with the statement as presented by Stonemason89.Morphh ^(talk) 18:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that this is a "canned statement" from Fox News? Have they ever released such a statement before? It seems to be extraordinary case for them to make such a statement. Also, NBC News' blog appears to be a reliable source per WP:BLOGS; Joe Scarborough also released a statement calling Beck's statements "outrageous." Stonemason89's edit putting it into his views seems to be so slight a mention as to be POV. Beck even said on his radio show that he "stands by the statement." This seems like enough of a response to merit a more significant inclusion.--The lorax (talk) 18:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLOGS is only a few months old and it's not a policy, it's a proposal put forward by one editor (rootology). Such a canned statement is used all the time "... these views do not represent xyz corp and are the opinion of so and so." The statement doesn't contribute to his notability in any relevant way and is not significant enough at this point to mention based on WP:UNDUE. Morphh ^(talk) 19:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

You said above that you'd be fine with some sort of mention of this incident. Lets not go overboard and dedicate a whole section to it, but it seems reasonable to have a mention somewhere in the article. What would be appropriate in your opinion?--The lorax (talk) 19:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that the Television section has become a place to put the latest criticism of Beck. This is not what this section should describe and it does not follow our policies. None of these one off incidents are part of his notability or the shows notability. They need to be summarized as a whole and how it relates to his notability. The primary points can be used as examples and multiple incidents can be described in summary and referenced. So if we say anything in regard to this flash in the pan issue, it should be part of some general statements as described above. The details are fairly unimportant in a historical context and can be found in the references or used in brief examples. Morphh ^(talk) 23:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. And now more people are jumping in, adding any incident to the section. None of these things are noteworthy. I still think the crying should be removed and the supposed "conspiracy theorist" accusations. if you note the section is actually talking about his program in general, and not about specific events. That needs to be the style to remain NPOV. Bytebear (talk) 02:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Can we reach a compromise? Let's not sanitize this page. It is extremely arguable that "none of these things are noteworthy." I think many of these incidents are notable and we're doing a disservice to Beck's biography in whitewashing them. Can we come to a truce in mentioning this particular incident and Keith Ellison? If not the Television section, perhaps a new section?--The lorax (talk) 04:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

So long as it is within the policy of Wikipedia, I'm sure we'll be able to come to some compromise. I don't want to whitewash or sanitize the article, but we do need to make sure it follows BLP and NPOV. This is a encyclopedic biography, not wikinews or media matters. The current statements don't describe Beck's point of view and why he came to this conclusion. It presents it like he's a loon (which maybe his is) responding to the arrest of Henry Gates. But this was only one small piece of the picture that Beck presented on his show. Beck spent several shows presenting facts and laying down his arguments that led him to that conclusion. Again, this is cherry picking a statement without providing context for it, and then adding the criticism from competing journalists that probably only heard the one statement. If it is going to be presented, then it has to include both points of view, which would make the entire thing too long, creating more issues with undue weight. The only proper solution is to describe the incidents in a generic context that relate to Glen Beck's notability in politics and his show. We should probably remove a lot of these sound bite quotes and describe his criticism neutrally, but I'm not sure what weight to give what at this point. I'll try to take a look later today. I'm fairly new to this article and haven't read it fully - I just happen to be passing by and got sucked into the discussion. Morphh ^(talk) 13:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

There aren't enough noteworthy sources to add this information. It is only noteworthy to left wing bloggers. Bytebear (talk) 18:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The Associated Press was the primary source, can we compromise on this?--The lorax (talk) 19:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually the deleted section had two references, one from Media Matters (clearly bias and lacking noteworthy status) and the other was to the home page of the Washington Post (an invalid reference altogether). Bytebear (talk) 20:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

This entry is controlled by Beck's friends and Neo-Nazi fans: cherry picking?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.58.100.91 (talk) 18:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

No, there are very strict rules on living persons. See WP:BLP. We must document everything with reliable third party sources. We also assume good faith and don't call other editors "Neo-Nazi fans". See WP:AGF. Bytebear (talk) 18:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

BLP does not require, and never has required, articles about living persons to contain only positive content. This is a widely reported controversy that has even led to a major and substantially successful campaign to get advertisers to drop Beck's show. Removing all reference to the controversy from this article is nothing but a whitewash. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 07:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is a source regarding companies pulling their advertisements from Beck's show in response to the "Obama is a racist". Reuters - Fox News' Glenn Beck loses advertisers - August 12, 2009 MichaelLNorth (talk) 13:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe Men's Wearhouse, Sargento and State Farm have all pulled advertising since this article was published. Why is there no mention of this? Patriot Missile33 (talk) 14:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Van Jones. If you mention him, and this controversy, you should mention both his new White House job and his "retired" cofounder status with the main group targeting Beck's advertisers for his alleged racist comments. It should be made clear that Van Jones currently works for the White House http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/09/03/10/Van-Jones-to-CEQ/ QUOTE "...The White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Chair Nancy Sutley announced [March 2009] yesterday that Van Jones – an early green jobs visionary -- will start Monday as Special Advisor for Green Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation at CEQ..." Part of this still emerging controversy turns on Van Jones' curent White House job and the possibility some advertisers might be intimidated by a group with such a strong White House connection.Lindisfarnelibrary (talk) 13:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Political Views - Health Care

The reference for this item is 2nd hand. The first hand reference is here - http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/28330/

Can someone who can edit please replace the reference for this. It is currently #42. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.178.58.86 (talk) 17:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

No, our source is better. See, a source needs to be not only Verifiable, but Secondary, in order to support the idea that the material is notable enough for inclusion. So while the source you provide is verifiable, it is a primary source, the man himself saying it. It is better for an event to get coverage in other places, demonstrating that an event has had an impact worth reporting, and often, worth critical review by people qualified to comment on it, and is thus worthy of inclusion. Otherwise, we could source this entire page to Glenn Beck himself, but it would be a page about how insanely perfect and great Beck is, not one that includes the evaluation of his ideas and statements. ThuranX (talk) 18:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. According to WP:PSTS: "Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources". Primary sources should only be used for illustrative quotes, minor details, etc.   Will Beback  talk  18:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree as well, the secondary source is fine. The other source could be used if something needs clarification though or balance. While this source would likely be a primary or self-published source, it's also the subject of the article, so it can be used as a source for Beck's article. "Self-published material may be used in biographies of living persons only if written by the subjects themselves. Subjects may provide material about themselves through press releases, personal websites, or blogs." Morphh ^(talk) 19:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

the secondary source [5] fails WP:BLP. ""Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically." Bytebear (talk) 19:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

This is absolute, unequivocal, undeniable proof that Bytebear is only here as a pure obstructionist, unflagging in his efforts and totally unwilling for ANYTHING to go into this article that isn't laudatory about Glenn Beck. If an admin doesn't step in really soon, this article's going to have an insane amount of trouble, because with this sort of editor here, edit warring is the only recourse. ThuranX (talk) 19:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, you really have it in for me. Rather than judge my argument, which is perfectly valid, you simply dismiss it because it comes from me. I find it interesting that when my points are repeated by other editors, you are mute. I think it is you who is being am obstructionist, not me. The source has one line mentioning Beck. There were better sources before, but you didn't like them represented fairly, so you find ones that are more in liking to your POV. Give me a break. Bytebear (talk) 21:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Your argument is without any merit at all. No matter what the sources, you find objections, but you always promise that there IS a source out there that you will accept, you just haven't ever seen it yet, nor heard of it, nor know what it is, but you'll know it when you see it. When confronted by too many editors supporting a source, you dig in your heels, and then insist that any coverage at all would be UNDUE violations. There is no way to compose ANY criticism of Glenn Beck which you will find acceptable to the article. Any of my comments necessarily are about you, because your conduct is what is stopping us from building a good article here, and you know it. Simply talking about each of your so-called arguments without discussing your argument pattern sets this entire page up for going in circles for months. You've already done it, and it's not fair to those of us genuinely trying to build a balanced page. ThuranX (talk) 02:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

ThuranX I agree Bytebear's sole agenda is to be obstructionist. Here is further evidence of the misinterpretation/misrepresentation of policy — the source given for the citation in this article is reliable, and "be[ing] about the subject of the article specifically" refers to mentioning the subject(in this case Glenn Beck) by name(instead of just an allusion to him), not the refference being exclusively about Glenn Beck.
However edit warring is always avoidable, and besides, enough attention has been shone on this article to ensure that pro-Glenn Beck edits will not be accepted by the authority of weight of numbers alone. ʄ!•¿talk? 21:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I posted the original statement and I'm floored at the reaction. What is being used isn't a secondary source - it is a second hand source. Two very different things. My comment is not intended to be about editing the article, but an edit about a reference. The reference being used doesn't provide a reference at all and is, therefore, conjecture. What is wrong with using a persons own words to illustrate what their views are? 168.178.58.86 (talk) 20:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Good lord — I think we can trust the National Post not to lie to us. I think you'll find newspaper articles don't usually have citations. ʄ!•¿talk? 21:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you even reading my posts? I never said the source wasn't trustworthy, I said it failed the BLP policy which says that a source should be primarily about the subject, and not just a single line in an unrelated article. I am sad to see that WP:AGF has gone out the window. Bytebear (talk) 21:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:AGF would preclude your own continuous reverts of edits by other administrators without first discussing them on this page and seeking for consensus, would it not?

In addition to assuming good faith, encourage others to assume good faith by demonstrating your own good faith. You can do this by articulating your honest motives and by making edits that show your willingness to compromise, interest in improving Wikipedia, adherence to policies and guidelines, belief in the veracity of your edits, avoidance of gaming the system, and other good-faith behavior. Jonabbey (talk) 22:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Which I have done. I always discuss why I revert. I have also attempted to modify the content to make it more in conjunction with the sources here [6]. I have given each concern a specific reason based on policies and guidelines, and have not heard one argument from ThuranX on the points, but only to attack me personally, and dismiss my positions outright, only because they come from me, even when other editors agree with my views, sucn as this comment [7] from a moderator. Bytebear (talk) 22:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Your presence and viewpoint on Glenn Beck is very valuable. It's the continual peremptory reverts (even if explained after the fact) that are not. Jonabbey (talk) 22:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

This does not have a bearing on whether certain content should be included or not, but I don't believe that Bytebear is reading the BLP policy correctly. The section that editor cites is here, which is titled "Criticism and praise" (in BLPs). The entire section relates to "Criticism and praise of the subject," not to every aspect of a BLP. We do not require that a given source be "about the subject of the article specifically" if we are simply stating something factual. It is simply a fact that Glenn Beck said that health-care and other policies are "transforming America, and they're all driven by President Obama's thinking on one idea: reparations." Reporting that fact is neither inherently an example of praise nor of criticism—it is simply a position which Glenn Beck has taken which some people might very much agree with, others might find silly, and others might take great offense at. The source we use (which could even be bolstered by a link to a show transcript so people could see the original source) is perfectly fine.

But that doesn't at all mean we should include this, it just means that in my view Bytebear is misapplying BLP here, and that particular argument for non-inclusion (the source is not good enough because it talks about things besides Beck's position on the reasons for health-care reform) is simply not valid. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I am not. You are comparing the current state of the article with my position. I was commenting on this edit. [8] which is POV, misleading and incomplete. Bytebear (talk) 00:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

How is it POV if it is merely repeating something Beck said? Do you believe Beck was inappropriately quoted? Jonabbey (talk) 00:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Because it doesn't give Beck's side of the issue. It is incomplete, but more importantly it is not noteworthy, as suggested by Bigtimepeace. That's the problem letting little critical edits in. For NPOV you have to elaborate on the incident, and on the cross fire between Beck and the critics, and it becomes too weighty for the article. Someone suggested taking the chapter points from his book and elaborating on them, to give an overview of Beck's opinions. I think that is a far better approach. I just think the current approach is wrong. One of the other editors said his goal was to compile a list of the stupid things Beck has said and present them in the article. That is what I think the goal of such edits are. That is why I have been resisting them. They lead to more POV and more non-noteworthy trivia. Bytebear (talk) 00:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Bytebear I'm not sure you understood my point. It has nothing to do with suggested content, in this version or another one. I'm simply saying you are not applying the BLP policy correctly, and that said policy does not require sources to be "specifically" about the subject of an article if the issue is simply a matter of fact. Do you agree with that, yes or no? Forget about the specific content or sentence in question, just answer the question as to the general policy. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I think pulling a single statement from an article about a broader subject is a sign of a poor reference. Other similar references have been used as well, stating the specific from a generic. If the incident is truly noteworthy, then a full article on the topic would have been written by some news source. This has been done with several of the recent criticisms pulling small samples of content (regardless of fact) and ignoring the rest of the article, even when the article has contradictory information. For example, the article about Beck's operation was used to show he thought the medical industry was bad, but in fact, the article quoted him as saying he had the best doctors in the world. If Beck's commends about reparations are so important, someone would have written an entire article on the topic, and not just thrown it out a a minor blip in a larger context. Bytebear (talk) 00:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Even if we take Bytebear at face value, in Good Faith regarding the source, the article is about the health care debate. Glenn Beck is a loud voice in the media regarding and 'informing' (I use the term charitably) his listeners about it. That an article about the Health Care debate in the media reports on media debating health care and points to a major voice ought to be sufficient to pass WP:RS. I find his objections on the basis that it is in the 'blogs' subsite of the LATimes site spurious, as he assumes that the blogs lack any editorial control without proof; AGF and common sense suggest that a journalistic endeavor like the LAT maintains editorial oversight on all content published under it's banner. And it's not like we can't find plenty of other sources for that quote, so clearly, he objects to it on another basis. Out comes the notability comment. Given how many sources we can find addressing his comments, I'd suggest it passes NOTE. After that, we hit UNDUE. Since UNDUE has been raised for any critically 'negative' content, I find it hard to address that seriously. ThuranX (talk) 02:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Alright, so if it is to be included, should full context be given and should he be given a chance for rebuttal if there is one? For instance, I believe he pointed to quotes like Obama saying:

If we have a program, for example, of universal health care, that will disproportionately affect people of color, because they're disproportionately uninsured, if we've got an agenda that says every child in America should get — should be able to go to college, regardless of income, that will disproportionately affect people of color, because it's oftentimes our children who can't afford to go to college.

Or the Health Care bill including:

"The secretary (of Health and Human Services) shall give preference to entities that have a demonstrated record of the following:

• Training individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups or disadvantaged backgrounds

• A high rate of placing graduates in practice settings having the principal focus of serving in underserved areas or populations experiencing health disparities

• Supporting teaching programs that address the health care needs of vulnerable populations"

and

the Office of Civil Rights and the Office of Minority Health will be "maintaining, collecting and presenting federal data on race and ethnicity" to see if they can "identify gaps."

and statements by Secretary of Labor Robert Reich such as:

"I am concerned, as I'm sure many of you are, that these jobs not simply go to high-skilled people who are already professionals or to white male construction workers… I have nothing against white male construction workers, I'm just saying there are other people who have needs as well."

I'm not suggesting that any of these be included, that there is any validity in his statements, or anything of the sort. I'm just saying that I believe he drew his conclusion from material such as this and that it might be noteworthy to include. Soxwon (talk) 03:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, if we include those deceptive, deliberately race-baiting statistics, we'd have to include the rebuttal analyses, which show, for example that despite a higher percentage of blacks benefiting, in raw number of people benefiting, there are more whites, because there are more whites in the country, so from a larger sample, there's a smaller percentage with a greater count. And we'd rebutt all the rest, and that would be WAY off topic. It's enough to give the context that in discussing Obama's motivations for Health Care Reform, Beck said it's because he's a racist and wants to give reparations. That's really all that's relevant to Beck, unless he also said those statistics, in which case, sure, let's include them, then include the critical rebuttals. But if he used them, but was quoting others, then you'd have to find something saying he later admitted they were wrong, or that despite being disproved, he stood by them, to use them as any sort of context. ThuranX (talk) 04:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec with Soxwon, responding to Bytebear's 00:59 comment above) Bytebear, I read your response as a tacit acknowledgment that the BLP policy does not preclude using sources which are not solely about the subject of the article, but rather that it is "praise" or "criticism" which should be sourced to reliable sources which focus solely on the subject. If we need to source a quotation, or some other matter of fact, it is absolutely fine to use reliable sources that are not exclusively about the article subject. Again, this does not mean that discussing Beck's position on health care is automatically something we need to do here, it just means you need to stop using one sentence in the BLP policy as a way to suggest that any source that deals only partially with Beck is verboten under any circumstance. That is not the case.

Your general concern here that incidents need to be truly noteworthy in order to be included is of course a valid one. But the following idea is again not based on policy: "If the incident is truly noteworthy, then a full article on the topic would have been written by some news source." We have no policy or guideline of which I am aware that requires that sources used in our articles to describe noteworthy incidents must be solely about the exact topic in question, and you can't impose that view here. For example, if the New York Times or the Washington Post does an in-depth piece on Beck (I know the former has) they will mention all kinds of things about him which might be notable for inclusion. They might discuss his views on health care. You could not then turn around and say "but this article is not solely about his health care views, it was barely mentioned there." Again there is no policy basis for that argument. Similarly, if Beck's comments about a particular issue become part of an ongoing part of the media story on that topic, and are mentioned repeatedly in stories about topic x even if "topic x" is the main story and Glenn Beck's comments just a part of it, it's quite legitimate to argue that Beck's comments are notable and worthy of inclusion in his article. Maybe they don't really deserve inclusion (in fact often they will not), and we do have to be concerned about issues of weight and other aspects of NPOV. But there is absolutely no requirement that sources for BLPs be exclusively related to the subject in question and, furthermore, that they only be about the exact topic in question. Drive-by criticism (or praise) in articles largely about other topics are not appropriate for inclusion in BLPs per this section of the policy, but if we are simply trying to describe the (notable) opinions of a BLP subject in an NPOV fashion, or if we are just trying to source basic (notable) facts about their life, then there is nothing which prevents us from using reliable sources which are not exclusively about the person and/or topic in question. If you disagree, you'll have to cite a policy that backs you up, because your personal opinion is not sufficient.

Again, I stress that this comment really does not relate to the disputed content—it is a general point about sourcing for BLPs. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) One thing I feel is forgotten is that this is an encyclopedia. Are people going to care about this comment or remember it in 10 years (or for that matter 6 months, 6 months ago everyone was talking about Limbaugh's "I want Obama to fail" comments, no one is talking about it now)? With so little coverage, is it really that important or noteworthy or even newsworthy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soxwon (talk • contribs)

To Soxwon, obviously if we are going to talk about Beck's opinion about something we need to actually explain what his opinion is, and that could involve referencing arguments put forward by others to which Beck is objecting or with which he is agreeing. I'm not sure why you mention the particular quotes you do, and obviously Beck would have had, at the very least, to actually have invoked these and discussed them when presenting his views on health care. Incidentally Robert Reich holds no position in the Obama administration—he was Secretary of Labor under Bill Clinton for four years. His quote, while apparently fodder for Lou Dobbs and WorldNetDaily, related to the stimulus package and had nothing to do with health care.

And with respect to your last comment, the simple fact is that recent notable news is included in articles all over the encyclopedia. Perhaps that's a bad idea, but we absolutely do it, cautions against recentism notwithstanding. What obviously tends to end up happening is that issues that are heavily in the news end up in articles, and then over time many are culled out when it becomes obvious they were not of lasting importance. There's a fine balance between being too newsy in our entries and waiting 5 years before we include breaking information, just to make sure it was of some lasting importance. The fact that Wikipedia constantly incorporates new information is part of the edge it has over other encyclopedias, and I don't think anyone wants us to eliminate that practice altogether. In 20 years will anyone give a damn about the Mel Gibson DUI incident? Probably not, but it seemed like a huge deal at the time, it was easy to source it, and one of our key guidelines holds that notability is not temporary, so a situation that was only a huge deal for a month still gets to have an article. Is that really the right approach, and how does our thinking change when we are talking about BLPs? I don't think there are easy answers to these questions. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Yet another 'It's recentism until everyone is dead' argument. THe same thing was used above. I give the same reply. It would be recentism had Beck made a single, off the cuff glib statement in a larger interview, and it was all gotcha media, he'd issues a retraction and so on. Everyone says dumb stuff they rapidly regret. Instead, Beck made an extended case, using manipulative statistics, quoted above, and has stuck to it for weeks in the face of extended criticism, all while talking about one of the two arguably biggest efforts of the current presidential administration (the other being the economy). He has been critiqued, mostly negatively for this, for weeks now, and it's resulted in the entire ColorsOfChange reaction. Can we reduce this section in one or ten years if needed, yes. Should we wait ten years to report it? No. That's absurd. We cannot predict the longest view of this material (well, the LONGEST would be 'fomf, all burned in the supernova'), so we rely on other policies to guide us in handling this in hte here and now. This project is intended to continue to grow over time, and in time we, or other editors will revisit it. However, this is not a recentism flash in the pan. This is a situation which has grown in coverage and scope over a month now. It belongs here. ThuranX (talk) 04:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

If you are talking about reparations, then I disagree. 37 hits on G-news (with a resounding majority belonging to the mediamatters/newshounds wing) is hardly growing coverage. The racist part, yes, the part about reparations, where's all the coverage for such a notable event? An off-hand mention in a article about healthcare is notable enough for his bio? Soxwon (talk) 04:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The whole "this issue won't be remembered in 6 months" argument is entirely speculation and opinion, and as Bigtimepeace has stated, has no basis what-so-ever in Wikipedia policies.
If you want to go into the realm of opinion then here is my 2 cents. If you think calling the first African-american president of the United States a racist(with a "deep seated hatred of white people/the white culture etc.), especially with having nothing to back it up isn't a big deal, you are in serious denial. To a lot of people I'm sure, Beck's professional(and I use the term loosely for his benefit) career will always be primarily remembered for this incident(especially when you consider the rate Beck is going — holding down a job even in the media is going to be hard). This is opinion. However I'm pretty sure this is an opinion that the majority of people share.
As for there not being enough articles out there devoted to Beck, guess what. He isn't that notable. There aren't going to be books written about him by Oxford university press. Ever. Trying to hold this Wikipedia article's references to an impossibly high standard that you would not apply to any other article is ridiculous. ʄ!•¿talk? 04:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Leaving aside the specifics relating to the article, I think the general thrust of ThuranX's comment is correct. But bringing it back to Beck, it's worth pointing out that it is almost certain that Beck has never been as "notable" and discussed in secondary sources as he has been since getting his show on Fox, particularly in the last few months. His ratings have never been higher, and this is clearly the most important period of Beck's career to date in terms of audience, influence, coverage in other sources, etc. Our article absolutely needs to reflect that fact, and we need to describe what he is talking about (since he is a talk show host after all) and include at least some reaction, but since this (for now) most important period of his career is unfolding as we speak, we are largely guessing as to what is worthy of inclusion and what is not. I think it's helpful to bear that in mind. As ThuranX seems to be suggesting, our only real option is to do the best we can for now in terms of gauging what belongs and what doesn't, knowing that we'll have time to re-evaluate in the months and years ahead and make adjustments accordingly. Perhaps some of the animosity would abate here if we could all acknowledge that we are working in the dark and that there are not necessarily clear cut answers as to whether incident X or comment Y is something that should be discussed in his article—NPOV and other policies obviously guide us but they are often too fuzzy to give definitive answers about inclusion of a particular incident. At that point the only way to proceed is via talk page discussion aimed at arriving at a consensus.

And I would disagree with Fennessy regarding one particular issue: there will be any number of academic books and articles written (at least in part) about Glenn Beck. General academic books about politics regularly discuss prominent media personalities of the time, and more focused books and articles discuss mass media figures in great detail. I would be shocked if Beck does not get an in depth biographical treatment from an objective scholar at some point. Whatever one thinks of him, his popularity is a very interesting phenomenon, one which definitely tells us something about the politics of our time. He certainly has not reached Father Coughlin-level importance, but dozens of books and articles have been written dealing significantly or exclusively with Coughlin, and I think Beck will also provide fodder for future academics, albeit to a lesser degree. Their politics and influence are not the same obviously, but they are analogous enough to suggest that Beck will prove interesting to future scholars. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

(at Fenessy)This isn't about his commenting that Obama was a racist, this about his comment for reparations. And really your argument of me having "impossibly high standards" is quite absurd. His "Obama racist" comment generated 1,400 G-news hits, hardly indicating non-notability. I'm not sure you understand how shock jocks and pundits work. Beck's ratings are up since the incident took place and all the publicity is backfiring to some degree. As for this being how he's primarily remembered, that's as speculative as mine and claiming that "it's the opinion that the majority of the people share" is just as "flimsy" as what I stated (though if history is any guide, he'll go on to make even more shocking claims until he has his Imus moment, or until he retires). So in summary, no, I'm not holding it to impossibly high standards, I'm asking for something more substantial than a glancing comment or some indicator that people will care about this a 6 months or even 1 month from now.

(at Bigtimepeace) While the Obama racist comment may be a good spike in his career (it looks like it may be) is the reparations comment just as notable? Soxwon (talk) 05:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Since I'm writing/acting with my admin cap on (given that I've blocked a couple of people and said that I would do so again if necessary), I'm going to avoid specific comments about article content for the time being. However in trying to gauge the relative notability of two or more recent events, obviously the number of (unique) Google News hits can provide some rough guidance. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Once again, i find my AGF crippled. Soxwon above concedes that the racist comment is notable, but he's demonstrated a consistent opposition to its inclusion, so I'm again left with no other conclusion than obstructionism. ThuranX (talk) 05:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe you are misreading, I stated that I was against including the reparations comment, not the racism comment. Please revise accordingly. Soxwon (talk) 05:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

No, you're pretty much opposed to it all. ThuranX (talk) 06:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

No I have stated yet again, I am opposed to the reparations portion. Soxwon (talk) 06:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Soxwon, do you not acknowledge what an extreme and offensive notion it is to suggest that the government providing citizens(of all colors and creeds) with a basic level of healthcare is, essentially, a way for black people to take money from white people? ʄ!•¿talk? 08:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with the reparations comment. I don't see it as issuing criticism, just stating his position. At this point, he's not rebutting his position. I think the higher requirements are for criticism and praise, which I don't see yet with this statement. However, I don't understand why we're focus on it with regard to health care. He discussed how Obama's entire agenda was about reparations, even in our sources it describes it like this. So why are we pin pointing health care? In media persona and reception section, we state in a acceptable context I believe, we Beck believes in this regard. Why are we debating something that's already included in the article? Are we debating if it should be included a second time and tied directly to health care? Morphh ^(talk) 13:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

This is yet another call by Morphh to whitewash the page in the name of 'working towards consensus and neutrality'. It is disingenuous to suggest that Beck has spoken about anything but Health Care as reparations based on the source you suggest. BECK ties another man, Van Jones, to Beck's theory of how another possible program could be seen as reparations, but read Beck's own words. He can only tie reparations to Obama on health care. It should be in his political views, not the 'media persona' section, because it's based on material he's said all over the place. The racism material should also be there, because that wasn't said on his show either. Hiding Beck's political views behind the 'it's just the on air version of himself he plays on his show' is a cheap excuse. When beck makes major statements about the policies proposed by the presidential administration, and gives his opinion, that's him demonstrating his political views. His on air persona's bombastic, loud, ignorant and obnoxious, but it's HIS vies that persona is selling. ThuranX (talk) 13:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Your out of line ThuranX and another attack on me personally. I was referring to the source in the first section What's Driving President Obama's Agenda?, but even your source states "and other policies". So take your "it is disingenuous" bull and shove it. I agree that it should be included and just asked where, because it's in there twice and I get attacked - this is ridiculous. Below I agreed and removed the damn on-air persona info. This is just disruption. Morphh ^(talk) 13:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

No, you're out of line. You keep obfuscating, dissembling, pretending to be about a neutral page, but any time the chance arises to remove or preclude material which reflects the negative side of Beck's beliefs, you take it. In lieu of that, you seek to minimize the importance by hiding his views in his 'on air persona' section, thus deflecting criticism of beck for his views by making it look like he's a conservative Stephen Colbert, adopting one persona while really being a nice guy. He's a performer, but that's the presentation of the material, not the material itself. And unlike Colbert, who in interviews regularly discusses the running joke of his conservative persona, Beck really is that ultra- conservative guy. Beck says the president is a racist seeking to give reparations to blacks for slavery through his programs, even though the statistics he's cited have been thoroughly debunked. That's what Beck believes, and the debunking was dismissed as idiotic apologists. There's no way that belongs in his 'on air persona', these are the politics he lives by, that he makes public every single day, on his show or others. I see no reason to do anything to manipulate public understanding of that by presenting is as 'just a character'. This is Beck, it should be in his political views section. ThuranX (talk) 14:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't care where you put the material so long as it follows policy. If you want to put it in politics than fine, discuss that, not attack me for pointing out it's in there twice. Or argue why it should be in there twice. I'm not trying to hide anything anywhere. I explain why I remove certain material, and it is the job of those that want to add the material to justify inclusion. There is an opposite to whitewashing and we have to follow policy and discuss contentious material. Not everyone is going to agree with you on every sentence. But now I can add a "pretender" to the list of personal attacks. So off the top of my head, you've called me "disingenuous", a "fanboy", "whitewasher", "pov pusher", "pretender", bad faith editor, and essentially Bytebear's meatpuppet. Your actions are WP:UNCIVIL. Morphh ^(talk) 15:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thuran you really need to lay off the personal attacks, and what amount to accusations of bad faith. You seem rather angry about the situation here, which is fine, but as a result I'm not sure you are even reading carefully. Morphh said above "I'm fine with the reparations comment," but then you accuse that editor of "whitewashing" simply because he thinks the comment should not be mentioned in the context of health care. Whether he's right or wrong about that, suggesting that it constitutes "whitewashing" seems a bit beyond the pale. Similarly, you complain about the "on-air persona" section, which I mentioned below, but Morphh reworded that so it can include Beck's commentary (i.e. things he has said, not things his "persona" has said). If you feel some of that belongs in the "political views" section that's fine, but that's an honest (and I think rather trivial) disagreement—it's hardly cause to accuse another editor of "obfuscating, dissembling, pretending to be about a neutral page."

I know you don't particularly care for our civility policy (since you have said so on a number of occasions), and I'm sure you'll not care for this comment either. But you need to lay off the attacks on other editors—you are making it a lot more difficult to get work done here, and some of your accusations simply have no basis in fact. Comment on the content being discussed and other editors' arguments, not on the editors themselves. I'm afraid this isn't really optional. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 15:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Alright. I can apologize with sincerity for the last bit of this, the reparations, and his comments on it appearing twice; he's right it should only appear once. However, the interpretation by some editors elsewhere that my explanation for where it should be, and why it's been hidden in his on-air persona, I stand by. It's an explanation for WHY it should be moved to his political views; as many have said, Beck can claim it's an on-air persona on his own show, where he manages content, but anything anywhere else we have to take at face value - it's what Glenn Beck the man believes.

You're incorrect about my opinion on CIVIL, BTP. I don't mind it, and in the past few months, I've done a great deal to reduce the profanity and direct confrontation overall here. However, by your own admission, the person causing me the greatest troubles with this is an obstructionist who has no other purpose here. I tried when I got here to be civil and rational, despite the pages of evidence against him, but he quickly showed again that he has that one purpose. That's where CIVIL fails. Raul654 wrote a good essay about the 'Civil POV Pusher', and how such a person uses logical fallacies, circular reasoning, policy lawyering, ignorance/restart tactics and more to permanently bog down a page. We've seen many of these techniques here. He's certainly harangued about BLP, NPOV, POV, and RS on here, I've pointed out places where he's tried to restart discussions or set up for circular problems, and I am not the only one beyond patience with him. I do regret that I let that build up against Morphh, but frankly, it's not like he's given much to achieve any sort of consensus here. He opposes the racism comment, which really goes hand in hand with the reparations viewpoint, he opposes a lot of what multiple editors keep bringing here. He insists over and over that we continue to indulge Bytebear's obstructionism techniques, knowing that many feel there will never be a resolution there. As I've said before. He may think that he's really working towards consensus, but coddling Bytebear and holding things up till we get bytebear's agreement doesn't show that. He needs to accept that Bytebear will not be on board with anything negatively critical of Glenn Beck. That would make this page far easier to handle, because Soxwon seems more likely to accept, eventually, that there really is a mountain of reasons and citations on some matters, than Bytebear. ThuranX (talk) 05:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

ThuranX, I'm confused by your statement and maybe you're confusing me with someone else. I did not oppose the racism comment, I worked hard to include it and I'm also the one that added the reparations viewpoint to the racism paragraph.[9] The only things I think I"ve opposed have been the addition of the Jon Steward criticism (because I thought it did not comply with BLP), and expanding the racism section to include the Fox comments and one advertiser (per our compromise discussion, relevance, summary style). If I indulge Bytebear's obstruction, it is to give proper discussion to the objection. I don't think it's right to just dismiss him as he makes specific arguments on pieces of policy. It may be an unreasonable argument, which we can rebut and move on. He may be right, you may be right, or maybe we compromise, but we are required in some meaningful way to justify inclusion of contentious material in a BLP. If we don't discuss it, we end up in a hostile edit war type environment. What I tend to dismiss myself are the edits made (and warred over) without discussing policy objections or discussion without addressing the specific objection. I've removed things that I think should be included, but have not been properly written or vetted to comply with policy objections. In any case, it doesn't do us any good to dismiss each other. I understand your frustration though (I share it), just wish you didn't take it out on me personally. :-) I'm sure we can come to some type of understanding to move forward. Morphh ^(talk) 14:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the general spirit of that response Thuran and I think it's very helpful. I am familiar with Raul's essay and agree that it describes a serious problem on en.wikipedia, and to some degree it may be a problem in this situation. I think, and obviously have said, that Bytebear's editing pattern is problematic, but I'm not willing to call it "obstructionist" because to me that suggests bad faith and I simply do not know whether that is true or not (Bytebear could very well believe he or she is acting in the very best interests of the project), so I choose to assume good faith and instead see it as problematic editing, but not done with malice. Right now Bytebear does not seem to be "obstructing" much of anything (they are not editing either the article or talk page very heavily), and if future problems crop up I am quite prepared to do something about it (I meant what I said here about the pattern being problematic and in need of a serious change).

I'm sorry to have misrepresented your view of WP:CIV, and I'm glad you're making efforts in that regard. There are other people on this page with whom, I'm pretty sure, you can work to improve the article, but obviously it might take a little while and require a good amount of give and take. If you refrain from focusing on their motivations I think it will be a helluva lot easier. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

From Gummi-cat

Hey there. This is the first time I've said anything on a talk section on Wikipedia (actually I've just created this profile so I could say this), so if I'm doing something wrong, please let me know.
I just wanted to comment on the "Political views" section of the article. The ending sentence "Glenn Beck has suggested that Obama's Health Care reform agenda is a means by which he can effect reparations for slavery" seems to be terribly biased. Wouldn't "Glenn Beck has opposed Obama's views on health care reform, arguing that [insert reason here]" be better? I was looking for his political views and maybe a quick overview on why he doesn't think the health care plan would work, not why he thinks Obama is supporting it. I was about to suggest that his words on Obama's suggested prerogative should be addressed in the "Controversies" section (since a good portion of this talk page has been devoted to keeping that tidbit in the article), but then I noticed that -- lo and behold -- it's already there. Does this really need to be repeated again in a different section on the same page?
I'd like to see a rewrite of this line, at least, to be more neutral. I noticed a few other parts of the article that that were written with a little too much opinion, but you all seem to be in the process of discussing them anyway and this last line is what really sticks out to me. I like to think of myself as objective about these kinds of things and this article does strike me as needing some work on eliminating the bias. So I'm glad to see that some of you are trying to work with each other to achieve this. Gummi-cat (talk) 00:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

We can only represent his views in a WP:NPOV way. If he did in fact specify a "[insert reason here]", as you put it, then omitting it would be biased as you have pointed out. If, however, he provided no alternative idea, then we are obligated to represent that lack of alternative accurately. From personal my own personal recollection, I believe that his 2009 health care stance is that "America has the best health care system in the world" (possibly not an actual Beck quote, don't hold me to that), which you could take as advocating no changes. MichaelLNorth (talk) 02:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, the reason I put [insert reason here] is because I really don't know anything about Glenn Beck myself besides the absolute basics. I assumed that somebody would know the actual reason he doesn't support Obama's health care ideas, but that was just me being too dependant on others for information. I apologize.
Anyway, I've done some googling about what he thinks and, from what I've come up with, he doesn't have an alternative plan to fix health care, because he doesn't believe it needs to be fixed, like you said (I spent about thirty minutes googling, so I probably missed something, so if anybody else has info by all means correct me). I believe that putting that in the article, stating it frankly, would be preferable to what's going on there right now. Some people may not agree with his opinion and say that yes, America's health care system does need to change, but it's his opinion nonetheless. Thus he has no alternatives. If you want details about why he doesn't like Obama's health care proposal, I found some reasons. According to his website (http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/27912/), he belives that the financial cost of Obama's health care reform is far more than Americans should be willing to pay. He also expresses disgust here (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,539162,00.html) because the proposal is worded to leave room for abortions to be covered by the plan, and he's very much against abortion. He's also angry in the same interview about what he calls the rationing of treatment for the elderly.
He does have reasons for why he thinks the way he does beyond "because Obama supports it". Yes, he said that he thinks that Obama has a hidden motive for promoting health care reform, but that, I believe, was more of an attack on Obama's character than a political view. And, as I said earlier, the remark was brought up in the "Controversy" section of the article and so has no place in "Political Views". Gummi-cat (talk) 03:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I'm not sure you want to open up that can of worms, as it will no doubt turn into a debate over whether Beck's concerns are in agreement with what is actually written in the bill. Perhaps you could propose some alternate language here on the talk page for the part you object to. If you want to explicitly state that Beck feels that the US health care system needs no changing, and have proper sources, I would be fine with adding that. MichaelLNorth (talk) 03:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Gummi-cat's assessment of the statement. Beck's position regarding Obama's agenda on reparations includes healthcare but it's certainly not the only program, and it's likely not the primary reason for him opposing the house bill. In fact, I don't know that I've read or heard him say that was why he opposed the legislation. He's expressed many reasons for opposing this bill, and cost, rationing, and government takeover of the health industry seem to be the primary reasons from what I can tell. Again, I'm not sure his opposition to a piece of legislation is that important. It seems we should be focusing on what are Beck's political beliefs, not why he opposed to the recent news on the latest bill yet to be law. Morphh ^(talk) 14:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Exactly.
And like I said earlier, I really came onto this page knowing nothing of Glenn Beck, saw something that bothered me, and tried to point it out on this page. My google-fu skills are incredibly weak, and I can't find really anything that says that Beck has alternatives to Obama's health care plan, or doesn't want anything changed at all. But in my previous post I did show sources that say that he had other reasons for not supporting the bill, and if implying that he thinks Obama is supporting this bill because he's racist is an acceptable "political view", then I don't see why his concerns over the financial cost and "loopholes" should be left out.
I don't see why this information should open a can of worms. This is Glenn Beck's article, he could believe the moon is housing martians and begin devoting airtime to it every show and that fact would still need to be on the article. Not because it's true, but because it's a fact that Glenn Beck believes that it's true.Gummi-cat (talk) 20:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I just read through that transcript you linked, and nowhere in there does Beck himself say anything about opposing the bill on abortion grounds. His guests talk about how the bill says nothing at all about abortion, then those guests proceed to attack Obama's intentions as deliberately leaving it out so it gets covered, and it can be inferred they all think the Obama admin is happy about funding abortion with tax dollars, but that link provides nothing we can use to support your assert of disgust, sorry. I have to look at the other.ThuranX (talk) 21:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Just read the second, and that link doesn't support that assertion either. What Beck actually says is that 'he opposes it on the grounds that he believes that the $1 trillion dollar price tag he attributes to the program is deceptive, and doesn't include a number of associated and hidden costs, while at the same time relying too heavily on projected savings, which may not emerge and would instead require an increase (of 5.4%) in the tax rate on the wealthiest Americans to make up.' If you want to add something like the material I put in marks, that I would support. It's true and represents his convoluted ranting style as best I can follow it, and I read it twice. But at no point does he say 'It's more than Americans should have to pay.' ThuranX (talk) 21:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)