Talk:Glenn Beck/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Article tags

We have two tags on the article. One for a NPOV violation, and another for missing controversy. These were added during our discussion to add the Obama is a racist material, among other events. While there may still be disputes here and there on including particular content, does anyone feel we still need the tags, and if so, could you please detail what is missing or what violates NPOV policy so we can work to address it. Morphh ^(talk) 13:10, 09 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes the tags are needed. All mention of the Van Jones controversy has now been removed. Despite media coverage of Glenn Beck's "interest" in him, and Beck feeling it was significant enough for him to release a statement on the matter after Jones resigned. Not to mention Beck's announced intention to "go after" other persons associated with the Obama administration.
Any mention of how Beck is perceived by anyone on any side of the political spectrum is absent. Key political views that Beck holds are censored if they seem to reflect badly on him. Just judging by the article length it is clear how much is being excluded. Compare this article(26 KB) to Bill O'Reilly's 35 KB or Keith Olbermann's 42 KB. And Beck is the most controversial pundit out there on a mainstream tv channel, so to have his article this stunted is quite a feat.
Come on people, cabals are evil. Shortly before writing this an external link I added was removed due to yet another misinterpretation of policy. Only this this it wasn't an interpretation of Wikipedia:Notability which totally ignored all of that policies main points such as WP:NNC & WP:NTEMP. It was an interpretation of WP:ELNO that ignored the sentence, in bold, that declares "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject". This article needs some form of major admin intervention, because as it stands, it's just an example of all the failings of Wikipedia. ʄ!•¿talk? 18:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not the one that reverted it, but I agree with MichaelLNorth (and we're not in any cabal). www.glennbeck.com is the official page of the articles subject, not a twitter feed. I don't see that the link adds additional information about the biography subject. I wouldn't think we would add things like myspace, facebook, twitter, etc as stated in WP:ELNO #10. I understand that it says "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject" but I take that to mean his official webpage www.glennbeck.com, not all the social offshoots.

It is his "official" twitter page. It is relevant because it has been referenced in the media (e.g. [1]). Evil saltine (talk) 19:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

He's also got an "official" MySpace and Facebook page, as well as other official sites that have been covered in the media like the 9/11 Project. External links are designed to give a reader more information on a subject, beyond what wikipedia would provide in a featured article. I don't see that it adds any value as a link for additional information. Morphh ^(talk) 19:42, 09 September 2009 (UTC)

As for the Van Jones controversy, it seems consensus has arrived at different determination for inclusion and at this point, is not sufficient justification for the tags. If you wish to debate it further on that section, that's fine, but the issue has been discussed. We can't just keep the tag up there because your not happy with the outcome. I don't see a particular NPOV violation with it. You're going to have to be more specific on the other areas. Generic states are not justification for a tag. We need evidence that we're missing a point of view by the prevalence of a perspective in reliable sources that is being excluded from the article. Morphh ^(talk) 19:13, 09 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Beck's involvement in Van Jones is starting to pick up as the whole things finally reaching the mainstream media. For instance today's NYT. I think that a little patience is needed for the moment. Soxwon (talk) 19:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, I'm not disputing otherwise, but a story starting to pick up is not justification for an NPOV tag. Morphh ^(talk) 19:22, 09 September 2009 (UTC)

This NY Times article (mentioned above) suggests that Beck was not the cause of Jones' resignation; while he may have encouraged people to dig up dirt on Jones, it was the discovery of the petition that brought real political pressure. I'm not sure if we should include the fact that he criticized Jones; are we going to list every person that he's ever criticized? Then again, if we were to include it, it should be something like this: "Beck criticized then White House advisor Van Jones as a "radical" on July 28 and again on August 24. [2][3]. By the way, which "key political views" are missing? Evil saltine (talk) 19:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Oops, meant to reply to User:Fennessy's original comment on top. Evil saltine (talk) 19:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Even if that does turn out to satisfy WP:WEIGHT without violating WP:RECENT, it will need to be not so closely tied in to the ad boycott info. World net daily is taking credit for "the first white house casualty", so I imagine it would be difficult to directly attribute Jones' resignation to Beck. Sincerely, "the cabal". — Mike :  tlk  19:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Evil saltine, I'm not suggesting Beck caused Van Jones' resignation. Beck doesn't even claim that, and as you pointed out there doesn't seem to be any media sources(none that I've seen at least) claiming that either. I'm saying Beck was very vocal about the issue, and it has been commented on with reference to reasons why Beck would be so interested in Jones by reliable sources in the media.
By the way, the political points I'm referring to are Beck's opinions on Sarah Palin's "death panels"(which he believes to be true[4]), and his opinion regarding everything from renewable energy to evolution(the latter of which he believes to be the "arrogance of science"[5]). ʄ!•¿talk? 20:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

What makes these particular positions important verses a hundred other positions we could include? I say we start with the political positions that Beck states are "core values, the things that I refuse to compromise on".[6] Then look to his books for where he has detailed major positions. Then I would think it appropriate to include any one off comments for positions that have sufficient sources and coverage for inclusion. But back to the tags... These don't seem to be controversies and at this point I don't believe they're violating NPOV policy, so I don't see that this justifies either tag. Morphh ^(talk) 20:36, 09 September 2009 (UTC)

Libertarian?

Mr. Beck has repeatedly claimed to be libertarian (emphasis on the small 'l'). This is a general philosophical view of politics, and when using the capitalized 'L' many assume it to be associated with the Libertarian Party. He does often side with the classical right wing doctrine, but so do many small 'l' libertarians. This kind of categorization is generally used to further distinguish oneself from other right-of-center groups. For example, one may be considered to be right wing, but also protectionist or socially conservative whereas libertarians are not (I understand that being "pro-life" is usually considered socially conservative, but its exclusiveness to being socially conservative is debatable and merely one of many distinguishing issues). It would be more correct to say Mr. Beck considers himself a libertarian, than to say he is a Libertarian. 97.117.92.177 (talk) 03:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The page lists Mr.Beck as a Libertarian, however his views appear to be more consistant with classical right wing doctrine than that of a libertarian. Particularly his views on abortion and religious activity in politics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.59.248.107 (talk) 03:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe what it meant was that when Mr. Beck was with CNN, he had more libertarian views. But your correct, he now is a classical right wing conservative —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.78.163.98 (talk) 16:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree Beck was more neo-conservative, but has moved more libertarian as time has gone by. 96.253.75.168 (talk) 21:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Although Mr.Beck does not try to reveal it, I've seen on more occasions him slipping out and saying he is Libertarian on his TV show. --67.79.54.130 (talk) 15:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

It's because "Libertarian" is the code word that right wing commentators use to show how free thinking and not in lockstep they are with the right wing while being broadcast on their right wing radio stations.

Only to a leftie would assert "Libertarian" to be a code word. A Libertarian wants to maximize the power of the individual and limit the power of the state. If one sees an unborn child as an individual, then of course a Libertarian would be opposed to the state allowing one individual to kill another individual. (Conversely, if one sees the unborn child as merely tissue to be dismembered and sucked out at whim, there is no resistance to the state facilitating that action.) As for religious activity, clearly a Libertarian would be opposed to state sanctions against religious practices by individuals. One can be Libertarian and still hold conservative philosophies. Glenn Beck is a conservative Libertarian. He advocates for individuals to behave with conservative values, while abhorring the state's increasing control of the individual. For instance, he routinely suggests that individual's should help the poor through their own charitable giving, but rails against the government confiscating wealth for its own redistribution purposes - a position that fits well with both Libertarian and conservative principles. Madjack59 (talk) 16:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum for you to debate politics, nor do we offer you a soap box to stand on and harangue others with your views. We also do not allow editors to insult others, and logical fallacies, while not outright prohibited by policy nor guideline, are thoroughly discouraged, such as your ad hom 'only a leftie' comment above, as well as your cheap dig at pro-choice editors, as well as the fatuous 'real libertarians are pro-life' you hint at so unsubtly. Your only contributions on Wikipedia are to promote an extremely radical right wing viewpoint, I recommend you get yourself either involved in writing good articles, or an all new hobby. I recommend hobbies such as chewing fat, gumflappery, and reckonin'. ThuranX (talk) 17:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Funny, you say "Wikipedia is not a forum for you to debate politics, nor do we offer you a soap box to stand on and harangue others with your views." Yet you turn around and do exactly that. I don't think you're in any position to criticize someone for bias. 74.72.34.132 (talk) 06:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

What I do not understand is that he claims that he wants to protect individual freedoms, which separates him from the right wing, but they are the same individual freedoms that the right wing tends to defend. For example he defends gun rights, as opposed to gay and lesbian rights, separation of church and state, and abortion rights such as you see with the left wing.--Froibo (talk) 16:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Protection of individual freedoms is a hallmark of the Libertarian mindset. There is also a fair amount of overlap between the conservative and Libertarian points of view. I am strongly Libertarian myself but identify with the Republican party, to a point. I defend all Constitutionally protected rights, and I defend abortion rights, but I also am not supportive of gay and lesbian rights as I consider homosexuality to be a disorder that needs to be treated or cured, not a choice that needs to be accomodated, but that is my own PERSONAL belief. I do not expect others to share it. In that issue I do vary from the Libertarian platform and I am fully aware of this fact. However, I support legalization of drugs as I firmly believe that what a person chooses to do with his or her own body, or to other consenting adults, is strictly a matter between themselves. No government has any right to intrude into private matters. I do believe that this should apply even to homosexuals, regardless of my other positions on that matter. Personal privacy and freedom of choice is a fundamental right that all Americans should cherish and fight for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmjohnson65 (talk • contribs) 01:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources

I would like to address a non-issue regarding my most recent edit on this article. From WP:RS:

"Note that otherwise reliable news sources--for example, the website of a major news organization--that happens to publish in a "blog" style format for some or all of its content may be considered to be equally reliable as if it were published in a more "traditional" 20th-century format of a classic news story."

Certain editors are using an erroneous interpretation(or a deliberate misrepresentation) of a key Wikipedia content guideline to simply try and exclude anything to do with Glenn Beck that they do not like. This is a classic stalling tactic, and I strongly feel it is highly dishonest.

Furthermore, WP:RS does not mean that editors concerned have to like a source for it to be considered valid. This applies to organisations such as Media Matters, which although is obviously a liberal organisation, can be used as a source for events that have occurred without having to give their opinion on the events in question. ʄ!•¿talk? 06:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

But this contradicts WP:BLP which says "Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used, either as a source or as an external link." and "External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and are judged by a stricter standard than for other articles. Do not link to websites that contradict the spirit of this policy or that are not fully compliant with our guideline on external links." and "Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically." (which excludes the recently removed Health care citation). It also says, "Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs or tweets as sources for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g., "Jane Smith has suggested..."). Posts left by readers may never be used as sources." None of these rules are being applied here. Bytebear (talk) 19:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

So you'd accept the LA Times reference if it was properly attributed to the writer of the piece? Are you disputing the professional credentials of Matea Gold? Are you claiming that the LA Times is a questionable source / source of dubious value? Jonabbey (talk) 22:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

If it was written by an established journalist and went through an editorial process, and it was sourced as required by policy saying "Jane Smith has suggested..." Bytebear (talk) 22:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you are confusing a disjunctive for a conjunctive. If the LA Times does not claim responsibility for Matea Gold's writings, the reference should cite the writer. If the LA Times does claim responsibility, the author does not need to be cited by the second clause. The policy does not appear to require that an online piece needs to fulfil the three clauses you suggest. In any event, Matea Gold has written for the LA Times for years, so she is by definition a professional journalist. The 'Show Watching' blog has several writers contributing to it rather than being under a consistent byline, which I would argue tends to support an interpretation of an edited column. The material that has been introduced into the article is further of a factual rather than an opinion/editorial nature. As long as the claim is properly referenced to the original work, I wouldn't see WP:BLP rejecting the material. If you wanted to edit the material to reflect more of the content of the cited piece, or to give a more balanced view of it, or to find citation that casts a different light, that would be reasonable. Simply reverting it under the aegis of a policy that does not say what you claim it says is not. Jonabbey (talk) 22:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

When I have done as you suggest, I am accused of POV. I am hesitant to include this source because it comes from latimesblogs.latimes.com rather than articles.latimes.com which the author, Matea Gold has been published as well, implying that this particular source has not gone through the same level of editorial control that her other articles have. But I am still in agreement with Morph in that this and other issues being added to the article are being given undue weight, particularly when his books and opinions from those sources are so underrepresented. The source in question is essentially a news report, and Wikipedia is not a news source. We don't need continuing commentary on specific incidents. Bytebear (talk) 22:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

That's a more reasonable position, so long as it isn't taken to extremes. (I trust you wouldn't object to the article on John Wilkes Booth mentioning the assasination of Abraham Lincoln, news as it was at the time.) What do you think would be worth saying in this article about the controversial reputation that Glenn Beck has acquired? Jonabbey (talk) 23:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

But I honestly don't see Becks recent comments even close to the role of Booth to Lincoln. Beck isn't alone in his assertions, and he asserts a lot of things about a lot of people. Beck will not be known as the guy who called Obama a racist. That will not go on his epitaph. In fact, it will fade in a few months, as the next great controversy hits the airwaves. Last year, the big thing was his criticism of Michael Moore and that garnered quite a bit of criticism, but it is now a long memory. It isn't noteworthy, nor is his hemorrhoid surgery, or his view of GM bailouts. What's more important is we hit his general political philosophy, which are far more general, and covered extensively in his books. We may want to mention how some incidents fit into that philosophy, but if we do, we need to cover all angles, and responses fairly. That isn't even close to happening with the current edits. Bytebear (talk) 23:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Right, that's all well and good. So which incidents do you think are worth talking about? If you were to write a few paragraphs discussing Beck's controversial reputation, what would they look like? Jonabbey (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

ByteBear, I respect you following policy. However, even though Media Matters is obviously very Liberal, if they have a video of what aired, I think that is an extremely reliable source. The comments below may not be, but the video itself is enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nich148 9 (talk • contribs) 03:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Not really. The video is a primary source. It needs to be reported by a third party reliable source, and that in my opinion is something more than just repeating the content of a video, something Media Matters and other liberal outlets like Huffington Post are prolific at. Bytebear (talk) 03:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Because the video proves he said something, it doesn't matter the bias of the third-party source. Reposting the video is enough to prove his views on something. One doesn't need to read the commentary on the video to see that. Would it be better to link directly to the video then? Honest question, not a facetious one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nich148 9 (talk • contribs) 23:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

So what you contend is that YOUR personal biases against the websites make them invalid, just as you claim that the bias you perceive in so many other editors here makes their opinions about this article invalid? How curious... I refer you to the WP:TRUTH essay. ThuranX (talk) 04:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:RS/N, MMFA is good for factchecking, but not for notability or due weight. You can go there if you need information, but MMFA by itself is not grounds for inclusion. Soxwon (talk) 04:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

How is Beck's complete reversal on healthcare not noteworthy? Particularly when it appears to have shifted when Obama took up the torch. Let's get this straight. The guys says we have a terrible health care system that doesn't work a year and a half ago. A video recorded statment. Then he announces on his show, in light of Obamacare, that we currently have the best healthcare system in the world. All I can say is Wikipedia needs to remove a few of its mods if they don't see a problem here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.110.167 (talk) 03:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Rape satire

There needs to be a notice on this page since editors continue to add the rumor simply removing it over and over will get old fast. The site that started the rape rumor states that is a satire. It is not meant to be taken as fact and the notice at the originating page clearly states: "Notice: This site is parody/satire. We assume Glenn Beck did not rape and murder a young girl in 1990".[7] Do not add information regarding the rumor started as a joke since it is in gross violation of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Cptnono (talk) 05:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

For those too stupid to get it, it's a parody of the Birther movement. ThuranX (talk) 05:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Uncivil but to the point! :) This is an issue being brought up on some of the sometimes humorous toilets of the internet so we will probably see more.Cptnono (talk) 05:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I hope we do not, but we probably will. For the record, I agree with removing BLP-sensitive material here rather than trying to discourage it. Trash on the sidewalk attracts more litter than a clean sidewalk does; talk pages are the same way. — Gavia immer (talk) 05:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, as the site owner; I'm not the origin of the meme (see the "origin" link on the site), just the one who registered the site to help the meme grow. Probably not much I can do to help except tell anyone who sees this: Please don't put this stuff in this article. It doesn't belong. Don't give my site a bad reputation. And I apologize for not signing my wikiname, but I'm trying to stay somewhat anonymous. If anyone needs to talk to me, there's an email address on the site. Sorry, but: Name Withheld

Aw... the bot got you. I'm not sure of the rules on that. It isn't your fault something that could have been funny is being used in the wrong way. Don't worry about it.Cptnono (talk) 06:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

If and when reliable sources cover these allegations, would that warrant inclusion in the article? 174.103.152.118 (talk) 22:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

NO, there is nothing for reliable sources to cover. This started out as a joke told by Gilbert Gottfried about Bob Saget at the Comedy Central Roast of Bob Saget. An troll posted the question in relation to Beck on an internet forum and then an even bigger ass registered a domain name to, as he claims above, "help the meme grow". Have we really debased our culture so thoroughly that accusations like this are considered satire? So, no, there is no need to ever mention this in the article. L0b0t (talk) 22:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Please don't WP:bite. Yes, it may have started out as a joke, but it could quickly turn serious. I don't see why a potential bombshell should be covered up simply because it had originally intended to be satire, but transcended that intention. I suppose we'll have to wait for more evidence. I completely agree that it does not warrant inclusion yet, but I believe your assertion to censor it no matter what is irresponsible and basically a fallacy of omniscience. That said, I value your opinion and believe you are acting in good faith but you don't know he didn't rape that girl. I'm not trying to be disruptive and I'm not going to try and add it. I just wanted clarification. 174.103.152.118 (talk) 22:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

(Unhelpful comments removed) 174.103.152.118 (talk) 22:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC) I have re-re-removed these comments because I believe that on balance they do more harm than good. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I am re adding. It looks like the IP has the best intentions. I believe he is incorrect. The only coverage I expect to see out of this is a few breif mentions by smear tactics employed by the left. I'm not saying that is what happened but have already seen that pop up in unreliable sources. We do not need to increase the coverage of the goof by giving it much, if any, space. Not a crystal ball and all hat but am not expecting anything worth noting.Cptnono (talk) 23:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, I disagree and think the comments should be removed. I posit that the IP is a troll. Based upon the above posting and the IPs edit history which consists (almost) exclusively of wikistalking another editor. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 23:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

As I mention above, I have removed the comments again, because I feel the harm represented by allowing such comments outweighs the good that might derive from allowing them. I don't believe we should let stand any comments implying that this accusation might have a factual basis. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

As a matter of interest is there anything wrong with mentioning the satirical rape allegations as an example of the internet 'viral' phenomenon? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.231.95 (talk) 01:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC) :Yes there is. This does not deserve a mention anywhere else besides Category:Internet hoaxes, or something similar if it actually goes past the flavor of the week. To be honest I think NAME REMOVED PER REQUEST and anyone else who propagates this garbage deserves a hard time. Maybe that is too right wing but it is a shame to see someone get ripped apart by a joke when politicians such as Palin or Kennedy actually deserve it. Lrn2fuckingjoke, boys.Cptnono (talk) 11:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• The rape/murder hoax is starting to get wider coverage. [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. Its incendiary, so it will likely take more time to establish itself on Beck's page (if ever), depending on whether this is a a flash in the pan (in which case it will be kept out) or escalates. Its not constructive to overargue it.--Milowent (talk) 12:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorist

I'm going to add him to Category: Conspiracy theorists because of this:

"This time Beck is taking shots at the titan of American capitalism, John Rockefeller, accusing him of having been a secret communist. Beck knows this to be true because he has discovered all sorts of "communist" and "fascist" art on NBC headquarters at Rockefeller Center, as well as on land behind the United Nations that was donated by Rockefeller"

Glenn Beck finds "communist" art on NBC headquarters at Rockefeller Center

If you disagree with me, feel free to post your disagreement here and explain why. I think the evidence is pretty clear that he is a conspiracy theorist, though. Stonemason89 (talk) 17:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree. This isn't the first time that Beck has flirted with conspiracy theories. He was promoting the existence of FEMA concentration camps before he was against it. Not to mention, from what I have seen, he as all but stopped short of declaring global warming a hoax. ʄ!•¿talk? 17:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

An opinion piece from the Huffington Post is not a reliable source for a biography. L0b0t (talk) 17:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

You're joking right? Unless he starts into 9/11 being a gov't plot, the Apollo moon landing being faked, or something of that nature then no, he is not a "conspiracy theorist. Soxwon (talk) 17:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

What about the "FEMA concentration camps" that turned out to be Amtrak repair facilities? While he did finally clear that conspiracy theory up, he spent far more time propagating the theory than debunking it. Also many of his views regarding the Obama administration would be categorized correctly as "conspiracy theories" (i.e., "Obama is trying to indoctrinate your children as a tactic to instill progressive views", his big "tree" of the progressive apparatus (the thing he has on his chalkboard), "Obama wants to kill your grandma with death panels", etc...). Note that conspiracy theories aren't necessarily untrue, they are just theories about conspiracies. MichaelLNorth (talk) 17:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the category. The cat has very specific inclusion criteria which Beck fails to meet. Please see Category:Conspiracy_theorists. To be placed in this cat. subject must already be mentioned at a specific conspiracy theory's article as an activist that regularly promotes said theory. L0b0t (talk) 17:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Eh, now that I think about it, it's probably a moot point to debate whether or not he has propagated conspiracy theories. It's probably a flagrant WP:BLP violation irregardless. MichaelLNorth (talk) 17:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Glen Beck is absolutely a conspiracy theorist. He draws thin connections between people and movements to create conspiracy narratives. All based on conjecture. What else would you call this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.110.167 (talk) 06:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Media coverage of satire

Someone added info about Beck taking legal action toward whoever put up the site saying things about him (source: Ars Technica). I think it violates WP:UNDUE to include it; it also goes against WP:BLP#Presumption in favor of privacy. Evil saltine (talk) 10:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

At first glance I didn't hate it but the significance of coverage (1 source = .manyzeros%) could be a concern. If this article was expanded to the point where more information about the many many things he has done or said throughout his career then a couple lines wouldn't be a concern.Cptnono (talk) 11:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Since I was one of the people who was reverting the defamatory additions here, I want to make it clear that I have no problem with a factual report of the aftermath, provided that it is factual (not an excuse to make the same defamatory insinuations) and the significance is properly established (which takes more than one source). I'm not planning to make any content edits here, but I want to make it clear that my hard line stance against the vandalism isn't an objection to proper content. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Texas rising up?

Not quite sure why the authenticity of this reference was questioned and it was deleted, especially when it came straight from the horse's own website, that is to say Glenn's website. Still I put in a third party reference as requested. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 01:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You only looked at part of the exchange and took it out of context.Cptnono (talk) 02:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

In the previous exchange Beck was talking about a political situation that would have eventually spiralled out of control, though more gradually, even under a republican controlled government. In exactly what context do you take his remark? Scott P. (talk) 02:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

In the next exchange Beck talks about the possibility of the states of Texas and California seceding (with their stars removed from the US flag). I really can not see any other context than the context that in Becks own words is inevitable and is a "situation". The only word I added for clarification was the word "political". Are you trying to say that this is not a "political situation" at all that he is discussing but instead some sort of a question that has to do with tea and crumpets instead? Again, please tell me what context you read him in, if you are saying that my context is incorrect. Please clarify. Scott P. (talk) 03:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Why is this snippet that you've pulled out of this transcript in any way important in relation to the huge amount to time and talk Beck spews onto the air? We can't quote every stupid thing he says. I don't see that this has any controversy around it. I don't see it as a political position. What makes this important to include in someone's historical biography that should encompass his life story? Morphh ^(talk) 3:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

"We can't quote every stupid thing he says." True, Wikimedia couldn't afford the server space. Fences&Windows 05:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Not a controversial or noteworthy point? When one of our nation's most outspoken talk show hosts publicly declares that at some time apparently soon, he foresees Texas and possibly California seceding from the union via "trouble" and a "rising up" of the people, I certainly take note, I personally disagree strongly with his prediction, and I have a hunch that I'm not the only one who is a bit shocked when hearing Beck's particular brand of doomsday promotion.

Regarding the inclusion of this quote in the article, first I'm told that this quote must be deleted because the quote is inauthentic. That is disproved, so next I'm told that it must be deleted because it is "wildly" out of context, but nobody is seems to be willing to explain what the "correct context" is for this quote. Now it must be deleted because it is supposedly "not noteworthy"!

Could the real reason that this quote seems to rub some editors the wrong way be because the quote begins to reveal Beck's true anti-American leanings? I'm sorry, but promoting the secession of states and "the people rising up" just doesn't seem to me to be a very pro-American thing........ controversial and noteworthy yes, but pro-American, uhhh no!

Now I'm not saying that I'd deny Beck the right to publicly air his promotion of such doom in store for America. I just don't see why any editors would try to suppress such a statement made by Beck, here in his Wikipedia article.

I'm requesting an RfC for this question below. Please take part in the RfC before making any further un-backed claims of in-authenticity, un-notability, or improper context, or before again deleting the text without engaging in discussion on this talk page. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 21:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess the theory is that not every crazy thing Beck says is notable, because that is pretty much his schtick. --Milowent (talk) 21:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Are Beck's "Texas rising quotes" appropriate for inclusion in his article page?

{{rfctag}}

Are these quotes at the end of the Beck article Political Views section, regarding state secession, which were taken from his Chuck Norris interview, suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia? Scott P. (talk) 21:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

In a recent interview with actor Chuck Norris, Beck stated his apparent belief that "sections of the country (most likely Texas) ... will rise up," in response to the current political "situation".

Are the quotes at the end of the Political Views section of the Beck article authentic, in a proper context, and notable? Scott P. (talk) 21:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I am going to add your text here because this article gets edited every few minutes: "In a recent interview with actor Chuck Norris, Beck stated his apparent belief that "sections of the country (most likely Texas) ... will rise up," in response to the current political "situation".[53][54]" -- Now, yes the quotes are authentic, but I'm not sure you've given enough context. It probably should go under "Commentary and reception" instead of "Political Views", but the Texas seceding baloney got a fair amount of media attention, so its notable. But earlier today another editor added Beck's comment about "hating" the 9/11 victims' families and that got deleted as well, so I have no clue what the standards are for Glenn Beck, someone needs to write WP:GLENNBECK apparently. --Milowent (talk) 21:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

If the comments made were in the form presented it would be incredibly noteworthy. Unfortunately, the comments before have been omitted which leads the reader to the wrong conclusion. A RfC is fantastic to receive feedback and come to a consensus but for now the the WP:BLPSTYLE and numerous other biographies of a living person concerns mean this needs to be removed immediately. This may change trough the RfC but it is not OK for inclusion as is. I will be seeking an immediate block for edit warring on Jimintheatl and I will seeking a block for Scottperry per "Editors who repeatedly add or restore contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced may be blocked for disruption. (emphasis mine since use of the source has been done poorly). Per WP:LIBEL it needs to go. If the the conclusion from the RfC is that it can be worked in in an appropriate fashion then it may be possible to add. Don't play games and be exceptionally cautious with biographies of a living person.Cptnono (talk) 21:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The claim that Glen Beck's own website is supposedly not an accurate or properly sourced reflection of his own views is rather ludicrous sounding to me. Since when doesn't Wikipedia trust a person's own statements as being truly theirs on their own website? As far as an immediate need to delete the comment, I respectfully disagree with this, but I will not re-insert the comment until after the completion of this RfC. It seems to me to be more disruptive to me when editors delete comments while ignoring earlier requests to engage in rational dialogue on this talk page. Scott P. (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec)No, no they are not suitable for inclusion as the both the cited blog and the editor that was earlier trying to add the claim have misinterpreted the primary source material. In the primary source, Beck is referring to a hypothetical situation in which the US "spirals out of control" and "Mexico melts down and spirals out of control". He goes on to posit that if that happens, Americans, particularly those in Texas, will not stand for it and will "rise up" rather than allow the US to descend into "totalitarianism". There is no mention whatsoever in the primary source material of the "current situation" that claim is pure original research. L0b0t (talk) 21:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Do not cite blogs. Also, the lines before specify it. You can't add one line without the other since it changes the meaning of the sentence. Reread it and stop using wikipedia as a battleground.

Also, he hates 10 of the 9/11 families not all of them. The edit reads like he hates them all. Stop using half the sources. Also, blogs, the Examiner are not sources. Reread the guidelines before making further edits.Cptnono (talk) 22:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Glenn Beck's website is considered a Blog, neither is the tabloid, the Baltimore City News. Scott P. (talk) 22:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Beck's website is a primary source but the other cite is to a blog called The News Hole hosted by a tabloid (Baltimore City Paper). L0b0t (talk) 22:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Check out the new NPR cite down below a little ways. Scott P. (talk) 23:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see that this little snippet pulled out of this transcript is important in relation to the huge amount Glenn Beck spends on air expressing his opinion. I see little with regard to controversy or criticism around it, I don't see it as any major political position (or even a minor one). Just seemed like part of the talk show banter. This does not appear to be historically or even currently important as far as Glenn Beck's biography and the coverage of his life. I'll also comment on Jimintheatl addition on the "911 vicitims", which is really out of context. Glenn also said he hated only about 10 of the 3000 911 victim familes (or .3%), so likes 99.7% of them.[13] By Morphh 22:08, 11 September 2009 (attribution added by Scott P.)

If you read the previous paragraph a little bit more carefully, you will see that he says there that "before America allows a country to become a totalitarian country, which it would have under I think the Republicans as well in this situation; they were taking us to the same place, just slower..... Americans will, they just, they won't stand for it. There will be parts of the country that will rise up." He doesn't use the word "if" here. He uses the word "will". Seems pretty unambiguous to me. BTW, for anyone who wants to read the interview for themselves, it is at Glenn's Chuck Norris interview. Please do a Google search on the name "Glenn Beck", together with the word "secession". You'll come up with over 100,000 hits and numerous quotes from Beck from over his lifetime where he advocates the secession of Texas and other states. Please wake up and smell the coffee. This guy is advocating for the dissolution of the Union and nothing less. Please stop deleting the truth from this article. It is noteworthy, and it is true. Scott P. (talk) 22:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The subject makes a living by expressing opinions. We shouldn't pick and choose those we find interesting. Instead, we should use reliable, 3rd-party sources to filter out the non-notable views and to highlight the notable ones. In this case, there is only one minor source. (I also found an editorial about Chuck Norris' view that mentions Beck, but it does nothing to show Beck's view is notable). Unless this gets more coverage I don't think we should include it.   Will Beback  talk  22:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Um, so why is it OK to use his own self-serving op-ed piece to declare his wholly admirable principles?Jimintheatl (talk) 23:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Is that addressed to me? I'm just responding to the question in the RfC.   Will Beback  talk  23:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Will, good to see you here. Here is an NPR cite, Terry Gross' "A Shattered Republican Party" transcript. If NPR found Glenn's quote to be notable, that's good enough for me. Perhaps the Baltimore City News cite should be replaced with the NPR cite. Scott P. (talk) 23:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The NPR mention does much more to establish the notability of this.   Will Beback  talk  23:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem with using Glenn Beck's op-ed piece (not his website or his bio; it would be nice if someone would read the cites) is that it is patently self-serving. If he addressed specifics, fine, but the op-ed deals in generalities (I support freedom, personal responsibility, liberty, etc.) Who doesn't support those things? As for the 912/911 families issue, his being called on a clear and definable contradiction is relevant. How can we include "Glenn Beck creates the 912 project to make us the nation we were after 911 (i.e., united and charitable) w/o noting that he has been divisive and uncharitable toward those who directly suffered on 911? Do you want the standard to be, whatever Beck says is so, we'll convey his self-representations? Oh, he only HATES 10 of the 911 famillies; that's OK, I guess....because he can choose the "good" 911 families?Jimintheatl (talk) 22:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Is this RfC about the Texas comment or the 9/11 comment?   Will Beback  talk  22:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll do one better than you Scott. Do a Google NEWS search (Beck in quotations) and you will get 31 hits. Also most hits are sources not good enough for Wikipeida (Examiner and Antiwar.com) Also, read through them to make sure the context is correct.Cptnono (talk) 23:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Do a Google News search "Beck"? Why would you do that? Try a more refined search. If we are excluding "suspect" cites until resolution, can we remove Beck's self-serving op-ed? And can we separate the 911 stuff from the op-ed stuff from the global warming stuff?Jimintheatl (talk) 23:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

So, in your opinion, is an NPR cite sufficient for quotation in Wikipedia? Scott P. (talk) 23:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

National Public Radio has some very diverse programming so no, one can not say that "NPR" is a sufficient source. It depends entirely on who at NPR and what the subject matter is. To what, specifically, are you referring? Are we talking Ray Suarez or Click and Clack? L0b0t (talk) 23:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

if it really starts to spiral out of control, before America allows a country to become a totalitarian country, which it would have under I think the Republicans as well in this situation; they were taking us to the same place, just slower. it says if. read the source if'if'if'if'ifCptnono (talk) 23:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

In the actual quote he used the word "will" not the word "would" or "if". The if in the previous paragraph is only referring to various possible scenarios that he thinks would be the prelude to the "rising up". Scott P. (talk) 23:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Your point is? That Beck may have learned to couch his alarmism? After saying Obama hates white people and losing 60+ advertisers, he has learned his lesson...? Is he allowed to widely speculate about conspiracy and Nazism?communism?totalitarianism/fascism (he seems to use the terms almost interchangeably) but it's OK because he says "IF"????Jimintheatl (talk)

After reading the source, no this episode of Fresh Air is not acceptable. Gross is interviewing an author on a book tour who mentions a quote from the SPLC about Beck's Texas comment. L0b0t (talk) 23:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Please cite where in Wikipedia you find standards for disallowing the authenticity of both NPR and of Glenn Beck's own website. This discussion seems to me to be rather bizarre. Are you seriously questioning whether or not it is true that Beck ever said these things. If not, then what exactly are you questioning? I am dumbfounded with your logic here. Scott P. (talk) 23:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Well Beck's website/show transcripts are primary sources and fall under the purview of WP:PRIMARY, which, while not proscribing primary sources completely, does say " Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source." As for NPR, It all depends on the NPR program relative to the topic at hand. This particular episode of Fresh Air (a weekday magazine of contemporary arts and issues[14]) features Terry Gross interviewing an author on a book tour and she brings up a report from the Southern Poverty Law Center that quotes Beck. Please note that the SPLC (in addition to not being a reliable source for a BLP) actually uses the whole quote (not the redacted OR version which we are discussing here.) No one is disputing that Beck said it, it's just that some editors are misinterpreting it, taking it out of context, and adding undue weight to it. L0b0t (talk) 00:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes Jimintheheart, IF my car dies I have to get it to the shop. IF I eat hot peppers my mouth burns. IF I poop my pants in public it is embarrassing.Cptnono (talk) 23:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Great, because I'm not saying you're naive or disingenuous, but if I didJimintheatl (talk) 23:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, it's Jimintheatl. I say that because some loon accused me of sockpuppetry because i had edited pages with several other editors. I don't want to encourage his paranoia...Jimintheatl (talk) 23:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

If you continue to make comments like that you are being reported for being uncivil. If you continue to edit war you are being reported for 3rr. If an admin notices your history of blocks you may not be coming back. Also, I don't even like beck so stop assuming the worst. Cptnono (talk) 23:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Please await fresh input from outsiders in this section

Ideally, an RfC is meant to bring in fresh perspectives from new outsiders. So far, this discussion seems to me to be rehash, rehash, and more rehash between previous editors, without any fresh input from outside. Is there any chance we could hold onto our horses for say a day or two while we let other outsiders comment, unfettered by our own back and forth? If this is agreed, I'll renew the RfC. So far the only outside comments that I have seen in all of this that speak directly to the question are these:

• The subject makes a living by expressing opinions. We shouldn't pick and choose those we find interesting. Instead, we should use reliable, 3rd-party sources to filter out the non-notable views and to highlight the notable ones. In this case, there is only one minor source. (I also found an editorial about Chuck Norris' view that mentions Beck, but it does nothing to show Beck's view is notable). Unless this gets more coverage I don't think we should include it.   Will Beback  talk  22:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Then after seeing the NPR cite:

• The NPR mention does much more to establish the notability of this. Will Beback  talk  23:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully we will get more outside comments in this section. Thanks. Scott P. (talk) 00:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I honestly don't see how it will help including this information. I am kind of hope more people will join in so we can put this to rest.Cptnono (talk) 00:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I've come across this page through RfC, and have never heard of Glenn Beck before. However, I must agree with Will Beback. This particular sentence is only notable if it something happens to make it so; in the article the opinion about President Obama is notable because of the reaction by advertisers and others, for example. Major Bloodnok (talk) 17:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Further discussion amongst previous editors only below

One (very weak) source, does not make this notable. Bytebear (talk) 00:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - The sentence would give undue weight to the statement. NPOV states "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors." This statement is insignificant to the subject based on prevalence in reliable sources. I see it as presenting a statement that has extremely small coverage in relation to statements and views held by Glenn Beck, which would mean that "it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." Unlike the CNN op-ed where Beck states his core values and designates them as "the things that I refuse to compromise on", this is a radio transcript where the opinion is being interpreted by the editor and falls very close to original research. Even if there was no dispute over the context, which there is above, the textual transcript does not provide the emotional inflection, tone, or pitch of his voice which could alter the meaning. As a source, I think a self-published article from Glenn Beck's website can be acceptable for presenting his significant views, but becomes less acceptable (or even unacceptable) for transcripts pulling relatively minor views. If we get into presenting this as criticism, which seems to be the intent, we have stricter standards for a biography of a living person that must be followed. Morphh ^(talk) 12:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

So Beck's opinions are valid only when he commits them to paper? It's not fair to take him at his word when he's just verbalizing? Interesting standard.Jimintheatl (talk) 13:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say that. The opinion may be true and valid, but that doesn't mean it is in any way significant, placed in proper context, or encyclopedic. A transcript makes it more difficult to determine these things. Trying to pull a clip from a transcript goes toward the importance. Usually if you take the time to put it in an op-ed, it at least has some minor significance to the author. When you look at Glenn Beck's body of work and opinions, those primary expressed as significant, written in books or op-eds, or display some degree of controversy, this snippet is not even on the radar. Morphh ^(talk) 13:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree Morphh. It doesn't "fall very close to original research" it is the very definition of WP:OR. WP:PRIMARY deals with this specifically when it says "Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source." L0b0t (talk) 14:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Seems like Terry Gross may have gotten it wrong. The cite from NPR has Gross claiming that the Beck quote from the Norris interview is used in the SPLC report. It isn't. The SPLC report, The Second Wave: The Return of the Militias, on page 9 (in a section that is even about secession), only has this to say about Beck: "Glenn Beck, who has called Obama a fascist, a Nazi and a Marxist, even re-floated militia conspiracy theories of the 1990s alleging a secret network of government-run concentration camps." (Page 9 3rd sentence) and this: "Beck is just one of the well-known cable TV news personalities to air fictitious conspiracies and other unlikely Patriot ideas." (page 9 4th sentence)[15]. The report then goes on to describe the M16 rifle as a machine gun so it would appear that the SPLC doesn't bother to do any fact checking before printing their sensationalist, alarmist, fundraising drivel. Now, given the WP:OR, WP:PRIMARY, and WP:UNDUE issues, that (out-of-context, misinterpreted) quote from the Norris interview has no place in this article. L0b0t (talk) 15:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

So if SPLC gets one fact about a gun wrong, and that discredits them? Using that standard, can't we entirely discredit Glenn Beck? And NPR and the SPLC aren't RS? But Glenn Beck's self-serving op-ed is? Jimintheatl (talk) 17:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Stop trying to win. If you have to resort to picking out one of the numerous reasons against as an argument you are obviously done. You can poke holes in anything (in fact I might try that on a separate page) but in all reality their is no way this is worthy of inclusion. That is what most editors have said and they have done so showing good reasoning. I could care less if your goal is to make Beck look a total jerk off on this page it needs to be in accordance with the guidelines.Cptnono (talk) 21:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The 9/12 Project notable?

How is the "9/12 Project" notable? There isn't any context for its inclusion or relevance. It if stays like it is, then remove it. Agg56tt (talk) 22:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the "9/12 Project" is not notable. At most this should be a passing reference in one or two sentences, not a list of the principles and a detailed description. The references are to the homepage for the project its self, which is a primary source for this information. This needs to be deleted. MichaelLNorth (talk) 17:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. If Beck says they are the principles he lives his life by, then certainly they deserve a mention (however, they'd be better integrated into the previous section). Soxwon (talk) 02:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Verifiability by third party sources is what's missing here. That is what would make this notable, by Wikipedia standards. If you can find a sufficient number of independent sources reporting on the 9/12 project, I will agree with you that it is worth putting in the article. MichaelLNorth (talk) 13:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Someone has taken out almost this whole section. The whole thing should go unless third party sources can provided. The two references left in are to the 9/12 project homepage. Find appropriate sources or scrap it. MichaelLNorth (talk) 19:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

No, you misunderstand, it's important because Beck said it was. And I was the one who removed the unecessary detail. Soxwon (talk) 19:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Could you cite the Wikipedia policy that makes this appropriate to include in the article? I'm wondering why it is ok to have information on a Beck project that Beck declares to be important, while corporations cannot have a wikipedia page unless third party sources indicate that it is notable. If this is appropriate to include then by all means we should keep it. I'm just continuously working and learning to become a better editor. MichaelLNorth (talk) 03:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I removed the section header and appended it to politics. I'm not sure if it would go best there or personal, but I do think a mention of it is worth including. These are values and principles extolled by Beck, enough to create a project, website and gather supporters. It's not criticism or praise, so it would just fall under the normal requirements for a living public figure. So I don't see any issues after removing the header (which I think had issues with undue weight and article structure). In that same note, I think the "Gun rights" section has similar issues. Morphh ^(talk) 13:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Article topics need to be notable, Glenn Beck certainly is. If the topic is notable, then the content of the article just needs to be verifiable. See WP:NOTE for more info. --Daniel (talk) 12:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the idea that the 9/12 project is not notable. Although the reported number of participants in the march on Washington, DC is subject to debate by various factions, official estimates of its participation from the U.S. Park Services is roughly 1.2 million people, with the Capitol Police estimating 1.5 million. Either estimate comfortably exceeds the number of participants known to have marched in the Million Man March, and the march on DC led by Martin Luther King on August 28th, 1963, which has an upper estimate of 300,000 participants.

Certainly a march that is likely the LARGEST recorded march on DC is noteworthy. Do not let your own political beliefs stand in the way of the truth. If you have no respect for the truth, even if it is inconvenient to you or you disagree with the direction that it leads, then you have no business participating in any Wiki project.

The guideline specifically states: "The notability guidelines determine whether a topic is notable enough to be a separate article in Wikipedia. They do not give guidance on the content of articles, except for lists of people.[7] Instead, various content policies govern article content, with the amount of coverage given to topics within articles decided by its appropriate weight. A lack of notability does not necessarily mean that reliably sourced information should be removed from Wikipedia. Consider merging such content to a more appropriate article." WP:N#NCONTENT Cptnono (talk) 01:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Burying the largest march in history on Washington DC, by confining it to a stub article attached to one pertaining to a specific individual, is not an act of intellectual honesty and is wholly lacking in any semblance of balanced, open, and charitable discourse. The 9/12 project, by virtue of its turnout and impact, deserves a higher level placement than as a stub article attached to an individual's article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmjohnson65 (talk • contribs) 01:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the original concept that the 9/12 project is not notable based upon the simple grounds that a gathering of over 500,000 people organized by a single personality did occur in Washington D.C. on September 12th 2009. As a historical record Glen Beck by all means would be associated as the organizer since his program was used as a pulpit to rouse such a large crowd. To not mention it would be removing a historical fact from the Wikipedia and an injustice for future readers. The debatable issue here is the impact of the rally. I would say that currently it had no impact at all on The U.S. Congress, or White House, but outcomes can't be determined by sound bites, but by elections which will not occur until 2010.

First, you'll notice that this section started before the march, so we made a decision on removal based on the "project" having done virtually nothing. Second, the attendance figure is 60,000 - 75,000 according to most reliable sources. We must operate off that figure until the various news organization reporting 75k or "tens of thousands" (Fox News, ABC News, The Wall Street Journal, NPR, MSNBC, The Public Information Officer of the DC Fire Department, and experts on crowd size estimation, among others). — Mike :  tlk  14:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Glenn Beck as an Alarmist

This is going to be a tough one, but it is a major viewpoint that is represented in the article by basically one word ("apocalyptic"). It would be a great idea to evaluate proper weight and properly cite this section without referring to organizations like Media Matters, Thinkprogress, Daily Kos, Newshounds and anyone else whose job and/or mission it is to criticize Beck. Remember that WP:BLP requires certain things of a critical viewpoint like this

"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."

The policy also requires that unsourced or improperly sourced material be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion (no emphasis added).

Possible sources:

Other editors may freely add links to this list or strike them (providing a reason) if they wish, but may not remove anything outright

• Republican Congressman Bob Inglis said to his constituents thatBeck is "trading on fear", and continued, "Here’s my suggestion. Turn that television off when he comes on."

Balance that with Sarah Palin's antithetical facebook suggestion for people to watch Glenn Beck.[16][17] - Graduate student blogger is not WP:RS.

• www.infowarscom/glenn-beck-scares-fox-host-into-hiding-under-table/ - "Fox News hosts are known for viewing the world around them with alarm — but Glenn Beck goes far beyond most of his peers at Fox in his belief that the future looks "really bad." Cptnono: "Infowars is not a reliable source" — Mike :  tlk  20:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
• Author, Staff Editor for Atlantic Business, refers to Beck'sparticularly alarmist segments
• Author, Senior Editor for political magazine New Statesman"Why are pundits like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh indulging in what the historian Richard Hoftstader described as the "paranoid style" in American politics?"
• Misourri University Professor of Journalism refers to Beck's show as a "hate beat"[18], and offers as an example: "Beck one-ups Hannity by opining that white males are being driven to murderous rage by political correctness."

— Mike :  tlk  04:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I think this would fine as long as we take care to word it as described in the policy. We should probably specify in general what he's alarmist about, since he may also be considered anti-alarmist on issues like global warming. If included, I'd also like to see us try to find Beck's point of view, as he likely believes otherwise. Morphh ^(talk) 12:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

If you watch his show, at least 2 times during the show he will say something along the lines of "America, you're going to lose your Republic", "I'm worried, we're going to lose our republic". This is every single show, and is the basis of people calling him a fear monger. Wiggl3sLimited (talk) 15:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

We can only document third party opinions. Some people may not consider what you're describing to be "Alarmist", and to make that leap would be WP:OR. — Mike :  tlk  17:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Infowars is not a source. The other sources might be alright but I would expect the big boys to be commenting since Beck is a relativity known name in the industry. The Rockefeller center art was pretty funny but without reliable sources I have a hard time using terms like alarmist or conspiracy theorist. He toes the line though so it should only be a matter of time until those sources are found or they become available.Cptnono (talk) 19:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Strike'd — Mike :  tlk  20:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I think Beck's position on global warming would actually be considered alarmist, seeing as it's so radically out of step with mainstream scientific opinion. He maintains an opinion that, as the Wikipedia article Scientific opinion on climate change describes, "no scientific body of national or international standing[subscribes to]"). ʄ!•¿talk? 19:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a reminder, per WP:BLP, we would be documenting notable opinions and one of multiple major points of view that "Beck is an Alarmist", not documenting that Beck is an alarmist. — Mike :  tlk  20:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes I know that we are supposed to stay on topic and that isn't really notable/able to be referenced, but there is no way I could let the notion that all major scientific institutions lying to the public at large isn't alarmist just slide. ʄ!•¿talk? 20:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

As a scientist, I share your displeasure at watching cold hard fact become a political issue that people can treat as a "belief", but this is not the article for what you're proposing. At most we can express Beck's view regarding global warming, and rely on readers to click to learn more about the science. In the Global Warming article, you could certainly make sure that fact and "belief" stay separate. — Mike :  tlk  16:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Beck's Op-ed piece is NOT an objective bio, nor does it establish his "values"

It's pure self-promotion/self-aggrandizement. And, if you bother to read the piece, he says don't judge people by what they say(or say they believe/will do), but by what they do. So, unless you want to promote Glenn Beck as moral paragon, why include his self-serving statements?Jimintheatl (talk) 19:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you referring to the copyvio you put in from CNN that was removed? Soxwon (talk) 19:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

What else could he be referring to? Although apparently this aritcle is constantly being edited. --Milowent (talk) 19:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm referring to the edit/source that was already there, which made Beck seem like he represented truth, justice and the American way. The source was falsely described as a bio. Checking sources...who'd a thunk it?Jimintheatl (talk) 19:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

LOL, Jimintheatl added a sourced reference to glenn beck saying he hates the 9/11 victim's families and it got deleted almost immediately. Is there any day Beck isn't in the news nowadays?--Milowent (talk) 20:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The 9 12 Project

Now that the "march on Washington" has taken place, it may be worth considering to once again document it (it was previously removed as being something known almost exclusively by Beck's fans and critics).

Possible sources:

• [19] Christopher Knight, Art Critic for the LA Times has found communist symbols within the project's logo. This seems to be no less valid than beck's finding communist symbolism in the art at Rockefeller Center, but may violate WP:POINT. There is a useful quote in there, saying that the number in attendance, according to the DC Park Police was fewer than 30,000 (they called the estimate of 30,000 "generous").

I will continue to add sources as I find them. — Mike :  tlk  21:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like you want to comment on the Rockefeller Center art instead of the 9/12 project with that source.22:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Whoa there. I outright said that the source may violate WP:POINT. Let's not go making suppositions about what it "sounds like" I want to do. Thanks very much. — Mike :  tlk  15:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Other editors have created a separate article for the Taxpayer March on Washington. There is a significant chance that this will get merged into 2009 Tea Party Protests, but mention and link is sufficient for Beck's biography. There is criticism of these protests (i.e., some vitriolic signage) but let's remember that that belongs in the article about the protest, unless Beck made the signs. — Mike :  tlk  15:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I can say it sounded like anything I wanted since technically it wasn't an accusation, right? :) . In all seriousness though, I wasn't trying to give you too hard of a time so apologies if it came across overly aggressive.

More importantly, I am leaning towards having this info get its own subsection. It isn't a "live event" it is a rally. We have had so much discussion here that I think it is clear that the 9 12 project is significant enough for a paragraph. As long as we watch out for RECENTISM and follow the RS it shouldn't be a problem.Cptnono (talk) 02:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Was Beck even at the 912 project events? Did he actually organize them? What is his connection to them? We need sources. Otherwise, I just don't see the connection. Bytebear (talk) 02:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Did you read the last source added or did you have a knee jerk reaction? The source made it clear that he was involved. Readding in its own section since it is important to his career but is not necessarily a "live event". Pulling info from above discussion about this.Cptnono (talk) 02:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I would recommend a separate section on the 912 project, since it appears to eventually become it's own article. The source you had was better. I admit to thinking it was a simple revert with a CN (completely unacceptable practice in a BLP). However this one event clearly does not define the 912 project, and it needs far more fleshing out than this single event.

If we want to add a "9 12 project" section, I think it should resemble the lead of Taxpayer March on Washington. Let's aim for like 3-4 sentences, because the article on the march is pretty clearly going to stick around. There are plenty of references there, so there's no need to copy-pasta. — Mike :  tlk  16:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Rape Satire concerning Glenn Beck

I think this would be a valuable addition to the article. Googling "Glenn Beck raped murdered young girl" returns 417 million hits, so it's certainly notable. Obviously it is a commentary designed to show how Glenn Beck-style "some people are saying" and "if it isn't true, then why isn't he denying it?" logic is faulty. (BTW Beck has yet to deny the allegations or provide proof he DIDN'T rape and murder a young girl in 1990. What is he hiding?) Many tea-baggers and birthers seem unclear about this, however, and see it as a genuine attempt to smear Beck's name. Beck's lawyers are attempting to take down a website that seeks to examine the rumor, although it is clearly labeled a parody site. Cinemageddon (talk) 21:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC) There is currently a rumor circulating regarding Glenn Beck that is quite relevant in that it is a critique of the style of many cable news show hosts, particularly GB. Googling key words of the rumor returns 417 million hits, so it's certainly notable. Obviously it is a commentary designed to show how Glenn Beck-style "some people are saying" and "if it isn't true, then why isn't he denying it?" logic is faulty. (BTW Beck has yet to deny the allegations or provide proof he DIDN'T commit the alleged acts. What is he hiding?) Many tea-baggers and birthers seem unclear about this, however, and see it as a genuine attempt to smear Beck's name. Beck's lawyers are attempting to take down a website that seeks to examine the rumor, although it is clearly labeled a parody site. They claim the URL itself is defamatory. I'm relatively new to Wikipedia as a contributor, but feel a section addressing this would be a valuable addition.

• [20]
• [21] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinemageddon (talk • contribs) 22:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Cinemageddon (talk) 22:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

(Regarding the re-post of the original version of this comment, I've posted at ANI. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 22:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC))

This is not a rumour, just a satirical turn-around on his style. No one is seriously saying Beck raped and murdered a girl, at least no one credible and citable on Wikipedia, and the website itself points out that it is a joke. While the fact that this site was created and that Beck's lawyers are fighting it might be notable enough for the article, it cannot and must not be called a "rumour". — Huntster (t @ c) 22:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

In regards to the number of hits, Google hits does not assert notability. Try Google News and Scholar to find a some reliable sources. Inclusion smacks of recentism but I'm not sure how to proceed with some RS picking up the story.22:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC) Cptnono (talk) 22:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

This has already been discussed above to some degree and I think the consensus is that it has no place in Wikipedia at this point. Regardless of how you feel about Glenn Beck, I think it's a pretty sick thing to say, joke about, or reprint. We should require multiple serious sources before considering adding this because the nature of it is defamation. This would really have to follow the strictest of BLP and NPOV policy requirements. Certainly the point could be made in other ways. Morphh ^(talk) 22:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a successful meme, but it'll take a lot to persuade people to include a reference to it on this page. Compare with Richard Gere and the gerbil, which is never going to be included in that article. The meme is a political comment on Beck, but it is also probably libellous; be very careful when repeating it on talk pages. There are a handful of less well-known news sources picking this up, and certainly the MSM hasn't touched it. Fences&Windows 18:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

This is toxic and ridiculous, and in the absence of a major public uproar/ovation documented by major news carriers, should not be included. 05:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC) Novalord2

Talk:Glenn_Beck#Rape_satire. Centralize discussion, and get over the stupid internet.ThuranX (talk) 05:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Are any "notable controversies" still missing?

It would be nice to un-tag the article. What are remaining missing controversies, if any? — Mike :  tlk  03:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

There are plenty of other things that could and should be in the article, but hey, the article for Michael Moore is missing a lot too so what the hell, let the babies have their bottle. The main points that can be considered controversies are:

1. Van Jones.
2. Beck being awarded the key to Mount Vernon, Washington.
3. The fact that Beck is a tea bagger.

I have no intention of wasting time adding any of this to the article, however the tags should stay until they are at least mentioned. ʄ!•¿talk? 04:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

What about the allegations of rape? I find those to be pretty controversial... 99.241.16.231 (talk) 05:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

On the off chance that you don't already know this, the rape satire was an effort to turn Beck's own flawed logic (i.e., the raising "questions" which are really assertions followed by a question mark, and asserting guilt while demanding proof of innocence). This is part of his style, and one of the reasons he dubs his show the fusion of entertainment and enlightenment. However, WP:POINT clearly addresses content such as this, and prohibits it. Furthermore, you should understand that WP:BLP applies to this talk page in addition to the article, and attempting promote this as a "real" allegation of rape could get you into trouble. — Mike :  tlk  06:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Involvement in political pressure, resulting in Van Jones' resignation

My position is do not include. Many conservative pundits were highly critical of Jones, and it is now looking like his support of the truther organization was a key reason for his stepping down.

Possible sources:[22], [23], [24] — Mike :  tlk  06:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Whoever wrote the Van Jones article found a New York Times article that gave him 4 good paragraphs in section A1.[25] I think the sources for this point to noteworthiness. The primary source could go. Cptnono (talk) 13:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Name me one other conservative pundit who released a statement after Van Jones resigned. ʄ!•¿talk? 13:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

World Net Daily is making the point that they have been covering Jones [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=94771 since five months ago]. Beck only recently started focusing on Jones. [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=109041 Here], they make a point of chronicling their coverage of the topic, saying

"Van Jones quit late last night after pressure mounted over his extremist history, first exposed in WND."

I also think that we need to be careful not to imply that there is a connection between Jones resigning and Beck, without proper proof that says exactly that. — Mike :  tlk  14:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree there shouldn't be anything stating that Beck caused the resignation. But it's too much to ignore it completely when clearly Beck was very vocal about Jones. I actually think Beck had nothing to do with it — although I doubt Beck really feels that way(I heard from Little Green Footballs that he went on a 10 minutes gloat-fest regarding the issue on his radio show a few nights back). It should at least be noted that other people have attributed the matter coming to ahead, at least in part, to Beck.[26] ʄ!•¿talk? 14:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I would take this one step further and say that not only do we have to avoid stating that "Beck was the cause", but we have to avoid implying it as well. Some might say that putting the content in the article at all would be implying such a connection. Please remember that we're not after the truth, even if he does seem to be "taking credit". — Mike :  tlk  14:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

What is there to worry about?

"The saga began with Glenn Beck, a talk show host for Fox News, who hammered at Jones relentlessly the last several weeks for his radical past.[27] Chief among those keeping the story alive was Glenn Beck, the conservative host of a Fox News Channel program. Mr. Beck began criticizing Mr. Jones in July, first in segments on his syndicated talk radio show and then, on July 23, on his Fox News program, said Christopher Balfe, the president of Mr. Beck’s production company.[28] Fox News insists that Beck's venom against Jones was not payback; the anchor had been ferreting out the more unsavory footnotes in Jones' vita before the boycott began[29] Van Jones, under fire from the extremist television show host for his background in radical activism, has resigned from the administration.[30]"

Tighten it up, swap whatever sources, integrate it into or next to Color of Change info. It could be added "Some pundits said it was due to beck"citesourcex20 but at least the first step towards inclusion would be appropriate..Cptnono (talk) 14:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

OK Beck made extreme statements about Jones, and has targeted other members of the Obama admin, but(and I stress that I'm doing this in good faith) lets wait for more follow up stories like this [31]. Then I think we can all agree that it's more than suitable to be added. ʄ!•¿talk? 01:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't revert again, Mike. Dude is being disruptive and it sucks but both will get nailed for 3rr. This should be mentioned. The lines inserted above (italics) do not go into extreme detail but do discuss something significantly covered by RS. I can't even figure out why we ignore it. Is it to not give him to much credit or an overreaction to recentism? I'm sure we can figure out a way t get a few lines in.Cptnono (talk) 23:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Beck being awarded the key to Mount Vernon Mount Vernon, Washington

My position is do not add, or add at most add one sentence to the end of the "Obama is a racist" content do not add. I follow beck very closely, and have not heard much about this. The short version of the story is Bud Norris, the town's mayor, invited Beck to the town to be presented with a key to the city. Some of the citizens, most notably the Skagit County Young Democrats, are protesting this because they do not feel the mayor has the right to bestow this honor upon someone who called President Barack Obama a racist. Possible sources: [32], [33], [34].

It seems very localized. Mostly Seattle papers. — Mike :  tlk  06:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Mount Vernon is a beautiful town. It is also really small. If a couple kids protested it is less important than him getting the key to the city which would be cute and relevant single line in the Personal life section. I haven't read all of the sources though.

Also it certainly sounds more noteworthy then him applying to build a fence due to a funny zoning law. I grew up next to a couple ball players and none of their articles mention the fences they erected to keep autograph seekers or vandals out.Cptnono (talk) 13:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

There was a New York Times article about this today. "Proposed Honor Stirs Up a Firebrand’s Hometown"   Will Beback  talk  18:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Good find. I'm changing my position to "add one sentence", since it is easy to tack on to the "Obama is a racist" section, and now I see that it has received national press coverage — Mike :  tlk  18:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Since this would fall under the banner of criticism, I don't see that this is relevant to Glenn Beck's notability. One national source regarding 3 or 4 protesters at his home town is hardly anything worth noting. It's infinitesimal and is only brought up via WP:RECENTISM and some odd tie to the real controversy. Him getting the key to his city may be something notable in his life, but a few hometown dems upset about it is not. Stick to the controversy, we're not going to add a sentence for every little side group that got their panties in a wad. I do not support including this incident. It's barely worth news coverage, never mind encyclopedia coverage. Morphh ^(talk) 21:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Morphh, you seem to be very hostile to anything that demonstrates the real world effects Beck's politics and remarks have had. In fact, you seem to not want to add anything to the article at all, no matter how relevant it is to Beck, his life, or a Wikipedia reader being able to gain new and insightful knowledge from reading the article. I think the only way you would consider it worth updating the article would be on the event of Beck's death. And even then god help us trying to find a source you would believe or consider "notable". ʄ!•¿talk? 21:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Fenessy that was completely uncalled for. Please comment on content not contributors. Soxwon (talk) 21:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Is it uncalled for? Look at the page history for the last few weeks, it's hardly inaccurate. Although in fairness it's not just Morphh. ʄ!•¿talk? 22:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Please do look at the history, you'll see that I've supported and work to include the criticism that is currently in the article. I've also made suggestions on including quite a bit of content, but have not had time to work on it much as debating nonsense like this takes too much time. So you can take your attacks somewhere else. I will object to material that I believe does not meet the higher standards of a BLP, which does have stricter requirements for praise and criticism. This is not my standard but Wikipeida's and it is up to you as the person wanting to include content to provide sufficient justification for inclusion, again particularly with criticism (which is primarily what you add). As I see it, this does not meet the requirements for inclusion based on WP:BLP and WP:WEIGHT. You can personally attack me all you want, it doesn't change the policy and only weakens your position. Debate the merits for inclusion based on policy - convince me. If you can sufficiently justify it, great - I'll support it, work to compromise, or agree to consensus. If not, too bad and we move on. Explain to us how this small local group (I think 3 or 4 people holding signs) in protest to Beck getting the Key to the City amounts to a controversy that is "relevant to the subject's notability" (BLP) and does not represent "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not" (NPOV). I'm not talking about the racist comment, as that is already covered, we're talking about the protest of the city key. Morphh ^(talk) 23:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

This is so not noteworthy. It is a blip of news that will be forgotten soon. Add it if you must but in a couple years, will it really be important? Bytebear (talk) 21:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Morph on the RECENTISM comment. We also don't have signifigant data. Two fo the four sources are opinion peices. None of them even state any numbers except for one resdent claiming the split on opinion is 60-40. Even the NY times peice looks decent but the info isn't there. A section sounds good until you realize it was stuck back on page 20 since it was simply a fluff peice. From the image and caption it looks like there was 1 guy with a sign. I still dont see how this is a contraversy. Hey got the key Some people shook the mayors hand while the young democrats chanted. Did three people shake his hand? Did 5 15 yearolds chant? We just dont know so until then we are skewing the data with anything besides "The mayor wanted to gie him the key." Cptnono (talk) 22:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Fennesy, Morph and others are right, and the first sentence of your earlier post is an indicator of why there is disagreement:

"Morphh, you seem to be very hostile to anything that demonstrates the real world effects Beck's politics and remarks have had. " (emphasis added)

This is not a persuasive essay, so please don't try to "demonstrate" anything, especially when it comes to writing a BLP. There are some POV pushing Beck fanboys here, but Morph and Cpt aren't among them. — Mike :  tlk  17:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Beck's support/promotion of the tax day tea party protests

My position is include, but state his role in promoting/helping organize/fundraising for tea parties, and then full stop. His promotion of the event is viewed by some to be closely tied to the astroturf allegations surrounding these protests. The idea is that Beck's heavy promotion, assistance in organizing, financial support (via $500/plate dinner fundraiser ), and his own "celebrity presence" (among tea partiers) at the event has a huge market value. Possible sources: [35], [36], [37], [38], [39] — Mike :  tlk  06:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't the 9/12 project that Beck started actively organise their own tea party protests? Surely that's a lot more involvement than just giving casual support. ʄ!•¿talk? 13:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Beck's 9/12 project protest on September 12th in Washington DC is being coordinated with help from FreedomWorks.[40] Beck is in deep with this issue. ʄ!•¿talk? 14:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Although "tea parties" are used to describe a variety of protests, including the health care town halls of last month and the "march on washington" that it supposed to happen this saturday (9/12), I am only referring specifically to those protests and protesters on the April 15th Tax Day Tea Party. I have not seen anything linking the "9/12 Project" with the April protests. — Mike :  tlk  14:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

"In a major movement unaffiliated with – but inspired by – Fox News' Glenn Beck's 9-12 Project, called the National Taxpayer Protest, thousands of Americans are answering the call and traveling to make their voices heard at Capitol Hill. Sept. 10 marks the kickoff of the three-day march on Washington.[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=109340] [They were] encouraged by conservative commentators such as Fox's Glenn Beck and organized virtually on Twitter, Facebook and other social networking sites.[41]

Add add a line of detail to the numbers plus whatever lanuage changes are needed and that should be sufficient.Cptnono (talk) 14:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The 9/12 project protests self describe themselves as tea parties[42], and are very closely associated with the tea party movement. To not describe the 9/12 events as tea parties would be a very disingenuous game of semantics. ʄ!•¿talk? 14:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

You read the page a little incorrectly. The 9/12 project facilitates discusison on a forum about Tea Parties. Since they are organized independently at a local level there is no reason to assert that 9/12 = Tea Party protests but instead people participatre in both. Also, the coverage from sources sums it up pretty well.Cptnono (talk) 15:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

They are often basically standing for the same thing, the only difference being a tea party can be unaffiliated with the 9/12 project, but a 9/12 project protest can always be described as a tea party. Which is what you just said! This is what I'm talking about — semantic nonsense. ʄ!•¿talk? 16:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Yours made more sense at least!Cptnono (talk) 17:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

So to add this to the article in the political positions section:

"Beck has supported the tea party movement from its inception, both on his shows and by participating in fundraisers. He has also promoted tea parties organized by FreedomWorks[43] and the American Family Association[44] via his 9/12 project."

ʄ!•¿talk? 19:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, Beck has not financially backed any of the Tea Party groups or potentially hundreds of thousands of unaffiliated aggravated Americans who will be marching on D.C. on 9/12. I will be there, I am going down with an ad hoc group from Long Island which was organized by two Moms who freely gave of their time and put together four busloads of people, (sold-out, turning people away) arranging all of the bus permits, info and e-mail contacts. Yes, Beck will be providing a special venue to air the March on 1-3PM Saturday, as most of the mainstream media will probably ignore the largest turnout of senior-citizens in the history of this country. ObserverNY (talk) 20:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

To Mike - Don't doubt that the 9/12 March on D.C. will happen. I personally know of at least 200 buses leaving Pittsburgh and 50+ from Long Island and Queens, NY. in addition to a whole bunch of good folks driving in from S. Carolina, Indiana, PA, and New Jersey. ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 20:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

What are you referring to when you say "Beck will be providing a special venue to air the March on 1-3PM Saturday"? ʄ!•¿talk? 20:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Not a forum.Cptnono (talk) 22:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree Cptnono(I almost wrote that myself), however I was trying to gleam the one piece of information that might be useful from those two posts. ʄ!•¿talk? 22:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I almost didn't even mention it but envisioned it spiraling towards disaster. Now I'm curious dammit.

Besides that, anyone see anything completely wrong with the lines I mentioned above?Cptnono (talk) 22:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

So I assume there is no objection to adding the couple of sentences I have suggested above to the article? It's factually accurate and clearly something important enough for Beck to have set up a group to participate in. I also think www.the912project.com should be added to the external links. It would be nice to have made some progress here after the other two points stalled. ʄ!•¿talk? 01:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection. The statements you added look fine to me. Morphh ^(talk) 2:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I concur. I did, however, switch the wikilink for emissions trading to point to the American "cap & trade" version. There are several schema for trade (some models more distributionist than others) and Beck specified c&t. L0b0t (talk) 02:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

ʄ!•¿talk? - Beck is not normally live on FOX News Channel on Saturdays. FOX will be running special coverage of the 9/12 march hosted by Beck between 1-3PM ET. ObserverNY (talk) 08:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

why is there no controversy section on Glenn Beck? he has said somepretty controversial things

1. "Obama has a deep seated hatred for white people?"

is this not "controversial enough?"

If you read my proposal down below you would see that I am trying to fix that. Since people are getting on and slacking off I am removing the potential BLP concern line already in (I'm lying since I am trying to spur discussion and prove a point) that discusses the race comment. We cannot say Beck is a racist asshole without mentioning the other contraversial events tha sources relate to those lines.Cptnono (talk) 16:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Beck's On-Air Joke in Phoenix Regarding Rival's Wife's Miscarriage

This seems worthy of inclusion -- surprised to not see it in the article already. Read this today at the website of the former Seattle daily newspaper the Seattle Post-Intelligencer (which now only maintains an online presence), URL=http://www.seattlepi.com/connelly/410508_joel25.html?source=rss:

" At KOY-FM in Phoenix, Beck was competing against radio host Bruce Kelly. His rival's wife, Terry Kelly, suffered a miscarriage. Beck called her live on the air and said, "We hear you had a miscarriage."

"When Terry said 'Yes,' Beck proceeded to joke about how Bruce apparently can't do anything right -- about he can't even have a baby." "

AOL web poll, ACORN

How about this?Bachcell (talk) 19:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

An AOL web poll on a story about Van Jones resignation accessed on Sept 26, 2009 showed 86% support for the resignation, and 75% "thumbs up" for Glenn Beck. The ACORN organization has protested FOX and Beck's airing of secretely taped videos at their offices.

AOL Web polls are not reliable sources. Bytebear (talk) 19:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

And even if they were, it's not WP:NPOV, because it would be choosing to give weight to the most critical views of Jones. Furthermore, why would such a thing be relevant to an article about Glenn Beck?. — Mike :  tlk  19:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

bye, consider me a discouraged editor. Bachcell (talk) 19:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

See ya! Come back if you change your mind in the future.

I don't care about the AOL poll too much but did make mention of the Van Jones thing in the above discussion. Not having anything anything in at all could easily come across fishy to a new editor and doesn't do a bio of Beck justice. In regards too the ACORN thing, I don't know much about it but this seemed a big part of his show for awhile from some random channel surfing. A couple lines in the career section makes sense.Cptnono (talk) 23:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the sources say that Beck is largely responsible for Van Jones being fired, and the ACORN video that he championed triggered a lot of the current scandal about ACORN (though the full significance of that scandal is not clear yet, as it is an ongoing event). I would hazard a guess that these two incidents are a large part of Beck's notability, and what he is known for among a large number of people around the world. True, he has been a media personality for years, but this seems to be some kind of breakthrough moment in his career. Wikidemon (talk) 17:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

then comment on the proposal on this page. I have not called anyone names while allegations of censorship have already been made in regards to this article. Van Jones incident is not important but the racism thing is. To make it worse they are tied together but editors refuse to edit neuteraly or don't look at sources such as the fucking New York Times and the Washington goddamn Post.Cptnono (talk) 17:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Hemorrhoid Surgery

I don't see what's wrong with mentioning his hemorrhoid surgery; the Rush Limbaugh article mentions that Limbaugh had a pilonidal cyst, and this article also mentions that Beck has a diagnosis of ADHD. If we can mention that he has ADHD, why can't we mention that he had hemorrhoids? Stonemason89 (talk) 20:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll have to look through to make sure, but I think the concerns centered around it being a somewhat trivial detail that adds little or no understanding of Beck, and the fact that people were trying to use it to violate WP:SYNTH via connecting his health care views recently after his surgery to his health care views today -- pointing out inconsistencies. — Mike :  tlk  21:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It comes across to me as a not-so-subtle attempt to embarrass him. Do we really list out every private medical problem of everyone who has a bio article? Tragic romance (talk) 21:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I moved it out of personal life since it is nothing compared to being a drunk. He wrote an oped piece regarding the botched job and being treated like a umber so I moved it to views after reading your edit summaries.Cptnono (talk) 23:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)`

I agree it is trivial used to embarrass Beck. It should be removed or argued for expansion or notability. This is the problem with much of what people want added. Bytebear (talk) 02:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:N#NCONTENT. Your thoughts on this and the Jones thing leads me to believe that you are getting the noteworthiness requird for an article and content confused. That being said, I personally don't think a political commentator writing a single piece about his bad time at a hospital for an outpatient procedure is rally worth mentioning at all. I am for removing this unless it others think it is madly interesting and relevant.Cptnono (talk) 03:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Noteworthiness can be addressed in an article through wp:weight. Because I choose not to link to the exact wikilawyer term, does not mean my objections are incorrect. Bytebear (talk) 05:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I think they are. But that is that. Also, when someone refers you to a guideline that you are failing to adhere to it is typically to help (or imply that you suck) while referring to Wikipedia:Wikilawyering is almost always derogatory (this is me saying you need to be nicer). You should not assume the worst and try to learn as much as possible about standards that are in place for good reason. I'll even give you some credit for what you are saying in regards to Jones, the principles of the guidelines and precedent still matter even if it is not explicitly stated in the guideline. I think enough editing will fix any concern to the line so if you make sure to not only focus on the win it might be interesting to see what happens. Cptnono (talk) 05:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I never accused anyone of wikilawyering, but I try to explain my position without having to resort to a link to every rule on Wikipedia. We know the general guidelines, and by now, most editors here should be familiar with the added restrictions for BLP articles. So if I say "notability" that may refer to several WP policies and guidelines, including WP:BLP, WP:N, WP:SYNTH, WP:NOT,WP:WEIGHT, etc. Most people here seem to thing verifiability is the main criteria for inclusion. If Beck said or did something, put in in the article. The more controversial or embarrassing, the better. Notability in general reduces this flood of content quite well. Bytebear (talk) 19:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Rape Rumor

I came to the Glenn Beck page to find out about the rumor. Nothing is mentioned, and I had to scour this long discussion page, just to find out the truth. In other bio articles, if there is a popular-but-untrue rumor, it simply states it in the article. EG, "On [DATE], [WEBSITE] posted a piece of satire claiming Beck had ... While the website clearly identified it as satire, a rumor was started that it was factual." Tragic romance (talk) 21:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not a rumour; don't refer to it as such. Fences&Windows 22:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

You could have always googled it instead. Also, if we used your suggestion the reader would have to scour the article for one line.Cptnono (talk) 23:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I think his point is that he thought wikipedia would have information on something like this that is huge on the internet. And it is a rumor, though a purposefully false one. I guarantee you that some people believe it to be true, just like death panels. This is probably the 3rd subheading on the talk page about this issue.--Milowent (talk) 23:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

There are other places for information on internet rumors. I don't mind Wikipedia being used to clear it up but it can only happen if RS gets into it. If that occurs a single line in personal life might work.Cptnono (talk) 00:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

There are some decent sources out there, just not NYTimes level yet, but i don't feel like battling over it with glenn's protection team. From a search done 5 days ago:[45], [46], [47], [48], [49].--Milowent (talk) 05:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Not one of those sources is reliable. Bytebear (talk) 05:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course not. I'm sure they've never been cited on wikipedia. --Milowent (talk) 05:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Other editors lack of diligence is not an excuse for us to make the same mistakes, Milowent. The First Post isn't shit but it also is not at the level most would like to see. The concern here is a knee-jerk reaction to giving a platform to show off an internet rumor. To counteract that significant coverage will have to be found. Even if that does happen, the amount of space this should get is very little in comparison to the rest of the article.Cptnono (talk) 05:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

If Glenn Beck didn't have staunch supporters protecting his page from this stuff, it would be on there at this point, I think. Imagine if a similar story was floated about O.J.! I'm not losing sleep over it, because I know its a pretty harsh campaign (which is surely a part of why it isn't getting broader media coverage), and not something to include lightly. Another new article today, in Politics Daily: The 'Glenn Beck as Murderer' Meme: Vaccine or Infection? (Sept. 17, 2009). --Milowent (talk) 14:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Have you even read the talk page or did you just want to blow off steam like an idiot? It is like pulling teeth to get anything positive or implying positiviness about Beck on this page,. I don't even like the asshole and I am frustrated.Cptnono (talk) 14:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The latter mostly. I've only started watching this page and talk page mostly to see how wikipedia deals with controversial people and subjects. Didn't mean to frustrate you, sorry for that.--Milowent (talk) 15:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Milowent and others.. Part of the issue with this material is that it is unlike normal criticism or praise of a person. The material could be consider libel, which is what it seems like Beck's lawyers are going to sue over (defamation). So we have to really consider if it is proper to reprint it. The highest quality of reliable sources should be required in this case. If we do include it, the utmost care must be taken in the wording. From BLP "The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment." I think the report of a potential defamation law suit shows that they believe this is intended and repeated as harmful and untrue libel. Morphh ^(talk) 15:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not helpful to think of Wikipedia articles as being protected, censored, etc. 99% of the time one might think that, the editors who are doing it are really trying their best to keep a good article, and it's just a difference in viewpoint over what content is appropriate. Wikipedia deals with controversial subjects very well, certainly better than the mainstream press because we at least try to present more than one side. It just takes some time for an article to settle down. Come back at a time when there's no current issue and you'll probably like the article. WP:BLP is one of our most important policies, and not everything that gets repeated by the press gets repeated here. Untrue or unconfirmed rumors, political attacks, unfiled charges (or arrests that don't result in prosecution), and things of that nature are often left out of articles about people on both ends of the political spectrum, or who are not political, in cases where they aren't really germane to the person, their life, career, and notability. - 17:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

New York Times on Acorn, Van Jones and Beck

...we at least try to present more than one side....

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2009873537_acorn16.html Sept 16, 2009 Government backing away from ACORN By Scott Shane The New York Times (also carried by Salt Lake Tribune and Deseret News)

The ACORN flap came a week after the resignation of Van Jones, a White House environmental official attacked by conservatives, led by Glenn Beck of Fox News Channel...Even before Jones stepped down, Beck had urged supporters on Twitter to "find everything you can" on three other Obama appointees... the Census Bureau dropped ACORN as one of 80,000 national unpaid "partners" helping promote the 2010 census, saying the scandals involving ACORN affiliates meant the group's involvement might "create a negative connotation" and discourage participation in the population count.On Tuesday, House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio wrote to Obama asking him to cut off all federal financing to ACORN and its affiliates. Another Republican, Nebraska Sen. Mike Johanns, wrote Attorney General Eric Holder, requesting a Justice Department investigation of the group.

The "fringe media" (Beck's term) such as ABC News and NY Times has been heavily criticized for deliberately avoiding the Van Jones and then the ACORN video issue. Does this criticism apply to WP, or is it merely just a problem with sourcing and BLP?? If anything, Beck and Worldnet daily have been the more reliable source on Van Jones and ACORN than the NY Times, no??

Is it ok yet to post information on Van Jones, Acorn, and Beck all in the same article without getting blocked? I'd like to see the BLP RS WP:BLAHBLAHBLAH reason this source cannot be used Bachcell (talk) 17:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a discussion about this already in my proposal. Scroll up since this article is turning into the worst thing I have seen on wikipeida.Cptnono (talk) 17:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The "mainstream media" has even covered both issues days ago. WP is the only media source to deliberately leave this out, last time I checked it was still scrubbed. Bachcell (talk) 17:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

There's piles of people who listen to and agree with beck, and just as many sources out here like HuffPo who absolutely hate the guy on Van Jones, ACORN, and virtually everything else the man says. But BOTH sides have been deliberately and vigorously scrubbed from this article. It's OK to note hemmoroid surgery, but not to note Becks effect on personell changes in the Obama administration or a major changes in federal policy towards ACORN, or liberal outrage against the same. Have you no sense of decency?? Bachcell (talk) 17:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

As a conservative who thinks that Beck is an idiot I can admit this article sucks in too many ways. Mike got a barnstar for it while an admin lost his balls (or at least forgot how to read).Cptnono (talk) 17:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Sarcasm doesn't come across well via written word, but I hope this isn't an allegation that I am in some way a destructive force here. If an established editor with a reputation of sticking to the rules (even when it went against their own views) such as yourself were to ask me to back off from this article for a while, I would do so without making a fuss. — Mike :  tlk 

Beck's claim that U.S. President "may be a Marxist" and is leading "a Marxist revolution"

Mr. Beck has repeatedly claimed in recent months (2nd half of 2009) that the President of the United States "may be a Marxist," and "surrounds himself with Marxists," and that "there is a revolution going on in this country...a Marxist revolution." It seems that this -- and his related theory that "Marxist Czars" are conspiring to overthrow capitalism from within the U.S. government -- should be included in the article. But should it be its own section ("Belief that U.S President is Leading a Marxist Revolution")? Or should it be included in the existing "Political Beliefs" section? Here's a reference: http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/29920/ I would like to help improve this article so that it more fully covers Beck's political views, but I don't want to add a new section prematurely. 209.213.227.136 (talk) 18:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)Steve.

Primary sources (i.e. Beck's own website) are not applicable sources. You need reliable third party sources that bring up the issue. Otherwise, we could just update the page with a daily summary of the Glenn Beck show. Bytebear (talk) 19:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Not sure I understand that. Why would Beck's own website not be a reliable source for his own views? I grant you that Beck, with many shock jocks, is probably espousing views he doesn't actually believe in for their shock value (Beck is not, after all, a moron) but at least his website is a reliable source the for the fact that he claims to believe it. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

So...let's look at the source. The link doesn't say Obama is a Marxist (though it does seem to say Diane Watson is one). DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I never said that Beck says Obama is a Marxist. I said, correctly, that he says the President "may be a Marxist." Beck clearly says on that page that, while Van Jones and Diane Watson ARE Marxists, "the President of the United States may be a Marxist." Moreover, he claims that "a Marxist revolution" is going on in the United States right now, and the context makes it clear that he thinks that this is being orchestrated by the Obama Administration, with its Communist Czars, although he implicitly concedes that the President may not himself be a Marxist -- although he may be one.209.213.227.136 (talk) 21:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)Steve

It's not about verifiability. It's about undue weight. Beck can claim Martians invaded Poland, but unless a reliable news source covers a story on Beck's comments, those views are just a blur of white noise amongst thousands of other opinions. Bytebear (talk) 19:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps some reliable sources have reported that Mr. Beck called President Obama a Marxist, e.g., [50], [51], but us Marxists don't want that in the article. Seriously though, is it even possible determine which of Beck's intentionally drama-inducing statements are the most important to include? It changes daily! --Milowent (talk) 20:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that, given the influence of Beck on millions of Americans, notably teabag activists, and given that the idea that the US is becoming socialist or communist under the leadership of Obama has become such a central theme in the teabag protest movement, including among its armed wing (those who bring assault rifles to protests), it seems that it is worth mentioning in this article. I mean, if George Stephanopolous suggested that the President "may be a Marxist," and that a "Marxist revolution" was being pursued within the government itself, these ideas would be mentioned in his Wikipedia article. So why leave it out of Beck's article. Is there some attempt to pretend he holds no controversial political beliefs? I mean, reading the article, you get the sense that he is a mainstream figure, in terms of his political convictions. But he doesn't think that! He regards himself as standing against mainstream views, as a kind of prophetic voice in the wilderness.209.213.227.136 (talk) 21:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)Steve

That's a great summary of Beck;s style. We don't need example after example of specifics. There are several sources already used in the article that give a good summary just as you have done. The only difference is they are summaries, and you want specifics. But this is a general article and we deal with Beck in general, and not with each and every position or statement. Bytebear (talk) 21:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Glenn Beck on Cover of Time Magazine

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/30754/

Of course, that's not a reliable source, and it's a negative article that might violate BLP, so I'll just drop that off and run back into my foxhole and let somebody else figure out how to incorporate that into the article. He's also reportedly pictured in a Democratic Party advertisement about Czars. Glenn Beck appears to have become a significant issue himself, but you'd never guess that from the scrubbed-down article that is here now. Bachcell (talk) 20:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's the DNC Video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXy-vPN_i7A

But people say that youtube videos can't be used as sources, even though this IS the original published source of the video, by the original publishers. Is the DNC a notable orgnization? Is Glenn Beck a notable person? Is WP messed up? Bachcell (talk) 20:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's Time's statement that Beck can be crediting with bringing down Van Jones and ACORN. This practically begs for a section called "impact" Any questions?

He is having an impact. Along with St. Louis, Mo., blogger Jim Hoft, whose site is called Gateway Pundit, Beck pushed one of Obama's so-called czars, Van Jones, to resign during Labor Day weekend. Jones, whose task was to oversee a green-jobs initiative, turned out to be as enchanted by conspiracies as Beck — he once theorized that "white polluters and the white environmentalists" are "steering poison into the people-of-color's communities" and signed a petition demanding an investigation into whether the Bush Administration had a hand in the 9/11 attacks. On Sept. 14 the Senate overwhelmingly voted to cut off all federal funds to ACORN, and the U.S. Census Bureau severed its ties to the organization. This followed Beck's masterly promotion of a series of videos made by two guerrilla filmmakers who posed as a pimp and prostitute while visiting ACORN offices around the country. The helpful community organizers were taped offering advice on tax evasion and setting up brothels for underage girls Bachcell (talk) 21:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about the article from Time Magazine titled is Glenn Beck bad for America?, or possibly Heeeere's Glenn (Beck)! When the lunatic fringe tries comedy. This excerpt might be interesting in the part that talks about his "candid style"

He is a gifted storyteller with a knack for stitching seemingly unrelated data points into possible conspiracies — if he believed in conspiracies, which he doesn't, necessarily; he's just asking questions. He's just sayin'.

It also refers to him playing the strings of conservative discontent. Also, it says that

Beck describes his performances as "the fusion of entertainment and enlightenment" — and the entertainment comes first

It's basically a hit job, but since Time is indisputably a WP:RS, I guess it's fine.— Mike :  tlk  23:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I like both quotes, If we credit Time as the source, I think both can be included. They are fairly neutral for a hit piece. Actually, the second quote is already in the article (twice).Bytebear (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Wait a minute? Do we have a consensus? I don't want to be banned to editing only Sesame Street for stating that Beck was on the cover Time, is given credit by the New York Times and Time Magazine for taking down Van Jones and ACORN? Will I get banned for posting an AOL poll? What about Mr. "incoherent" or Mr "irrelevant". Didn't you say that editing without consensus would lead to a block? No sir, not worth the risk. If you don't want to make WP look as silly as ABC (heck even the New York Times itself didn't print the story as far as I could see, just the Seattle Times and the Mormon-friendly Salt Lake Tribune and Deseret News) I'll let you folks show just how dedicated you are to fairness and let YOU put in the first mention of Acorn, Van Jones, and the Time Magazine cover. If you're reading this and are as disgusted with the scrubbing that goes on here, don't put it in either. Let's see how long these "consensus" people can maintain their rose-colored NPOV version of Glenn Beck that presents ALL notable points of view. Bachcell (talk) 23:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a FYI, the SL Tribune was started as an anti-Mormon newspaper and is hardly friendly to the Mormons. As to your other points, no one is wanting you banned, but don't you see how the content is being presented. It is generic, descriptive of Beck's style and persona, and not about specific incidents, which in a couple weeks will be replaced by a whole new set of incidents. No one is pulling out a sentence here or a phrase there and combining it with other articles to imply a conclusion not presented in the source. Bytebear (talk) 00:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I have incorporated the most recent Time cover story into the article.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 08:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

3 Glen Beck Polls Favor Beck, Evenly split even in liberal polls

These are 3 poll from non-conservative / mainstream websites. It's evenly split even in DC and NY city polls, but it looks like as much as some people hate Beck, they are in the minority. Again, I'll just park it here, and time how long it takes for it to show up in the article. Bachcell (talk) 23:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

News.AOL.com Poll Results http://webcenter.polls.aol.com/modular.jsp?resType=7&popup=yes&pollId=175920&channel=aol_us_news6&view=175629&template=1381

What do you think about Van Jones' resignation?
Thumbs up 	
86% 	79,663
Thumbs down 	
14% 	12,984
Note on Poll Results
Total Votes: 92,647
Poll results are not scientific and reflect only the view of those users
who choose to participate. Poll results are not reflected in real time

http://webcenter.polls.aol.com/modular.jsp?resType=7&popup=yes&pollId=175922&channel=aol_us_news6&view=175631&template=1381

Poll Results
What do you think about Glenn Beck?
Thumbs up 	
75% 	77,334
Thumbs down 	
25% 	25,528
Note on Poll Results
Total Votes: 102,862

http://www.nydailynews.com/nydn/poll.do?pollCmsUniqueId=20090912_the_new_rush&pollTitle=The+new+Rush%3F&pollQuestion=Glenn+Beck+elicits+extreme+responses+on+both+ends+of+the+spectrum.++Where+do+you+fit+in%3F&voteExpirationDate=&option_labels=Love+him%21%3BHate+him%21%3BMeh+...&20090912_the_new_rush=1&vote=vote

NY Daily News

Love him! 	48% 	
Hate him! 	42% 	
Meh ... 	10% 	

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/08/20/hot-seat-should-fox-fire-glenn-beck Henry Blodget asks should NewsCorp fire Glenn Beck 9/17/09

DC 47 yes 47 no 6% not sure
MA 28 yes 64 no 8% not sure
National 26% yes 69% no 5% not sure

Web polls are not reliable sources. But thanks. Bytebear (talk) 23:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree, obviously inappropriate and unreliable. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Web polls are absolutely not going to be included, unless a reliable source reports on them. We have told you this before, and continuing to post things like this is disruptive. — Mike :  tlk  23:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I can't see how a web poll will ever pass WP:RS, but as an aside, you'd think a fan of his would be able to spell his name right. Now, what exact language would you want us to put in the article anyways? The polls you list, in order, (1) don't involve Beck directly; (2) "75% of an undated AOL News poll gave Beck a thumbs-up"?; (3) "48% of an undated NY Daily News poll love Beck"?; and (4) some cherry-picked states about whether NewsCorp should fire Beck?. I don't get what you want. "47% of the people in DC think Beck should be fired"? That doesn't particularly positive, nor relevant really. Even something like "1 in 4 people nationally think Glenn Beck should be fired" would take some serious spin to be considered a positive in my opinion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)