Talk:Glenn Beck/Archive 4

Does Beck have dyslexia? I've seen blog comments which claim that he does, or did, but I'm not sure if that's true or not. Anyone have a source to either prove or disprove this? Stonemason89 (talk) 02:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I have a source that it's true [1] (guaranteed ROTFL by the way). ʄ!•¿talk? 10:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry dude corrected himself before you even put this here. On Friday August 28th, 2009. OLIGARHY. He corrected himself UP-FRONT AS HE PROMISED HE WOULD, IF HE WAS WRONG. He added a C for CZAR. So so you have OLIGARCHY

There's a scrum out on the article about these two words. The source says 'candid opinions'. One editor prefers candor, another outspoken. To me, candor is a sort of forthrightness about one's honest opinions, while outspoken means loud about an idea or position to draw attention to the issue, and to one's point of view on it. While there's no doubt Beck is outspoken, that's not what the source says. I'm with the editor preferring to hew close to the source, given the state of the article. ThuranX (talk) 06:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be "[some have suggested] that Beck's candor has helped make his shows successful". I mean that is one person's opinion, you can't actually know if the opinions he espouses on his shows are his honest opinions. At this point I'm starting to think he might actually be a comedian(what with the fact that he refers to himself as an entertainer, plus all the self-defeating things he says), like a version of Steven Colbert where the joke isn't open. ʄ!•¿talk? 10:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and attributed the claim to the source (Beck's publisher). L0b0t (talk) 15:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

It's Stephen Colbert, by the way. Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 18:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

A publisher's press release is promotion, not a RS.Jimintheatl (talk) 18:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

We can't simply call him candid, regardless of what sources say. That's an extremely POV statement. We can say that a certain person has called him candid, but the way it was listed seemed to assert that he was candid, which I know is almost definitely an extremely split opinion. A publisher saying that he is candid doesn't make it a truth. Personality traits in general can't really be asserted like that. Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 18:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

One of the definitions of candid is "fair, free from bias, prejudice or malice". These are subjective concepts, and thus the word indisputably is POV. I would not object to rewrites like "Beck's self-described candor" or "The wikipedia times has described Beck as being candid", as we are then reporting on someone else's POV instead of declaring it as fact. I object to the proposed "some have suggested..." idea, because of WP:WEASEL.MichaelLNorth (talk) 20:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

So what is the problem with direct attribution? His publisher said it; they stand behind the statement and no one has provided any evidence that the publisher has issued a retraction. As for the argument that the publisher's statement is not a reliable source, the policy on reliable sources has only this to say- "An opinion piece is reliable only as to the opinion of its author, not as a statement of fact." Direct attribution clears the WP:RS hurdle. L0b0t (talk) 20:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

There's no problem with including the opinion of his publisher, as long as it is clear in the article that the publisher's opinion is what is being described. Until recently, the statement in question said something like "Beck's candor has made his shows popular". This assertion would need a third party (i.e., not the publisher or anyone else connected to or standing to gain from Beck's success or failure) reliable source, even if the word "candor" was WP:NPOV, which it is not for reasons described above. If you want to say something like "Beck's publishers have described his style as candid, and Newsweek magazine as suggested that this has helped make his shows popular", your first party source would be appropriate. Remember, calling his style "candid" is an opinion, and asserting that his shows popularity has been improved by this is a separate opinion. Newsweek or a press release from the publisher would be an acceptable first party source for an opinion that Beck's shows are candid. Newsweek would be an acceptable first party source for newsweek thinking that Beck's "candor" has contributed to the success of his show. Neither source would be an acceptable third party source for asserting his "candor" as fact, or asserting that "his candor has contributed to the success of his shows" as fact. MichaelLNorth (talk) 20:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

You are quite correct, that's why I feel direct attribution is the answer. Beck's publisher claims that his candor has contributed to the success of his show. Is the underlying claim factually accurate? Direct attribution obviates that question as Wikipedia is not making the underlying claim, merely asserting the opinion of Beck's publisher. Is it a reliable source? Yes, there is no better source for the opinion of Beck's publisher than Beck's publisher. Being bold, I added the attribution and was smacked with an edit warring warning from Bigtimepeace for my trouble. Eh la la... L0b0t (talk) 20:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I have an objection to the way this is worded, as an assertion is contained within the opinion. If we were permitted to do this, you would see things like "Microsoft thinks that the reason its sales are doing well is because they have the best operating system in the world". The problem is with the assertion (windows is the best operating system) inside the opinion (windows has helped drive microsoft's success). I also don't know what the rules are for self-promotion (i.e., can corporations opinions of themselves be included in their wikipedia articles?). MichaelLNorth (talk) 21:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I really don't see the problem. If Beck's publisher claims Beck's candor makes his show popular then all we should do is report that Beck's publisher claimed it is so. That is what our policies and guidelines mandate. Remember the policy here is verifiability not truth. Did Beck's publisher make this claim? Yes, it is a verifiable fact that Beck's publisher made this claim. Is this claim true? Irrelevant, all we are reporting is that the publisher did, in fact, make this claim. None of this proscribes finding sources to verify the factual accuracy of the underlying claim and anyone is welcome to do so. Also, the idea that a publisher's stated opinion as to why the publisher thinks one of their clients is successful would be disallowed as promotional or self-serving strikes me as rather silly. There is no better source for the opinion of an organization than the stated opinion of the organization itself. L0b0t (talk) 21:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand MichaelLNorh's point. Can we find a source for Beck's candor which doesn't stand to profit from publicly complimenting Beck? That would be better. It is like putting your mom on your resume as a character reference, and we can do better. Now, does the Newsweek peice say 'beck's candor is responsible for his popularity' or some such? (do we even really have a newsweek source?) ThuranX (talk) 22:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

We don't need one. Thanks to the direct attribution called for in our policies we are not trying to claim Beck is candid we are merely repeating that his publisher describes him so. As for the resume analogy, no it is not at all "like putting your mom on your resume as a character reference" it is, instead, like your employer claiming the reason they think you are successful is xyz. L0b0t (talk) 00:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not illiterate, don't talk down to me. My point still stands: Our source is not a neutral source; it stands to make a profit from its comments, and is thus unduly motivated to compliment Beck. I have asked for a better source. Since there is no consequential citation relying upon it, as the Newsweek situation would be, we lose nothing by removing a POV citation. I'm sure we can cite Charles Manson's mom saying that he was a very sweet boy, but really, who cares? Our direct attribution is designed to cover when a notable commentator says something, as in 'Glenn Beck says obama's helath care is double-sekrit black conspiracy reparations!'. Beck may be critical, but he doesn't have a direct financial motivation to negatively criticize the policy, jsut as Beck would have no direct financial incentive to support a bill sponsored by McCain (All FOX bonus pay conspiracies aside). HOweve,r Beck's publisher does have a financial incentive to back their investment. I'm with MichaelLNorth and Inintheathl, it shouldn't be in the article. ThuranX (talk) 01:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry L0b0t, but directly attributing the statement to the publisher still very clearly violates WP:ADVERT, and even saying that "some people think" instead of mentioning the publisher would violate WP:WEASEL. Your good faith statement informing us that Wikipedia is about verifiability is well taken, but it is not the only requirement for what is appropriate to include in articles. For example, his publisher could tell us that Beck was the product of immaculate conception, but it would be irresponsible of us to give weight to that opinion. ThuranX, I think that the newsweek article would be a proper source for their own opinions:

• Beck's style can be described as "candid"
• Beck's style has helped to make his show successful

For reasons listed above (I won't patronize you by repeating myself), I will object to any wording that asserts that Beck's style is "candid" as an opinion within an opinion. I am aware that the source may in fact contain this opinion within an opinion, but obviously we aim for a higher degree of neutrality on Wikipedia than an op-ed in Newsweek. Also, I am aware that above I said that I had no problem with the direct attribution idea, but I have since researched wikipedia policies and found it to be prohibited in this specific situation. MichaelLNorth (talk) 03:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no Newsweek source, that's the problem. ThuranX (talk) 05:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Reading through WP:SPAM (the guideline for which [[WP:ADVERT]] is a redirect) I can find nothing at all proscribing the inclusion of this claim. WP:SPAM concerns only advertisements masquerading as articles and external link spam. That guideline is non-germane to the situation at hand. Again, you are correct about WP:WEASEL, that style guideline calls for direct attribution; in fact, all of our on point policies and guidelines call for direct attribution of sourced opinion. Frankly, I don't care if this claim is in the article or not, that should be a simple matter of editorial choice. But, to say that the claim is prohibited by policy is just plain wrong. ThuranX, your literacy does not interest me, your ability to assume good faith does. If you got the impression I was talking down to you, I truly am sorry, that was never my intention. As for "neutral source", I don't think I've ever heard anyone demand a neutral source. Neutrality is not required of sources (or editors), neutrality is required of articles. L0b0t (talk) 05:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the intent of the statement was to say that his unreserved opinions have helped make him successful, but have also gotten him in trouble. I considered the definition as (4): unreserved, honest, or sincere expression, but I can see where it could be confused with other definitions of the term. I'm ok with using other words if candor is too strong a word to express the view. I would think we could place the view into our own words if we can still convey the meaning to everyone's satisfaction. Other terms that may fit: "frank opinions", "unreserved opinions", "forthright opinions". Morphh ^(talk) 14:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Neutrallity is not required of sources, true. And yes 'neutral source' wasn't the best phrase I could have use. Let me try again: 'Source unencumbered by an obvious conflict of interest.'

IS there any doubt that a publisher hopes to profit from books it publishes? Is there any doubt that in a free enough market, one as free as the US, for example, a publisher would take the opportunity, if laws allow (and ours do), to give some free compliments to their author, when making a press release? any question that this is done to increase interest i nthe book, and hopefully increase sales? Now, in a nation where speech is sufficiently free, as it is here, might a publisher not engage in the use of superlatives above and beyond, that is, out of proportion to, the subject in question, to further increase sales and so on? Yes to all of the above so far? Then why would using that source to build what is supposed to be as bias-free an article as can be written, be acceptable? It isn't. Take this over to the WP:RS Noticeboard. They're not gonna approve the use of the publisher ot give Beck a free compliment. ThuranX (talk) 06:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually this has been brought up at the RS talkpage on several occasions over the past few years and the consensus there is in line with the guideline itself; with direct attribution, corporate communications are very much reliable sources for the opinions of the corporations releasing the communique. To suggest that an article about author X can not contain a verifiable statement from subject's publisher as to why, in the publisher's opinion, author X is a success strikes me as being willfully obtuse. Again, I have no dog in this fight, I don't care about the claim, I don't care about Beck, my only knowledge of Beck stems from this article (I don't look at the television very often and when I do it's certainly not to listen to impotent Americans complain about their loss of station in the Great Game of geopolitics or whatever it is these television presenters get up to.) My only POV is as a policy wonk. After seeing the dreck on this talk page and seeing calls at ANI to ban 2 of the strongest POV pushers here (ThuranX & Bytebear) I stopped by as a disinterested editor to see if I could help with the cleanup. If my help is not wanted, fine, I'll gladly go edit elsewhere and watch with glee as the pendulum swings too far in each direction and this article morphs from white-wash to attack page and back again. So, do with the claim what you will but don't try to say that policy proscribes its inclusion because that is just plain wrong. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 15:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

This writeup seems especially white-washed and flavorless when one considers the colorful, vocal man it is intended to portray. It seems clear to me that someone is doing some overzealous public-image editing here, and I think they don't realize that by chopping off anything that's colorful, polarizing, or noteworthy about Mr. Beck, they condemn him to grayer obscurity than he deserves. I know that personal research is discouraged here and that the talk page isn't a soapbox for personal opinion and persuasive essay, but I contend from experience that Beck himself would hope to see a greater degree of his mindset and history lain open on on his own Wiki. I contend from experience that both his supporters and detractors desire more real content. I understand and greatly appreciate that Wikipedia is dedicated to facts and opposed to transient trends, but if Glenn Beck is anything, he is opinionated, and his message deserves more mention on his writeup. Thanks, Azurecrane (talk) 08:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

This isn't his page and this isn't a feature in a magazine. Editors look like they have been a little over cautious but that is expected with the constant risk of this encyclopedic article being turned into biased commentary. Both you and Beck are more than able to propose some specific changes. I personally haven't even touched it with all the bickering going on.Cptnono (talk) 10:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion about WP:ADVERT. What I meant to cite was WP:PROMOTION. "Candid" is a positive attribute, as one meaning is "free from influence, impartial". I realize that the word may have another meaning that is WP:NPOV, but since the indented meaning is ambiguous it is our responsibility to resolve the confusion. Imagine if the publisher had said "Glenn beck's total and complete awesomeness has helped make his shows successful" (pardon my hyperbole for the purposes of making a point). This is self promotion, which is bullet point #4 in this section of "What Wikipedia is not". Even if we directly attribute this self-promotion to the speaker, who stands to gain from Beck's success, it is still self-promotion. Beck's show is a product, and he has people like this publisher paying to sell this product by saying good things about it. WP:PROMOTION precisely and expressly addresses this, and declares it to be among the things "wikipedia is not".

Morph, any of your alternate wordings ("frank", "unreserved", "forthright") are properly WP:NPOV, so I am fine with them. None of them have a definition like "free from bias" or "completely honest", and all three get across the real point here, that being that Beck speaks his mind without apparent concern of consequence or reception. MichaelLNorth (talk) 23:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The moderator of this page, Bytebear, is constantly removing all negative info about Glenn Beck. I don't think there's any doubt that Glenn Beck has created or been part of at least one notable controversy, but Bytebear keeps removing them. Probably because they're both members of the LDS church. It's obvious to me that Bytebear is partial to Glenn Beck. The job as moderator of this article should be handled over to someone with a neutral position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Konfe (talk • contribs) 13:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I am trying my best to WP:Assume Good Faith, but if you look at Bytebear's talk page, he has had similarly partisan involvement with pages like Bill O'Reilly and Sarah Palin, on at least one occasion to the point of receiving an official warning for edit warring. He has flat out admitted that he is trying to "protect" this page and others like it from going in a direction he doesn't like. MichaelLNorth (talk) 13:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

This page provides hardly any information on his program & his program page is even more bare. This is an embarrasement to Wikipedia. 194.116.198.179 (talk) 13:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The page for his TV show used to be an additional advertisement for "the 9/12 project" until I added the current 3 sentences about his show. MichaelLNorth (talk) 13:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Bytebear is not a moderator. He's discussing policy and what he thinks is best for the article. Dismissing, assign labels, and attacks are not the way to convince and move the discussion forward. At least he is being civil, strait forward and discussing policy. Unlike the likely numerous IP sock puppets leaving personal attacks.[2][3] Morphh ^(talk) 13:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

That's a pretty bold accusation, Morphh. I'm running a whois lookup on these IPs and they do not appear to be a huffington post or media matters computer bank, as has been suggested by some on this page. I fear that this idea is and will be used to ignore or discredit those who seek to add potentially negative WP:NPOV information to this page. MichaelLNorth (talk) 13:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I did not suggest they were from huffington post or media matters. I was describing the edits of personal attacks, which if you look at the links were from numerous IP's but obviously the same person or people. One source of vandalism being from the IP listed above in this discussion (and the one above). Morphh ^(talk) 14:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I never said that you made this assertion, but some people that are deeply involved in discussions over this page seem to think that this is a conspiracy. There is definitely some serious WP:OWN going on here. MichaelLNorth (talk) 14:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

why is this page locked anyway? i can see no discussion on it. 194.116.198.179 (talk) 14:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Page is locked because every time it is opened, it is riddled with juvenile vandalism.E2a2j (talk) 18:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow, the claws are out now. For the record, a very long time ago (years) I did fill out the Bill O'Reilly article from a bullet list of links to a coherent article. I haven't done much with it since. I have never edited or even commented anywhere on my talk page about Sarah Palin, so your pathetic attempts to paint me as a right wing whacko is really weak. I also have defended several left wing articles, if you bothered to actually search my edit history. And for the record, I was an active Mormon in my youth, have some interest in LDS history, have an affinity to temple architecture, but my life-partner is Catholic, and we are not active in any particular faith. Now, if you want to make unbased accusations, please understand that I am still convinced that in 2 years, no one is going to be introducing Beck as "the commentator who's show was boycotted in 2009 by a few advertisers." These "controversies" have no lasting value. They will be forgotten very soon. If I lose this to consensus, I am confident that these issues will either bloat into a POVFORK, or they will be removed as his "controversy" a few years ago with Michael Moore was. I have continually suggested filling his show article which is sorely lacking in information with these issues, because that is where they belong. And although I am the most outspoken, I can see several other editors who agree with me. Bytebear (talk) 17:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

My apoligies for saying you have been involved in preventing WP:NPOV info about controversies from being added to Sarah Palins page. I must have been looking at someone else's talk page, and I apologize. I have updated my comment so nobody will be confused.

My "accusation" is simply that you are trying to protect information of a certain nature, even though it is thought by many in this discussion to be notable to Beck as a person, and even though it could easily be written in a WP:NPOV way, from being added to this page. Aside from my mistaken (and retracted) comment about your involvement with the Sarah Palin page, what I have said is not unbased since you admit it yourself right on your talk page. Unbased accusations are based on nothing, whereas what I'm saying is based on your own words from yesterday. I will remind you to assume good faith, and not label those who disagree with you as an organized Huffington Post smear campaign with no proof. That is the only unbased accusation here. Please read WP:OWN carefully. MichaelLNorth (talk) 18:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I did not initiate that discussion, and never made the claims you are accusing me of. I did and will point out that the Huffington Post is a biased unreliable source, and I do think many people use it as a secondary source just to bring in controversy to Wikipedia articles that more legitimate media sources would not bother covering. I don't think I am alone in that assertion. I also have not once suggested censoring any material from Wikipedia. I only want the information in the correct place. How many times to I have to recommend beefing up the Glenn Beck Show article before someone actually does it? I would agree with your assertion of WP:OWN ownership IF I didn't have several other editors agreeing with me. I think you are the one who needs to read the policy more closely. It says, "Always avoid accusations, attacks, and speculations concerning the motivation of editors." Something you have not been able to do. I am wondering what part of the policy specifically you think I have violated. I have not discouraged conversation, I have not engaged in edit wars. I have not made personal attacks. You on the other hand ... Bytebear (talk) 19:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Nowhere in WP:OWN does it mention that "protecting" articles is fine, as long as other people share the same views. Your arguments against exclusion of any content describing controversies in an WP:NPOV way essentially boils down to WP:RECENTISM which is not a wikipedia rule or policy. It is an essay. Nobody can know which recent events will be forgotten in the future, and your assertion that because some old controversy is no longer in the press, this one won't be remembered either is 100% unfounded. MichaelLNorth (talk) 19:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

No, but WP:BLP has very specific policies on what should be included in such articles. I am against inclusion of items that may be newsworthy, but are not noteworthy to the person. You are also not taking into account WP:undue which is a policy, and by including recent news items over past items, you are giving undue weight to current events. You are ignoring completely my suggestion to put this information in the Glenn Beck show article, which does not have as strict restrictions as this article has on content. Bytebear (talk) 19:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

First Bytebear said the "Obamis a racist" comment was not newsworthy, then Bytebear said you need primary sources, then Bytebear said it was newsworthy but not noteworthy, then Bytebear said the comment wasn't important because people will forget over time, then Bytebear just started removing well refernced information. So Bytebear edited on the Bill O'Reilly page? I'm shocked. Patriot Missile33 (talk) 20:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Is my name Bytebear? *checks nametag* If you would be so kind as to discuss rather than just slinging accusations and reverting at the drop of a hat. Soxwon (talk) 20:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Soxwon, I'm not sure why you think I have you confused with Bytebear. Bytebear removed the credible info before you did. Please tell me what part of this spurred you to remove the edit: "Beck's candid opinions have helped make his shows successful,[23] but have also resulted in protest and advertiser boycotts. In late July 2009, Beck argued that reparations and social justice were driving President Obama's agenda, discussing issues of diversity and institutional racism.[24] That week in response to the Henry Gates controversy, Beck stated that Obama has repeatedly exposed himself as having "a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture" and concluded that "This guy is, I believe, a racist."[25] These remarks drew criticism from MSNBC commentators, the NAACP, and others.[25][26] Advertisers including LexisNexis-owned Lawyers.com, Procter & Gamble, Progressive Insurance and GEICO have requested their ads be removed from his programming.[27][28]" This seems factual, relevant, well cited and informative. All the things an encyclopedia should be. This on the hand is not particulary informative : "Beck's candid opinions have helped make his shows successful,[23] but have also resulted in protest and advertiser boycotts.[24][25]" It's one sentence and the first half compliments his success. It gives no context, nothing on the Gates controversy or his famous "Obama is a racist" comment. To tell you the truth, I watch a lot of Fox News because I think it is an entertaining news channel and I have no problem with Glenn Beck. But I think it is disingenuous to suggest that these edits are being made for the good of the article. Patriot Missile33 (talk) 22:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Since this controversial edit impasse happened, the article's grade has languished, dropping from a B to a C since his Obama comments were made. Patriot Missile's addition improves the article and should be included.--The lorax (talk) 22:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh plz, you forgot to mention that the one who downgraded it is one of the ppl actively pushing for the information's inclusion. In fact, he shouldn't be changing it if he's engaged in a dispute, that should be done by a third party. I'll change it back now. Soxwon (talk) 22:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Lorax but I must admit that the informative edit was actually written by someone else. Thanks for the Edit War warning on my talkpage, Bytebear. I noticed on your talkpage that you were involved in an Edit War on Barack Obama article regarding the inclusion of Ayers. You even strategized with SoxWon on your talkpage regarding the article! This has to be a joke. Patriot Missile33 (talk) 23:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why coming up with a compromise and mentioning that I should explain my reasoning is "conspiring." Soxwon (talk) 00:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I am just going to remind Patriot Missile33 that his comments could be interpreted as a personal attack and it is certainly not assuming good faith. Bytebear (talk) 00:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Patriot Missle33, the sentence "Beck's candid opinions have helped make his shows successful,[23] but have also resulted in protest and advertiser boycotts.[24][25]" is added to give some relation to how it relates to Beck's notability. Otherwise, the paragraph is just a criticism, with little association to his media persona. As required by BLP, criticism should be relevant to the subjects notability. Now including this paragraph in itself I think is a stretch for a historical biography (wouldn't expect to see such a entry in Encyclopedia Britannica), but if we are going to include it, it at least has to somehow tie into how it is relevant to his notability in a neutral way. I'm also disturbed by your accusation on conspiring. Posting on talk articles is common and open. Morphh ^(talk) 12:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, one can google "bytebear" and "lds" and find a lot of recent activity on religious and lds forums all over the net, so for him to say he is not active is a stretch. I'm not going to get into the argument of what should and should not appear on Beck's page; however, him asking for sources and then dismissing said sources is disingenuous to this engagement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.2.202.144 (talk) 19:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey who cares, if you don't register for a wikipedia name you're just a SOCK PUPPET instead of someone disgusted with the way things are done around here. Wikipedia is just a glorified blog, where the guy with the least amount of life gets to present his personal opinion as fact to the rest of the world. The only sadder thing is that people use this trash as a reference. This site needs historians, biographers and fewer people thinking they're smarter than they are. Also I find it HILARIOUS that someone here is both attacking people for not assuming good faith while not exhibiting good faith. More proof of why Wikipedia's model is completely broken. Note to Morpphhhhphphph: you can easily register a whole crapload of wikinames too. Maybe you and Bytebear are the same dude. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.102.122 (talk) 07:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

What about his views on this subject? He has recently shifted his position on the wars, stating he wants the troops pulled. Well more accurately here's what he has stated on his own website: "...this time I agree with campaign Obama over President Obama. He should pull the troops out. Why? Because I've said it for years and years, we're in a war. If your going to go into a war, go into it to win it. This war wasn't President Obama's idea, it wasn't his choice to send the troops in. And now he's gonna be faced with immense pressure from his constituents wherever he makes a decision to beef up support in Iraq or Afghanistan. There is no possible way America is now committed to victory. That's fine, just don't let our troops hanging in that stage of being there with not enough troops to do the job. You either do it, or you get out." —Preceding unsigned comment added by InterrogationChairs (talk • contribs) 12:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

That doesnt really sound like he wants the US to pull out of the wars, simply that if its going to stay it should be prepared to win which he fears obama is not prepared to do. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

No I understand, I never said he sounded enthused about having them pulled, but he feels it's in the best interest because we might not win (according to him). Either way, he has technically changed his position.

Him making a smarmy comment isn't technically anything. He is saying Obama needs to pull out if he isn't going to go for the win. It is kind of a dig at Obama not the war. Easy to forget but try to sign your posts with ~~~~ as much as possible. Cptnono (talk) 07:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The edit warring on this article persists and is simply not acceptable. Explanations as to why it is necessary or who is to blame do not particularly interest me. If it flares up again, I'll fully protect the article for an extended period of time (no doubt on the "wrong" version).

I'd draw everyone's attention to WP:3RR (though I know you are all familiar with it) and the bolded statement that "3RR is a bright line where action now becomes almost certain if not already taken. It is not an "entitlement" to revert a page a specific number of times. Administrators can and will still take action on disruptive editors for edit warring even if it does not violate 3RR." I count at least 5 editors who have reverted more than once in the last two days but have not broached the 3RR line. Consider this fair warning that future revert warring, even if it does not violate the 3RR rule, will likely result in a block. That means that if you revert twice in four hours (or even in 24 hours), please do not act surprised if you are suddenly blocked. Edit warring is extremely disruptive to article development, and if it takes blocks to put a stop to it then so be it, though I'd much prefer it if people simply restrained themselves and used the talk page.

This dispute has become far too personal and heated, and some editors seem to be looking for ways to "win" rather than ways to compromise. Please try harder to find points of agreement rather than points of disagreement, try to assume good faith even if you think certain editors don't deserve that, and work toward consensus rather than trying to block it. If you (as in everyone editing here) want help mediating the discussion then I would be willing to do that, or if anyone is not comfortable with me doing that then look for someone else who would be willing to mediate the dispute. This article is getting thousands of hits per day (216,000 for the month so far) and we need to get our act together. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good - We need some help and mediation may be the next option. Morphh ^(talk) 15:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

What you need to do is to get every single person who has contributed to this article up until this point the hell out, and get a bunch of people with level heads in. This article is a disgrace. This talk page is a double disgrace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.102.122 (talk) 07:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

A brief introduction - I am a relatively new editor to Wikipedia. My interest and research has been in an educational program IBDP. Now one would think that wouldn't be as highly charged an article as Glenn Beck. However, I appeared to be the only editor who views the program from a Libertarian perspective, most of the others were actual IB teachers. I'm just telling you that because even though Wikipedia articles are supposed to be WP:NPOV, they should also be balanced. We called in 3RR. No real help at all, the 3rd Op just ended up siding with all of the Liberals. Every well documented fact I sought to include in the article was obstructed, challenged and deleted. I was accused of using 'weasel' words and called 'sexist' and 'fraudulent'. An administrator, Uncle G, was called in. He left some quotes and suggestions and then went AWOL. So my recommendation to you guys is, stick to the facts, don't try and use lame blogs as sources and put together a fair and balanced article. ObserverNY (talk) 16:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I wanted to comment on the reduction of one sided context in the Obama criticism section. We had some consensus that this was a summary style and that the main content be placed on The Glen Beck Show article. It even links it right in the context. This is where commentary about Fox News, and any particular advertiser should go. There is too much one sided criticism on this particular issue and if we don't reduced it, we have to expand it. This is not what we compromised on in the massive debate on this section. Why does this one particular advertiser "expand understanding".. because they're the most critical? Why are they given weight? Why is their particular quoted statement even that important to it, the context itself explains it. Why is some supposed unproven claim against Fox News important in a summary for understand this event? It's not - It's WP:ILIKEIT and will degrade right back into the massive debate. It's a summary and the detail content is on the Beck Program article where it belongs. The section has already been expanded beyond the consensus version that we worked hard to come to some agreement on. I'm fine with some of the additions, though I'm not sure others are, but I do have issues with what I removed. Morphh ^(talk) 13:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not married to the Progressive quote, and would be fine with moving the reference to an appropriate place and removing the quote from the body of the article. I think that keeping the reference adds WP:V. I did not pick the most critical comment -- it is just one I came across and considered relevant. Part of my reasoning was to help balance out the concepts like "Glenn Beck is different from Glenn Beck's Persona", and "a boycott of Glenn Beck (TV Show) is completely different from a boycott of Glenn Beck" -- both of which could be construed as efforts to place criticism in less prominent articles. These are not things you said, but just subtle shielding by those whose actions suggest they are trying to "protect" this page in spite of consensus. MichaelLNorth (talk) 02:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we've worked out and removed the Glenn Beck "persona". The focus of the boycotts and fox news comments as an employer seem to be for the Glen Beck Show. It does deserve mention in the article, but I think the expanded detail should be included in the show article. There is less of a requirement for including criticism in the show article than in the biography of a living person, which helps us avoid all the "is Progressive's criticism part of Glenn Beck's notability" debate (certainly the incident as a whole is, which we cover). It also avoids the expanded detail required for Beck's pov. Just state the controversy and main facts. No need to go into quotes from this group or that group in his biography. This was the compromise that seemed to satisfy everyone. The criticism is there and I think presented neutrally, more detail on the criticism is available and linked. I moved the expanded detail to the Glenn Beck (TV Show) article. If someone is interested in more details, they'll follow the link. If someone wants more details, they'll follow the references or Google the particular incident. We're not about covering every reaction to it, just the encyclopedic bits. Morphh ^(talk) 14:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Morph -- This sounds fine to me, providing we can agree not to assume motivations of boycotting advertisers beyond what they have actually said. Both in this article and the TV show article, there has been some POV pushing via adding language that makes it sound like "Advertiser XYZ caved to political pressure from group _______", and the adding of weasel words (i.e., sneaking in a change from "removed" to "requested to be removed"). The press release from progressive introduces something verifiable regarding motivation. To the best of my knowledge, no company has said "because of Color of Change we are removing our ads" and yet some would have the article state this as fact. If some newspaper makes this claim, than it should be written as such (i.e., "The Daily Wikipedian attributes this to a campaign by the group Color of Change"). I also think that saying that the exodus of advertisers "followed" the Color of Change campaign is using a logical fallacy to try to imply cause/motivation and WP:SYNTH if not presented accurately as someone else's research/opinion. I agree that there should be mention of the incident and maybe 2-3 sentences of significant details on Beck's page, and that any additional info belongs in the TV show article. MichaelLNorth (talk) 19:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense - sounds good. Morphh ^(talk) 22:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

What do you think about moving all the "Color of Change" stuff to the TV show article? I have tried re-writing that part a few times, and it is quite difficult to mention it without getting into too much detail. For example, one edit I have recently made was necessary to clarify that Beck has levied criticism at the Color of Change co-founder who has not been involved in the organization for several years. Obviously omitting this is misleading, as the deceptive implication is that he was somehow involved or "behind" 2009 actions of the organization. MichaelLNorth (talk) 16:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely oppose. If you move the Color of Change material, you have to move the 'racist' material for context. Some editors here want to tie that to the reparations, so that'll wind up being moved by one or another, leaving the Glenn Beck article yet again devoid of any criticism of the man for the things he says. It becomes yet another white-wash. The comment was not made on his own show, but during an appearance on Fox & Friends, thus being a statement, as I keep saying, from the man himself, and not this imaginary 'on air persona' people keep trying to use as a shield for the 'real' Glenn Beck. This controversy is about him, not his show. While I do not oppose some mention on the show's article, mention which should focus on the loss of advertising revenues and the consequences of Beck's actions on the show, this is the right place to cover things Beck says, especially things which are NOT said on the Glenn Beck Show. ThuranX (talk) 17:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not talking about scrapping anything, just talking about Color of Change as a generic organization on Beck's page, and then getting more specific on the TV show page. Here is the problem I keep running into:

• We should include the info about Color of Change, since in my opinion they seem to be active in expressing their displeasure with companies' continued advertisements on his show.
• Therefore, due to WP:NPOV, we must include Beck's response regarding Van Jones, and it makes sense to refer to him as the Color of Change co-founder or it seems to be unrelated to the advertisement removals.
• Therefore, due to WP:NPOV, we must specify that Jones has not been involved with Color of Change for over two years, because the false implication of the point above is that he was somehow related to, involved with or behind some attack on Beck.

And now we just have way too much detail, and are in violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP. Another separate concern is that an undue amount of info on Color of Change makes it seem that the advertiser boycott is just a political pressure thing (i.e., GEICO is afraid of irritating Color of Change, so they "give in"), when press releases from various companies indicate that it was a genuine desire to avoid having their brand(s) associated with potentially objectionable content.

ThuranX, do you agree with my assessment here? Once we're on the same page we can work together to find a resolution. MichaelLNorth (talk) 20:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Michael, what reliable sources do we have that states that Van Jones is no longer "involved" (whatever that means) with an organization he created 4 years ago. Does this just means he's moved into his new position as Green Czar and is no longer running the org? Not sure I would say that he's not involved unless he's specifically distanced himself from the org. I don't think the sentence is an implication that Jones was directly involved or directed the advertisement removals - just that an organization founded under principles of communism is leading this boycott. Morphh ^(talk) 14:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Point well taken. "Involved" is the wrong word for what needs to be said here. Jones is no longer operating Color of Change, as he was prior to helping with Obama's campaign and becoming the administration's "green czar". Simply saying that he is the "Co-founder" has a strong implication that he is still running Color of Change, and the context in which this piece of information is provided suggests that Jones was behind the letters sent to advertisers by the org (not verifiable, or accurate). I'll dig up the records on the non-profit and see if he's still listed as an operating member, at which point we will have a better and much more specific word to use than "involved". If non-profits are anything like LLCs, his role will be clearly defined in something equivalent to an operating agreement, and this will clear up some confusion. MichaelLNorth (talk) 23:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think he's "involved" anymore (he's listed as inactive and a former member and talked about as if retired:

While Van hasn't been active in the work of ColorOfChange in recent years, we are proud of where his work las led him. After helping ColorOfChange get started in 2005, Van moved on to other pursuits. In 2007, he founded and served as the executive director of Green For All, an organization dedicated to creating opportunities for low-income communities connected to the greater effort of addressing climate change. Van now serves as Special Advisor for Green Jobs at the White House Council on Environmental Quality.

[4] Soxwon (talk) 00:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Van Jones co-founded Color of Change in 2005. In legitimate non-profit organizations, founders and co-founders, as a rule, hold an emeritus position on the Board of Directors. Saying he is no longer part of Color of Change is like saying a parent is no longer a parent after the child is 4 years old. Also, Thuranx is correct that the "racist" statement was made on Fox and Friends and I personally think there should be some reference to the context of the statement which was within a discussion about the Gates/Crowley "incident". One more thing, somebody said that there is no evidence that the advertisers are being influenced by Color of Change to boycott the Glenn Beck Show. I don't know whether Wikipedians consider the following a viable reference, but I submit it for your consideration: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090823/ap_on_bi_ge/us_tv_beck_s_advertisers ObserverNY (talk) 11:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

The word epithets should not be used in the context below. Modern use of the word has been used to describe racially charged words. To implicate that the words "communist" or "revolutionary" are epithets could be seen as 1. biased or 2. offensive to those who do not believe communism or revolutinaries are epithets. Maybe end the sentance with "committed revolutionary".

Van Jones — the co-founder of Color of Change — describing him as a "self-professed communist" and a "committed revolutionary" among other epithets.[36] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newman37 (talk • contribs) 02:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

epithets most definetly needs to be removed. it is not referenced in the cite and does not match the retoric of what Glenn Beck actually said. No epithets were said. the adding of such verbage is poor form! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.75.234 (talk) 10:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

many bios have a section dedicated to a person's education. why do you left-wing wikiscrubbers leave this out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.101.89.215 (talk) 20:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering that myself. Surprisingly(or not so surprisingly), it turns out Glenn Beck has no education/qualifications to speak of beyond high school. ʄ!•¿talk? 11:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, the education info has been in the article for a long time and has not been "wikiscrubbed" in any way. Beck graduated from high school, took a class at Yale, then dropped out due to his (then) ongoing divorce; it's right there in the 1st section. Please read at least some of the article before posting questions about it. L0b0t (talk) 12:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

There's not all that much to write about Beck's education. He is a high school graduate. MichaelLNorth (talk) 14:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Which of course makes Beck totally unqualified to deal with subjects like government, politics and history. Or any subject other than media, a field that he has worked in for a number of years. But lets all just ignore that as well. ʄ!•¿talk? 15:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

That's a pretty elitists thing to say. Only the ivory halls provide education and qualification? Seems his employers and audience believe otherwise. Morphh ^(talk) 15:30, 01 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a forum. ThuranX (talk) 15:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Why did you remove the reference to Van Jones as a communist and his co-founding of Color of Change which is organizing the Glenn Beck boycott? ObserverNY (talk) 21:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

This has been discussed at great length in the "Expanded Detail" topic on this page. Basically, once we mention Color of Change and Van Jones, we have to include some other information (i.e., Van Jones has not been involved with Color of Change for several years, and is in the Obama Administration) to remain WP:NPOV, and that leaves us assigning undue weight to the controversy. Simply mentioning Van Jones implies that Jones was related to or the architect of the letter writing campaign, which is not suggested by any source that I have seen. Also, if you do wish to include Color of Change, you have to be sure to properly describe their role. They started a letter-writing campaign after the "Obama is a racist" remark, they didn't cause any advertisers to remove their ads. Despite the temptation to factually connect the two events to do so without proof (not opinion) is a logical fallacy. According to press releases from the companies whose ads have been removed, the reason was to avoid having their brands associated with Beck. Any claim that they had a strong influence, they led a boycott, etc... are opinions, and need to be directly attributed to the owner. MichaelLNorth (talk) 22:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The statement was duplication as Van Jones is already mentioned in the last sentence, though as described above.. inclusion is being questioned. Also, the statement removed "These remarks, combined with noting that that [Color of Change] co-founder and Green Czar [Van Jones] described himself as a communist, drew criticism, and resulted in a boycott promulgated by ColourofChange.org." is unsupported by the reference. I don't think we have anything that states that comments direct at Van Jones resulted in the boycott, and if we did, it would seem to be a minority view not worth including. The boycott was for his "racist" statement. Morphh ^(talk) 23:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both for your responses. I will read the other section and give it some thought. Regards, ObserverNY (talk) 00:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Okay, I've read over this talk page till I got a headache. But I don't think you can give TOO much weight to the Color of Change campaign to get advertisers to boycott the Glenn Beck Show. The following source states: "The campaign against Beck is being waged by a group called Color of Change, whose co-founder, Van Jones, is now Obama’s green-jobs czar...Not coincidentally, Beck has repeatedly singled out Van Jones for criticism, citing evidence of his communist past.". http://www.newswithviews.com/Kincaid/cliff343.htm Cliff Kinkaid could be considered a "scholarly" source. Opinion? ObserverNY (talk) 18:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

What are you trying to add as far as content or are you supporting the inclusion of the current statements regarding CoC and Van Jones? I don't have a problem with your source but I'm not sure our current source is lacking. We have in the article that Color of Change is the main player in the boycott, and we state that Van Jones was the co-founder, and state Beck's claim against Van Jones. Morphh ^(talk) 18:12, 01 September 2009 (UTC)

The article has changed since yesterday - I'm ok with the information that is included now. Let me know if you want me to add the above source as a secondary source. Thanks. ObserverNY (talk) 19:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

{{editsemiprotected}}

For example, in 2006, Beck made a self-proclaimed poorly worded question, "prove to me that you are not working with our enemies," and saying "And I know you're not. I'm not accusing you of being an enemy, but that's the way I feel" to Muslim congressman Keith Ellison, which resulted in protests from several Arab-American organizations. [27] Ellison later dismissed the comment.[28]

Awkward, needs rewrite?

In a 2006 interview, Beck seemed to challenge Muslim congressman Keith Ellison's patriotism, saying "Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies. And I know you're not. I'm not accusing you of being an enemy, but that's the way I feel."^[1] Although Beck regretted it as the "poorest-worded question of all time," ^[2] and Ellison dismissed it as "just shock TV," ^[3] it was met with protests from several Arab-American organizations.^[4]

DonCasablanca (talk) 03:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

"seemed to challenge" is original reserch, and POV. You may say "X felt that Beck challenged" but this is contradicted by both Beck and Ellisson's later comments on the matter which you have omitted which is also POV. Bytebear (talk) 03:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Suggested re-write - In 2006, Beck challenged Muslim congressman Keith Ellison to, "prove to me that you are not working with our enemies," and added "And I know you're not. I'm not accusing you of being an enemy, but that's the way I feel". Beck's remarks resulted in protests from several Arab-American organizations. [27] Ellison later dismissed the comment.

ObserverNY (talk) 13:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

  Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Celestra (talk) 05:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I added a short paragraph about Beck being awarded the key to the city he was born in, Mt. Vernon. It was covered by the Seattle PI and local media so it seems to be a notable event. I couldn't really find a suitable place to put this except the "live events" section so hopefully that is okay. Tgv8925 (talk) 10:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} "graduated high school" should read "graduated from high school".

✓ Done. Fixed. Thanks for spotting it. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The article states "Beck also is pro-life", should this not be put another way. eg. "opposed to abortion" or "part of the pro-life movement". The statement is somewhat ambiguous left how it is and is not a great way to start a paragraph using "also".

It seems by this discussion page that this whole page needs work. I am suprised it is locked. 194.116.198.179 (talk) 12:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Page is locked because every time it is opened, it is riddled with juvenile vandalism.E2a2j (talk) 18:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay that's why it's locked but the Pro-Life seems very POV as in everyone else must be "anti-life", so could do with some work. Lilydixon (talk) 08:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure, and then let's get rid of the blantantly POV terms "Democratic" and "Republican", which imply that their opponents are against democracy or want to bring kings back. Wikipedia calls people and groups what they call themselves. I don't consider myself "anti-choice" any more than you think you're "anti-life", but both sides' names are firmly established, so we have to live with it. ~ CZeke (talk) 07:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

No need to use sarcasm is there. "Democratic" & "Republician" are both used starting with upper-case letters and so maybe should the term Pro-life, infact that is how I commonly see it usedLilydixon (talk) 12:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Someone mind fixing the "see also" link in the article? Anons can't do it. 207.181.228.210 (talk) 14:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I had fixed it, but less constructive editors have messed it up again. I'll fix it now, along with one or two other tweaks the article needs. ʄ!•¿talk? 16:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Footnote 29, this article, does not at all source the claim that "Ellison later dismissed the comment." Based on this section of Ellison's bio I assume the original source was footnote 95 over there, a Star Trib article titled "For freshmen on Capitol Hill, it's the luck of the draw" which unfortunately is no longer available online, even through the Internet Archive apparently.

That statement needs to be sourced (the Star Trib article, even though it's not freely online, would be acceptable—I checked it on LexisNexis and the original said "Ellison shrugged off the TV host's insult" and then followed with his quote that "It's just shock TV. Some pundits think they have to ask the most outrageous questions."). But I'm not sure that's the right thing to say. There was one sentence in the main Minneapolis paper saying that Ellison "shrugged off the incident" (hardly surprising given that he's a politician who doesn't want to be in a brouhaha with a TV host), but in our article on Ellison we give his direct reply to Beck on air when we say, "Ellison replied that his constituents, 'know that I have a deep love and affection for my country. There's no one who's more patriotic than I am, and so you know, I don't need to — need to prove my patriotic stripes.'" (that's sourced to this transcript which is fine I think). Thus Ellison did not merely "dismiss" or even "shrug off" the comment, he replied directly to it and point-blank rejected Beck's request that he "prove" he is not working with America's enemies, saying his patriotic bona fides were well established.

If we're going to include a response from Ellison (which I'm not sure if even necessary—the strongest reaction came from other quarters, not from the Congressman) it should probably be more in those terms. At the very least we need to properly source our summary of his response, which currently we do not do. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree; you should make some kind of change in accordance with this. Croctotheface (talk) 07:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Relocating this thread from my talk page. Let's keep article talk here in one place.--

While we are on the subject of Glenn Beck, tell me how this statement from the source I provided is not sympathetic to intelligent design and the teaching of it:

"Others worry that this would inject environmentalism propaganda into the classroom. No, where would they get that crazy idea? In California? Never! Opponents want guarantees that the views of skeptics will be included. Oh, yeah, that's going to happen, yeah. Just like intelligent design, uh-huh, uh-huh, uh-huh. That's included in the science behind -- it was a big bang; it just started. Just, boom! "What happened before the Big Bang?" What was -- shhh, quiet. Wouldn't that be one of the theories in forgive me if my confidence is a little low on the, "We just want the opposite side, you know, to be able to be in there as well." Uh-huh."[5]

I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you didn't read the source properly(it is rambling I'll give you that), but quite frankly the contrarian attitude of some of the editors at the Glenn Beck article is wearing very thin. ʄ!•¿talk? 21:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I have read it, multiple times, and how you are able to synthesize a claim that Beck thinks anthropogenic climate change is analogous to creationism with the exception being that Beck want creationism forced onto the children I just can't fathom. Please read the source, Beck is comparing a specific bill before the California State Assembly to the shady tactics of the proponents of ID. Also, nowhere at all does the source mention Beck's position on ID, pro or con. You seem to be reading into the source things that it just does not say. L0b0t (talk) 22:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

What? Beck is saying that he would want alternatives to global warming presented along side global warming, the same way that intelligent design proponents want intelligent design to be presented as an alternative along side Darwinism. Plus you are misusing the term synthesis. It's not synthesis, I used one source. I'll wait for a reply. ʄ!•¿talk? 22:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Your latest characterization (above) is much more representative of the actual source. Synthesis is off base, how about original research, no where does the source put forward a comparison of anthropogenic climate change and intelligent design (which is what you claimed in the article). No where does the source mention Beck's opinion, pro or con, on intelligent design (you claimed in the article that Beck advocates the teaching of ID in schools). L0b0t (talk) 22:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)'

L0b0t — "no where does the source put forward a comparison of anthropogenic climate change and intelligent design"

Beck — "Opponents want guarantees that the views of skeptics[of global warming] will be included. Oh, yeah, that's going to happen, yeah. Just like intelligent design"

The rest speaks for itself. ʄ!•¿talk? 01:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's a compromise; although it seems clear to me that Beck is pro teaching intelligent design in the classroom in this extract, I'll concede his ranting, incoherent style somewhat obscures his intent. However, it is explicitly clear that he is making a comparison between global warming and ID. So I propose that, in reference to Beck's views on intelligent design, we put in the article:

"Beck has compared the issue of global warming to intelligent design, and has described the lack of acceptance of the latter as a result of "the arrogance of science".[6] ʄ!•¿talk? 01:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Still you are reading into sources things that are not there. You seem to be trying to advance a position that Beck equates the issue of anthropogenic climate change or "global warming" with the concept of intelligent design and further that he (earlier claim) supports the teaching of intelligent design in schools or (now) that ID has yet to catch on due to "scientific arrogance." The sources provided say no such thing. The first source has Beck talking about a specific bill in the state of California that would require public schools in that state to include climate change as part of their curricula. Beck then says of the bill "Opponents want guarantees that the views of skeptics[of global warming] will be included. Oh, yeah, that's going to happen, yeah. Just like intelligent design." He is drawing a comparison between the (in his opinion) Quixotic aims of the opponents of the bill (who want the views of climate change skeptics included) to the proponents of intelligent design (who claim that they just want to "teach the controversy"). The second source has Beck rambling on and on about the "arrogance of science" in the film I Am Legend. Again, Beck may very well hold the positions you claim he does but the 2 sources you have provided show no evidence that is the case. Another issue involves your reliance on primary sources if Beck really holds these views and if these views are notable they will have been written about in reliable, secondary sources. If they have not been written about in reliable, secondary sources then they are quite likely not worth inclusion in the type of general overview, encyclopedia article Wikipedia is aiming for. This is, after all, an encyclopedia entry not Glen Beck's biography, not a place to list every belief or opinion the man has, and certainly not a place to collect a record (exhaustive or otherwise) of stupid things the man has said. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 02:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

This is beyond a joke. Beck has explicitly stated both a comparison between global warming & ID(your blanket statements regarding the latter demonstrate further the fact that you do not actually understand what it is Beck is saying), and that the lack of acceptance of ID is the "arrogance of science" in the sources I have provided, yet you deny it point blank while it stares you right in the face. It beggars belief. And then make the weak claim that the subject's own opinion on a major political issue is not notable. Secondary sources are not needed to confirm what a person has already stated that they believe.

I think the thing I find most amusing about this is that you are trying desperately to censor Beck from himself. All the while citing policy that does not exist — basically making policy up on the fly. Quite honestly I think you have just demonstrated a total lack willingness to cooperate to improve this article. The only issue here is your obstructionism, and any erroneous appeals to policy are just being used to further the aim of obstructionism. ʄ!•¿talk? 03:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow, you really need to assume good faith and perhaps have a nice cup of tea. I certainly don't feel I'm being obstructionist (I don't feeeel tardy). I thought I was presenting cogent, reasoned, on-point argument based in policy & guideline but you feel differently so let's let other editors be heard. Are my posts on this talk page seen as disruptive or obstructionist by anyone else? Please, fellow editors, check out the sources posted by Fennessy and post your thoughts. Do the cited sources back up the claim that they are being cited for, to whit: "Beck has compared the issue of global warming to intelligent design, and is sympathetic to the latter being taught in science classroom". I contend the claim is not backed up by the sources; Fennessy claims my argument is lacking in substance, is pure obstructionism, and that the policy I cited, WP:PRIMARY, is nonexistent. I would really like to get some other views here. L0b0t (talk) 03:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The versions of WP:Notability & WP:PRIMARY that you have presented don't exist, I don't think. Look, to be confused by Beck's more ranting opinions is understandable — getting through a sentence of his can be a real task. But to deny things that he has clearly stated, with global warming directly juxtaposed with intelligent design, and an opinion on ID clearly spelled out? I Don't buy it. It is obviously an attempt to invoke a secondary source where one is not needed to clarify, in bad faith. At this point I'm not going to push any further for inclusion of it on the article: it speaks for itself and other editors can make up their own minds. ʄ!•¿talk? 04:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

ʄ!•¿talk? - your interpretation of Beck's statement is simply incorrect. He was merely indicating that the current non-politically correct opinions or "the views of skeptics" on subjects are not likely to be included, whether the subject is ID or global warming. Any attempt by you to compare and contrast the two issues is WP:Original Research and not admissible. ObserverNY (talk) 11:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

This section is being repeatedly deleted without justification, in my opinion, perhaps User:bytebear can explain to everyone why he thinks that quoting Glenn Beck talking about his surgery misrepresents what he said.

Glen Beck's flip flopping of health care (as well as many other issues) may be related to his three mental breakdowns which resulted in his commitment. The first time was after his mother and brother committed suicide. You can almost see his fourth mental breakdown coming righ on television. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vegasguy1948 (talk • contribs) 11:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

That's an interesting theory. Unfortunately it is original research and therefore unacceptable for Wikipedia. Even your assertion of "flip flopping" is an opinion relying on a synthesis of unrelated statements. Also, could you please put your comments at the bottom of the dialog as to make it easier to follow the conversation. Thanks. Bytebear (talk) 16:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Glen Beck has made healthcare a highly important cause on his opinion based talk show. He's been saying that America has the "best healthcare in the world" now...[7]. Yet, on a video that he himself posted after post-op, he said it was one of the most "eye opening experiences of my life", "phenomenally bad", "This should be an eye opening experience for all of us. This is one of the hospitals where the president of GE is going, if they don't care about the president of GE do you really think they care about shlums that are just average working stiffs?" *shakes head no*.[8]. Those are the very concerns that democrats are trying to address... it's a major change of view on a very important topic for him, and to erase it off the site shows that whoever is doing it is doing it to preserve the personal image of Glen Beck and not out of any kind of concern for neutrality. The fact that Jon Stewart or any liberal was the one who called him out on it does not mean that it didn't happen. When the information itself is self evident (as in the case of a self posted video), the source should not matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enemy010101 (talk • contribs) 11:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

In January, 2008 Beck, had a hemorrhoid surgery which he described as going "horribly awry"^[5], following the surgery he discussed what he believed to be lack of concern for patients in US hospitals ^[6]. However, in 2009 he called the US healthcare system "best health care system in the world"^[7]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paglew (talk • contribs) 18:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Why is this material being repeatedly deleted with no discussion? The sources are reliable.   Will Beback  talk  19:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's another source for his 2008 statements: Glenn Beck Releases YouTube Vid on His Botched Surgery, Says He Was "Full-Fledged Suicidal"   Will Beback  talk  19:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

It is a violation of WP:SYNTH and as such needs to be rewritten in a neutral way before it can be added. It also was using a liberal opinion source which cannot be used to declare conclusions. It also contradicts the first source which says that Beck considered the doctors the best in the world. It simply has too many problems to include as currently presented. Bytebear (talk) 19:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I also think it isn't particularly noteworthy, other than perhaps to say "Beck feels there needs to be more care in the health care business.". Bytebear (talk) 19:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The idea that a particular source is liberal is a matter of opinion, if a source is unreliable we can talk about that but its not up to you decide which sources are "liberal" and thus not usable - the article also cites fox news - should all of those sections be deleted because thats a conservative source ? Paglew (talk) 19:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I replaced that source and Bytebear deleted it anyway. Commenting on the change in view isn't SYNTH because it was discussed on a prominent TV program, The Daily Show, as reported here: [9]. That source says Beck said his surgery was an "eye-opening experience" and aired a segment about his "personal voyage through the nightmare that is our healthcare system". It's sufficiently notable that it's been noted across the Atlantic.  Will Beback  talk  19:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Bytebear's 'revision' is nothing but another whitewash designed to make Beck sound like a hero. Bytebear needs to read up on Synth. We presented two completely cited statements from Beck, in chronological order. That these two are easily read to present hypocrisy on Beck's part is not us declaring it to be hypocritical without citation, which would be SYNTH. We report, the reader decides. I'm pretty sure that's exactly the sort of media policy Beck himself ascribes to. It is clear that Bytebear needs to be evaluated for a topic ban. ThuranX (talk) 19:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's another article quoting Beck on health care:

• Indeed, Glenn Beck, the controversial Fox News commentator, alleged recently that health-care reform and other policies are "transforming America, and they're all driven by President Obama's thinking on one idea: reparations." [10]

That's Canadian, another example of the matter's noteworthiness.   Will Beback  talk  19:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Paglew replaced decent references it with worse more bias sources. WFT? THe source "http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/PainManagement/story?id=4101741&page=1" says:

"I had the best doctors," Beck said on "Good Morning America" today. "I had problem with medications."

This is a direct contradiction to the synth being pushed. Bytebear (talk) 19:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I replaced them so that I'm not "adding commentary" to the sources Paglew (talk) 19:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

And again if you think you can find better references go ahead - don't delete information everyone agrees is noteworthy Paglew (talk) 19:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I think ABC News is better than the "Kansas City Young Democrat Examiner" Bytebear (talk) 19:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's an entire Op-Ed column devoted to Beck's comments on health care. Clarence Page: Health reform is stealth slavery reparations? That's by prominent syndicated columnist Clarence Page.   Will Beback  talk  19:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

OpEds are not reliable sources unless we present them as opinions of noteworthiness. Is this person really noteworthy enough that we must include his opinion? Bytebear (talk) 19:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

He's won two Pulitzer Prizes, so he has a noteworthy opinion. See his bio on Wikipedia.   Will Beback  talk  20:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, I cleaned up the copy, and made it more neutral, actually summarizing what the articles said, and not making POV conclusions. I also removed the references to John Stewart which is not a reliable source. Bytebear (talk) 19:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted the latest version implemented by Bytebear, as it seeks to whitewash Beck, and make his comments looking completely consistent over time, which is clearly refuted by multiple commentators and reports. This is getting beyond tiresome; it is a demonstration of a campaign of obstructionism and white-washing which will never abate. It was demonstrated earlier this week that Bytebear has a serious loyalty issue to Beck for a number of reasons, and therefore cannot be counted on to ever act as a Wikipedia editor first and all other things second on this article. Therefore, I will be reporting his actions today to the 3RR board, and suggest that someone take this to AN or AN/I for a topic ban decided upon by the community. ThuranX (talk) 19:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Yet, you have not read the sources, have you? My copy was simply a summary of the sources presented. Why do you feel you have to push your POV. I pretty much just quoted the article. In fact, all the quotes are from Beck directly, so I don't know how I can be white-washing anything. You do what you think you must, but I think you are the one pushing POV. Bytebear (talk) 19:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Seriously - hemorrhoid surgery? How is this notable or worth including in an encyclopedic biography? What does this relate too? And it surely doesn't deserve enough weight to justify it's own section (see article structure). Morphh ^(talk) 20:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

oh, come on, don't you know our goal. "we need to include more, since it seems no one's yet cataloged his idiocies and written about them directly, though I'm working on finding such articles." - ThuranX (that says it all.) Bytebear (talk) 20:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

For an editor insistent on context, you're sure a DICK when it comes to ignoring it when it suits you. That statement, full well, was that more on his controversies in general needs to be included because no one has a laundry list of individual sins by Beck, though coke snorting and whoremongering are among them. So hypocritical of you to insist we only quote an entire show of Beck's to be fair to him, but you dont' mind paraphrasing and chopping up other editors. ThuranX (talk) 20:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The surgery isn't notable. Beck's statements about health care are.   Will Beback  talk  20:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. His statements demonstrate an obvious inconsistency, a fact noted by commentators elsewhere, and simply presented here without commentator biases here ,for others to make their own decisions. ThuranX (talk) 20:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I have reported Bytebear for Edit Warring. ThuranX (talk) 20:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

So this is a criticism about inconsistency with regard to Health Care. And again, how is this important or related to his notability. It seems like SYN to present it as it was, after all, saying you had a shitty experience doesn't make other health care systems better (you can have a bad experience in the best health care system in the world after all - it's not immune). So even if we did find this to be something significant worth including in a biography, it should be clear that it is someones opinion that he's inconsistent. In any case, it just seems like recent news and trivia, hardly worth including in my opinion. Morphh ^(talk) 20:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with Morphh. Soxwon (talk) 20:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked both Bytebear and ThuranX for edit warring. The former has reverted 7 times in less than 24 hours (which is completely out of control), the latter 4 (which is still a serious problem). Edit warring is a longstanding pattern on this article, and in my view Bytebear has been a particularly problematic editor in that regard (they should have been blocked for it back at the end of July but no one reported it). But edit warring is unacceptable no matter who does it, and if this kind of thing flares up again I (or another admin) will not hesitate to protect the page for an extended period of time. I've read through a lot of this talk page from the last month and there is actually some good, collegial discussion (as well as a lot of stuff that is very problematic). Some progress seems to have been made in the last week or so. Let's try to keep that up. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Glenn Beck is a talkshow host, I would think that to have a quality article on a talkshow host its a good idea to discuss in detail, his coverage of current events. This would include among other things, his views on health care, and how they have changed over years. The statement about health care that Bytebear wrote, does not describe Beck's coverage of the issue - it simply retells his most recent view of health care, it says nothing about the fact that he know calls the system the "best in the world". This article also fails to discuss various other positions he has taken - his support for the death panel idea for example. I think it would be a good idea to actually discuss his views in this article, rather than avoid any and all statements that might in someone's view be taken to be negative. Pointing out that someone has expressed support for discussion of death panels is not negative or positive it is a statement of fact that is relevant to this article.Paglew (talk) 21:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

But this isn't about death panels or any other views. Atm, this is about your inclusion of non-notable and unneeded information regarding one bad experience and then his statements on healthcare. So he had a bad experience? This is about trying to make Beck look like a hypocrite and promoting a fringe POV. Soxwon (talk) 22:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

So would you be fine with including something about the death panels, then? This isn't about his bad experience its about his coverage of health care, why do you think his coverage of health care is not notable ? He thought it was notable, he gave interviews about how his coverage of health care will change after the surgery. Also what constitutes "fringe" POV in your opinion? Paglew (talk) 22:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you didn't try to put words in my mouth or spin what I said. The heading (in case you couldn't read) said change in view of healthcare. This is what Bytebear and Thuran X edit-warred over and is the material you have been inserting. Frankly your attempts to try and spin what I said about your edits to the article to apply to anything further are both dishonest and annoying. When I said fringe POV I made it clear that I was talking about his bad experience at the hospital. You are the one who brought up death panels and his broader view of healthcare. I addressed neither, nor did I mark them as fringe. I merely stated that your attempt to make Beck look like a hypocrite was fringe. If you want to discuss them, fine, start a new section. Soxwon (talk) 22:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Please ease up a bit on the rhetoric Soxwon. I see nothing "dishonest" in Paglew's previous comment, and regardless that's a serious accusation to make. Also since that editor started this section, commenting "The heading (in case you couldn't read)..." seems a bit off, though suggesting others can't read is pretty much never constructive. Please try to take the temperatures down a bit. I'm not taking a view on this issue, but clearly there is room for legitimate debate as to whether something about this should be included. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Would putting his surgery in the "personal life" section be less contentious than trying to connect it to his political views on health care? The Homosexualist (talk) 22:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The question then becomes why? It's a botched surgery, hardly notable. Soxwon (talk) 22:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I know what the title of this section is, I started it. I bring up death panels because the health care issue is part of a larger problem with this article of not discussing how he covers the news on this show. Why don't you think that its a good idea for the article to mention these things including his views on healthcare? Your opinion that pointing out his apparent change of opinion on healthcare is a "fringe" is your personal opinion, many people disagree, if you google "glenn beck surgery" you will find many people who don't see this as a fringe. Paglew (talk) 23:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Also how is the surgery not notable and his "commentary on the yearly Gasparilla Pirate Festival parade" notable? Paglew (talk) 23:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Google Obama birth certificate, you'll find a number of people who think he was born in Kenya. You need significant sources, not google hits. And if you feel that Gasparilla Pirate Festival parade isn't notable then remove it, I never said I felt it was notable so please don't insinuate as much. Soxwon (talk) 23:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

In general, I'm not sure how significant this comment on healthcare is to Glen Beck's overall political positions. Wikipedia is not a indiscriminate collection of information (see WP:NOTNEWS). He's talking about it now as it's the news, but looking at his books and history, there are much more significant political philosophies that define his views and are much more notable. For example, his strong positions on original intent on the Constitution, federalism, and fiscal responsibility (absent from the article). You could probably sum up his view on healthcare as that it shouldn't be run by the government. Looking at our talk page and some of the recent changes, I note that we removed a section on the 9/12 project and reduced it to a sentence (due to complaints that it was not notable enough). To put this in perspective, the 9/12 project content was not criticism or praise (so it did not have the same strict requirements for inclusion as material discussed here). This is a project created by Beck, using values and principles he extols, has it's own website, and thousands of followers. He promotes the project often and is promoting a 9/12 march on DC. This has one sentence. In fact, looking at the article, it doesn't even mention Beck's company Mercury Radio Arts (publisher of that website) that produces or co-produces his radio, TV, live events, publishing and digital media projects with a full time staff of 20 employees. So in relation to the content, this is not notable to Beck and giving undue weight with respect to views and with respect to criticism. Morphh ^(talk) 13:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I have restored the version of this section worked on by multiple editors trying to find a consensus formed version of this material, instead of the version Bytebear continues to push. Iv'e added a source to support hte 'botched' as well. ThuranX (talk) 04:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

This isn't just Bytebear, other's disagree as to whether or not this belongs in the article, so please leave it out per WP:BLP until a conlcusion has been reached. And really Bytebear is right. Unless you can find something other than the The Daily Show or blogs quoting it, you can't justify the presence of said material per general consensus Soxwon (talk) 04:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

You say 'leave it out per BLP', by reverting to a titanically POV SOAPBOX? You can't possibly expect me to take anything you say or do from now on in any sort of Good Faith. That sort of blatant POV shove and hypocrisy doesn't serve any useful purpose here. Either take it ALL out till it gets settled, or leave it per the revert I'm about to do. Your attitude here is of a total edit warring sort, and if that's what you want, just say so here. ThuranX (talk) 06:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• sigh* I will say it again, the current version is properly sourced to reliable third party sources. The version you keep reverting to is a couple of Jon Stewart videos on blogs. Jon Stewart and blogs are both considered non-reliable per the source I posted above. There is also a link to The New York Observer, hardly a neutral or mainstream source. If you want it removed, then fine, but your reasoning seems to be that it's biased b/c it's properly sourced. Soxwon (talk) 06:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

(Two edit conflicts)No we don't. Have you looked at them?Only one of the sources mentions Stewart, and doesn't link to his videos, but to four of BECK HIMSELF. That last source examines Stewart's characterization using beck's own words and actions and concludes that the reversal of attitudes exists. If you can't be bothered to read the sources, and instead again insist on your blinding whitewash and abuse of WP:SOAPBOX in the article, then please go find a new hobby, because you are thoroughly unsuited to editing here. I'm sure you can find a more agreeable crowd at LFG or with the Freepers. You aren't even bothering to examine the sources, you're reverting because you, like Bytebear, are more interested in seeing an article that lionizes Beck as an American hero, than seeing one that demonstrates the man using reliable sources. I'm not going to revert again right now, I'll give you some time to read the sources, and take one honest stab at actually fixing your mistake. If it's not fixed soon though, I will restore the more balanced, better sourced version. ThuranX (talk) 06:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

As to the changes you made while I was replying, (I love having the goalposts moved.) The Observer's just fine for what it's used for - sourcing Beck's statements. ThuranX (talk) 06:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

First of all, settle down and take a deep breath. Second, the sources you have provided are blogs as I said before, they aren't useful for establishing WP:DUE. And really, sources basing arguments off of a show considered to be a non-reliable source usually don't pass the reliability test themselves... You need more than youtube videos, blogs, and clips of Jon Stewart, where is the NYT or other news source covering this story? Why is it being brought up? I keep asking this and it never seems to get answered. Soxwon (talk) 06:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

That you cannot be bothered to read any of the sources, instead relying on what someone else told you to think shows you are unworthy of further replies, and no longer worthy of AGF. You cannot take any of the comment on this matter seriously enough to read them, so why should anyone do that for you? I certainly won't any more. ThuranX (talk) 07:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I admit, I goofed on the second source, he does contradict Stewart, yet he's still basing the argument off of a non-reliable, non-notable source. As for the first, I did read it (though I skipped the videos), and it seemed to be nothing but a blog reporting on the Daily Show and agreeing with it. But anyhow, if that is your response then I guess the article stays as it is, as you've yet to give good reason for it to be changed. Tell me, why should blog's opinions and the New York Observer matter? That's what you fail to point out. Simply point out why they matter or a third party source saying that the incident matters. That's all you need to do. Soxwon (talk) 07:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

And, for the record, here's four out of five sources, from this very project. The New York Observer, The Guardian, FOX News, ABC News - not one is a partisan blog, youtube clip NOT of Beck himself, or a clip of Jon Stewart. In fact, as I already said, there are NO fucking clips of Jon Stewart here. Only the Examiner then, is left for any discussion, and given the inordinate bad faith you insist on operating with, I'm not having that discussion with you. ThuranX (talk) 07:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Read them, The Guardian link is a blog (Deadline Usa, hell it says blog right underneath) and the Examiner could potentially have anyone on its staff, hardly credible. I didn't question the Fox link or the ABC and they are still in the article. The New York Observer one raises red flags as it simply comments on his health, making no mention of the supposed double standard and doesn't seem that notable. Soxwon (talk) 07:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, Thuran, to sum up, I don't think that using two blogs (or rather, a blog and a newspaper that anyone can write) is a good idea, considering that A) They are basing their articles off of a non-noteworthy source (whether they agree or disagree, the reason for writing is tied to something that wasn't newsworthy) and B) They aren't newsworthy themselves. I also don't think using The New York Observer is a good idea, as it's non-noteworthy (a short blurb on Beck recovering). If you are using it for the video, why? If you would like my full support for inclusion, just explain why the pieces are notable and don't violate WP:DUE.Soxwon (talk) 07:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Like Bytebear, you are confused on two points: One, Wikipedia doesn't need your permission to report accurate facts. Consensus is not unanimity. Two, You intend to keep moving the goalposts further and further, so that no matter how many sources are found, they will never be enough. As such, your position as obstructionist on behalf of Mr. Beck is made clear, and I think that every editor here in favor of a balanced article can and should disregard you from now on. You have made no effort to bring the article into line with the numerous editors who have commented on the need for this section. instead you are relying on a version that says 'Democrats hate the real America' as your alternative, believing that reprinting Beck's bombast here creates a neutral article and not a SOAPBOX. I am not going to waste my time, nor the time of other editors interested in creating strong articles, on a second Civil POV Pusher, it's a waste of our time, and you have made it clear already that thee is no comment about Glenn Beck you will allow into this article which does anything less than praise him as the second coming. Your biases are rampant and abound here. ThuranX (talk) 16:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I read through the sources and read both versions. I still don't think this year and a half old comment on his surgery is worth including, either version - I think we should delete the entire section. While ThuranX provided some sources for each particular statement, the entire thing rests on John Stewart's criticism as the sole basis for inclusion of this WP:SYN of information. Two sources, one from the UK (DeadLineUSA Blog) and the other (Examiner) criticizes Stewart's analysis. In any case, this is not relevant to his notability, it's barely even news. Morphh ^(talk) 0:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Given that Glenn Beck is a talk show host, his views on issues are notable, since talking about his views is what he does, that is want he is known for, that includes his views on health care - at the very least this article should include the criticisms he made of the current proposals - that they won't increase the compassion in hospitals is one (this is already in the article), his belief that Sarah Palin was may be right about death panels, the idea that this is more big government and will serve to rob Americans of freedom in the long run. Not to sound like a broken record but - a talk show host's views are always notable, since expressing his views is what he is known for, that is what he does, thats all he does. It doesn't make sense to say that his view on something should not be in the article because it might make him look bad and is therefore POV. Reporting facts about his show is not POV, excluding facts in an effort to make him sound more appealing is. I'm not saying we should only include his more controversial views, we should include as much as possible to give the reader a comprehensive understanding of how Glenn Beck discusses current events and that includes ideas that most people would agree with as well as contraversial ideas. Paglew (talk) 05:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

But which views are notable? Beck talks about a lot of different topics? Why is there nothing about the Automaker Bailout? Why are there no reviews of his Christmas book? Why is there nothing about his tribute to Gordon B. Hinkley. You are picking and choosing which issues you want to present, and that gives a skewed view of Beck, and it is a violation of several Wikipedia policies. Bytebear (talk) 16:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, the old 'Other crap doesn't exist' argument. You should find reliable sources for all of those things if you feel they're important, and propose their inclusion. Their absence is not an argument for absenting that which is present, that's one of the weakest arguments for anything, ever. ThuranX (talk) 17:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we could include part of this story, but not as it is current presented (either version). If included, it should be tied to his personal section and relevance as related to "I had one of the darker moments of my life." I don't see any justification with the references provided that this should be part of politics, criticism, or any notable position in the health care debate. I think we should include his primary political philosophies as well as significant views and criticism. There is quite a bit documented about is core political philosophies in his published books and elsewhere. For example, see the chapters listed in his latest book Common Sense. A summary of these type of political views are what we should include as it describes his overall philosophies. There may be particular specific issues that do reach a level of weight worth including, we'd need to look at the weight from reliable sources. Some of the topics in An Inconvenient Book may be a start. But as for this particular view, unless this supposed contradiction criticism reaches a level where we can easily source it as part of Beck's notability, I don't see that it is anything we should cover as a political position or criticism. I don't think there is enough coverage on this topic in relation to other political positions to justify inclusion - it looks like an insignificant position in the historical biography of Glenn Beck. Morphh ^(talk) 17:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

So... his hypocrisy, demonstrated and criticized by other WP:RS, isn't enough? Then I think you've successfully rewritten WP:NOTE, WP:RS and BLP, all at once. How interesting. This is relevant, well sourced material, and I'm sick of entertaining the Civil POV Push circular logic, which goes 'not enough sources, these new sources suck, it's not notable, there aren't enough sources'. It's the epitome of the CPP and we're stuck in it, because, as the IP below describes, some fanboys are in love with Glenn Beck, and unwilling to write a balanced article. ThuranX (talk) 05:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

ThuranX, you stated above that you were not interested in adding every tiny incident. WP:RS is one requirement, but not the only requirement, as you well know. NPOV requires that the view not be held by a tiny minority and BLP requires that the criticism be relevant to his notability. No one is discussing WP:NOTE - we're not creating a new article. At this point, we only have two sources for this criticism reporting the view of a single person (John Stewart). One source is from outside the country (UK) and the other is not criticizing Beck for the supposed contradiction, but Stewart's analysis. The additional references in the statements don't support the criticism's notability, just the surgery or a recent comment on health care. It's a form of WP:SYN giving the illusion that it is well sourced, but the inclusion is really only supported by a comedic analysis of John Stewart, which was then itself criticized. The story is so insignificant to his biography, I'm surprised we're still even talking about it. I'll also note again - no personal attacks policy. Morphh ^(talk) 13:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Note NPA all you want. When I actually violate it, we can worry about it. I said 'I don't want every tiny incident' meaning every dumb thing he says, catalogexc and sourced to his broadcasts, which is what a gotcha journalism/hit piece on the man would be. I want legitimate criticism of the man. First, the idea the Jon Stewart's criticism isn't legitimate has no logical basis. Second ,the article about Stewart's criticism CONCURS with it, it did not contradict it, thus bolstering his assessments. And that's just ONE notable story being objected to here, there is still the matter of the ColorOfChange protests, which were also objected to by Bytebear. This page is suffering from obstructionism, and the main offenders are you and Bytebear. I really, honestly, cannot find any more AGF for you, Morphh. It's clear to me that you went from 'trying to mediate' to sympathy for Bytebear and just blanket supporting him. That makes it impossible to take you seriously anymore. Everything he ssays, you say 'no, we should listen to him', and by 'listen' you mean 'acquiesce to'. It's not how business gets done here. CIVIL and AGF do NOT trump building consensus and intergrating material. Please think about why you're really at this page before making any more comments insisting we all kowtow to Bytebear. Thanks. ThuranX (talk) 17:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, you aren't even stating what the sources are saying. One of the source articles it titled "Democrats' Health Care Plan Is Not About 'Health' or 'Caring'" and yet, you want to remove that from the page? Instead of trying to promote what you think is hypocrisy, find a reliable source that says it. And John Stewart is not it. Bytebear (talk) 18:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I've stated above that I don't think we should include Bytebear's version either. Also, I'm not going to agree or disagree for the sake of being someone's ally or opponent. I make my own arguments, regardless of what bytebear does or does not state. He could leave and I'd say the exact same thing. This is not guilt by association and you can't deflect my arguments by doing so. The ColorOfChange protests are already in the article, I worked to include them. There is a huge difference between the amount of attention and media given to those incidents vs this one. I never said that Jon Stewart's criticism wasn't legitimate, it may or may not be.. irrelevant as a measure for inclusion. As far as the source, the quote from the Examiner states "What the clips reveal is that Beck is slightly more consistent than Stewart makes out."; the article then goes on to say why and then he does his own critique of Beck's healthcare analysis. I only mention it as it's being used to source that he's inconsistent. Beck did discuss it today[11] refuting Jon Stewart. These people earn their living criticizing other people. Jon Stewart makes criticism every night, should we run around wikipedia adding an entry to every person he criticized the night before? Glenn Beck criticizes people every day, should we run around wikipedia adding an entry to every person he criticizes? No and Hell No. I don't care if your left, right, up or down. It doesn't follow policy and makes no sense. This is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid newspaper, media matters, or some list of gaffs, contradictions, and inaccuracies. This is why we have strict rules on BLP for including such content. We don't add every little criticism we find in a reliable source, for any biography. We apply WP:WEIGHT and determine if it reaches a level worth including by BLP standards. "The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article." I (not Bytebear's meatpuppet) think this is a tiny minority viewpoint that has not reach a level of media attention to be relevant to his notability. Morphh ^(talk) 18:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, simply not what I see you doing. You are in complete agreement with Bytebear on this matter, despite your comment that you are not. You don't think he's a hypocrite, and you refuse to actually discuss it. Your arguments haven't changed, and you're enabling Bytebear's circular pattern of resistance. I can prove this - you had no problem letting the 'Beck says the democrats are doing ABCDE' SOAPBOXing comment sit on this page for days without objection. That's absolutely proof that you have no interest in actually 'moderating', instead preferring to help Bytebear get his way. I have again removed it, replacing it with a version which has more, better citation, and doesn't rely on some ridiculous attack on democrats. ThuranX (talk) 18:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow, if I only had the power you claim I possess. Is this just a fight to not let me get my way? Even if it meets consensus? Bytebear (talk) 19:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Believe whatever you want ThuranX - I frankly don't care. I'm not a moderator here and never claimed to be. I haven't refused to discuss anything and I haven't express any thought on Bytebear's actions one way or another, so don't tell me what I think. His actions and your actions are visible for all to see and evaluate. I'll stick to the article content and refrain from personal attacks on other editors. I have not reverted either version of the content and have not yet engaged in your edit war, so I'm not sure how you can "prove it" by what I didn't revert. I've stated both versions are improper and when I do act, I'll delete the entire section, but I thought we should discuss it properly first so we didn't end up in a three version edit war. Be clear though, "the burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material, and this is especially true for material regarding living persons. Therefore, an editor should be able to demonstrate that such material complies with all Wikipedia content policies and guidelines." Unlike the other material, you have not demonstrated that this material complies with the polices I've outlined, and thus will be removed. Morphh ^(talk) 19:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll be restoring the material, which has a number of editors on this talk page convinced it it both relevant and more than adequately sourced. Multiple IP editors, Paglew, Will Beback and more all find the material relevant and properly sourced; the only response has been 'It's mean to include coverage of Glenn Beck's detachment from the reality of the things he himself says, and that's mean and violates BLP to be mean to people' and a spurious 'you don't have enough sources'. We have the sources, we have the material, and there is plenty of support for it. We have gone round and round on this pointlessly, Morphh's personal political biases are quite clear, as I have pointed out about, and he is not acting in the manner of a 'neutral mediator', despite his claims to that effect. As well, I will be adding the above material about his characterization of any Health Care reform as a form of slavery reparations, as it's getting international coverage, and should also be mentioned. ThuranX (talk) 21:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you and keep up the good work. Without some editors persistently representing the other side of these arguments I fear this article will slowly slip back to being a one-sided view of Glenn Beck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.202.239.54 (talk) 21:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The current version does not include Beck's pov (NPOV violation), presents the material in a way to push a viewpoint (NPOV & SYN), and gives it too much weight in a biography (NPOV & BLP). How is this not apparent? Morphh ^(talk) 21:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

MOderators need to crack down on this page and keep the fanboys at bay. The present condition of the Healthcare section is a complete midrepresentation. 1) Beck not only said our system didn't treat patients well, he opined that his boss could get top notch treatment, while regular people can't. He effectively called for health care reform that treated people equally and compassionately. Now he has done a complete 180, and says we have the best health care system in the world. If people can't see the contradtiction here, there is a problem. It also points to a deeper issue, MR. beck doesn't care about his own posiiton. He is just seeing which way the conservative winds blow, and going in that direction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.110.167 (talk) 15:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The edit warring over this really needs to stop, which does not seem to be happening. Per Wikipedia policies, I would suggest that the "burden of proof," so to speak, lies with those who want to include the "health care" material. There is a problem with the sourcing in my view. I'm a major fan of The Daily Show, and I thought the bit about Beck and health care was hilarious, but the sources at this point amount to little more than (fairly surface) reaction to that comedy bit. It's a blip on the radar in terms of Beck's career, so it seems hard to justify its inclusion in the article as it currently stands.

I think it would be a lot easier to justify discussing the health care thing if the "political views" section was far more fleshed out, or if there was an article called Political positions of Glenn Beck (I don't know that there's much precedent for that though, most of our "political positions" articles seem reserved for presidential candidates). This guy has expressed his views all over the place (that's what he gets paid for), but we do little to catalog them. If his bio (or a sub-article) fleshed out his own views as evidenced on his various programs, in his books, etc., then I think the critique offered by Stewart would be much more ripe for inclusion.

Without Stewart's commentary (and the reactions to it, which is what we are sourcing right now), there's a major WP:SYNTH problem in discussing the cited statements on health care, as we're simply juxtaposing an older Beck statement and a newer one and saying "see, they're different!" Another way to better argue for inclusion of the material is to find other secondary sources (beyond those referring primarily to the Daily Show bit) which comment on Beck's apparent shift in position or, even better, do that and flesh out his overall health care position in more detail. So far I'm not seeing that. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The current statement "Glenn Beck has suggested that Health Care reform is a means by which Obama can effect reparations for slavery.", would seem to be already covered in the Media persona section above it "Beck argued that reparations for blacks was driving President Barack Obama's agenda". Need for duplication? Also, BLP states that "subsection headings should reflect important areas to the subject's notability." Is Beck's health care position important to his notability? Morphh ^(talk) 14:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

So now you argue that we should entirely eliminate the section because the edit warring by a small number (Bytebear, Morphh, Soxwon) has managed to bog it down so badly that it suddenly is no longer notable? This is getting more ridiculous each day. Beck's been ranting for weeks about health care, it's been demonstrated many times on this page and in the article by citation after citation that there's a large volume of coverage, but because none of those are good enough for the three of you, you now argue it's entirely not notable? Will you next assert we have always been at was with Eastasia, and allied with Eurasia? ThuranX (talk) 18:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I reverted it once and I'm edit waring? I have not seen citation after citation that there's a large volume of coverage, otherwise I would support the inclusion. I've seen citations supporting different aspects related to healthcare positions (which are fine as factual statements), but few regarding the opinion of hypocrisy, which is what I was concerned with substantiating. Since the sufficiently supported context was only their for the weakly supported hypocrisy statement, I thought it should all be removed until evidence was presented that address the BLP concerns on that criticism. What I described above was the section heading, which should be removed so that the content just falls under political views. While I'm fine with the current statement, it is already present in the section above it, so I don't see the point of including it again. Morphh ^(talk) 18:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

If you are really just saying to collapse the health care section's one line into his larger political views section until it's rebuilt, then I apologize. I read your comments to be your standard 'protect Beck' style. ThuranX (talk) 19:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was referring to the section header not being important to his notability, creating potential issues with article structure as defined in BLP. I removed that header and also removed the Gun rights header (same issue). I then stripped the gun rights section for undue weight. Each of these things would probably be fine with another sentence if we keep it neutral and just state his political view. I do think it more important though that we cover his core political philosophies. Most of his individual positions can be summed up with an overall understanding of his views. The only individual positions that I think should be included are ones that he or others make significant over his career. What are his pet issues or has he been highly criticized for his position on particular issues. These are the types of things that I think we should try to include wherever they best fit. Morphh ^(talk) 19:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I notice other Wiki Biographies have sections about the subject's health. Was wondering why nothing was here regarding Glenn Beck's mental health? Reliefappearance (talk) 22:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Because it doesn't matter if Lou Gherig had a disease named after him? Soxwon (talk) 22:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The mention of ADHD is sufficient as sourced. Anything else would likely be speculating about his mental health which would violate BLP. (And believe I'm very far from a fan of Glenn Beck)--T. Anthony (talk) 09:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Considering Reliefappearance has diagnosed Glenn Beck as a "psychotic right wing lunatic", over at TALK:Van Jones, maybe he/she has a doctorate in psychiatry and has personally analyzed Mr. Beck. Has your work been peer-reviewed Reliefappearance? Does it appear in any scholarly journals? If not, quit pushing your WP:POV ObserverNY (talk) 16:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Wouldn't that be DSM IV 293.81? Fences&Windows 21:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I had added an additional sentence plus a reference regarding Glenn Beck's "commentary" about Van Jones. What I got were a lot of excuses as to why they shouldn't be included, typical to what I've come to expect from this article, including appeals to WP:RS, and WP:UNDUE. This is despite the fact that Media Matters for America is a valid source according to WP:RS. I feel like we are taking a step backwards here, as pro-beck editors have before on this article demonstrated a misunderstanding(deliberate or otherwise) of what a reliable source is. Also to address the alleged undue issue — Beck believes, in his own words, that Van Jones is going to lead a military take over of the United States. If that's not notable, nothing is. Use this source([12]) if you like, I don't mind. Straight from the horses mouth. ʄ!•¿talk? 17:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

No, MMFA is not a sign of due weight per WP:RS/N. Soxwon (talk) 17:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Why on earth do you keep referring to the admin noticeboard? It mentions neither Beck nor Media matters, and besides, that isn't policy. By the way a left leaning opinion is a significant opinion; otherwise you would have a president McCain. ʄ!•¿talk? 17:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Another thing Soxwon — try making your edit summaries([13]) conform to WP:civility if you don't wish to draw negative attention to yourself. ʄ!•¿talk? 17:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

What's the point of all the extra verbiage on Van Jones? Put it in the Van Jones article, not the Beck article. How does it improve this article, we already include enough of Beck's thoughts on Van Jones in here. There is no need for another sentences on what Beck thinks of this guy. Jones is barely even tied to the incident. I don't see how this is pro or anti-Beck. It's just a matter of editorial judgment on what is proper to include in a biography of Glenn Beck. Morphh ^(talk) 19:33, 03 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Morph on this one. Perhaps the most notable thing about Jones, relating to the content we meant to include, is that he is barely even related to the removal of ads from Beck's programming. There's no need to include more detail other than Beck attacked him, and that he was previously involved with Color of Change, but has been doing other things long enough that he couldn't possibly be responsible for the letter writing campaign. MichaelLNorth (talk) 20:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

While I think that accusing a person who founded an organisation that is responsible for having a negative impact on his career of going to launch a military take over of the country is one of the most wild and incredible remarks uttered in mainstream political discourse in a western country, I'll respect consensus. ʄ!•¿talk? 21:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Should something be mentioned that Jones admitted to the statements Beck accused him of making, and that Jones resigned his position (as Beck had suggested). If we are going to mention the Jones controversy, shouldn't we report all of it? Bytebear (talk) 04:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The reason to include Van Jones at all, was that it was strange for Beck to (seemingly) retaliate against someone who had been uninvolved with Color of Change for several years. Simply tacking on info about Jones resigning either has something to do with Beck or it doesn't. If it does, we should say that it does (i.e., the "pressure" was from Beck) and properly source it's direct connection to the subject of this article. If it doesn't, take it out of the article. If people want to read about Van Jones' resignation, they'll go to his article, not this one. MichaelLNorth (talk) 22:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, you know me. I think the whole incident is not noteworthy, but if Beck did bring up Jones' background because of the boycotts, which according to some comments on that articles talk page may be tangential, and as such, the two incidents (the boycotts and the Van Jones background revelations) are unrelated. Regardless, there are several news sources giving credit to Beck for bringing Jones' background to the forefront, and as such it holds as much (or as little, depending on your perspective) as the rest of the information in that section. Bytebear (talk) 05:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't Glenn Beck's involvement in the FIRING of the dangerous would be revolutionary Van Jones be mentioned at the end of the bit about calling Obama a racist? - 71.109.157.5

Explain to me how the two events are in any way connected. MichaelLNorth (talk) 22:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Bytebear, WND is [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=109041 taking full credit] for their "first White House Casualty". Information is still coming out with respect to this, but it is certainly indicative that Beck was not the sole driving force here.

I propose eliminating anything more than Beck's "response" (although I still believe Van Jones was the wrong target) relating to Van Jones. People can click on the link to Jones' page to learn more about his resignation, as that has everything to do with him and little to nothing to do with Beck. Any objections? MichaelLNorth (talk) 06:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I agree with your assesment. But if Beck is not responsible for the Van Jones uproar, why are we portraying in the article that he lashed out against Jones solely because of the Color of Change connection and the boycotts? If Jones was being controversial already, why would Beck's comments be any more than the natural flow of news, and not a retaliation for the boycotts. it just smells of convenient synergy. Bytebear (talk) 19:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer to remove all references to Jones if it were up to me. I have said before that it implies a connection when there is none. I think that part of the confusion has to do with the fact that Beck's first show after the first advertisers bailed, and after he returned from his vacation, was largely about Jones. This does necessarily not indicate that the events are connected. However, other editors believe that Beck attacked Jones due to his former involvement with Color of Change (so it would be kind of a "tit for tat" type of thing, and therefore relevant). There are sources that assert this, but obviously there's no way to prove what Beck intended. For now I will make the change that is less disputed, and leave the one reference. MichaelLNorth (talk) 20:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with removing the Jones reference altogether. I think if we had definitive correlation it might be allowable, but given that other media are claiming that they were the first to report it, it seems the early reports are now contradicting more recent assertions. Bytebear (talk) 20:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Removed. It makes a much more sense now. MichaelLNorth (talk) 20:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

A point was raised by another editor (albeit via an edit summary) that while Beck claims to be a Libertarian, his views are much closer to Conservative on issues like abortion, religion, drugs, foreign policy, and national defense. Others on this page have alleged that libertarian is what conservatives call themselves when they want to appear to not be a conservative. Our main source for calling him a libertarian is his own self-description. However, if he called himself a liberal, an african american or a dog, we obviously wouldn't be able to put it in the article as fact. I suggest we remove the "fact" that he's a libertarian from the article, and let the political views section of the article describe his stance on issues. MichaelLNorth (talk) 01:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Keith Olbermann claims he isn't a liberal, and that is mentioned in his page. I suggest instead that we include it, as "Glenn Beck says he libertarian, though he is often called conservative" kind of thing. Soxwon (talk) 01:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. Let's call a spade a spade. Olbermann is a liberal by virtue of his political views, not because of what he declares himself to be. I'll make the change on Beck's page, although it will involve removing "Libertarian" from his info box (there's no room for a stipulation there). MichaelLNorth (talk) 01:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I found an interview earlier where he states his political position, and that is now quoted in the political views section; please leave it in! As for whether he really is a libertarian or a conservative - please look at what reliable sources have to say about this rather than using your own analysis. I know it's tempting to say, "But Beck can't be libertarian because of x, y, z", but that's using your own judgement of what it means to be libertarian. We call spades spades only if reliable sources call them spades! Fences&Windows 02:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) In the "Reflections" section in this month's (Sep 2009} issue of Liberty magazine, Ross Levatter raises this issue. Bringing up incidents where Beck has had libertarian guests (Sheldon Richman) and treated them shabbily, or had on apparatchiks (Ron Sparks (politician)) and agreed with them wholeheartedly. This does come from an editorial section but it demonstrates that the topic has been raised and Beck's libertarian views are being questioned by libertarians in a libertarian journal.[14] As an aside, this is cute, "libertarian is what conservatives call themselves when they want to appear to not be a conservative" but I prefer (IIRC) PJ O'Rourke, "Libertarians are Republicans that smoke dope." Personally, I only self identify as libertarian when around liberal (in the modern, American sense) friends. It seems to work as a sort of short hand for Individualist anarchism and Anarcho-capitalism when dealing with those who are too busy being sanctimonious about recycling and petroleum to apply historical perspective and rational thought to their political decision making process. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 02:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Concern about WP:OR is well taken. Here's what I'm looking for

Beck: "I'm a conservative, not a Republican"

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/25/beck.conservatives/index.html . So now we have him calling himself both a libertarian and a conservative. CNN also in the same article describes his radio show as "conservative". This should be sufficient.

• He refers to himself as conservative http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/25/beck.conservatives/index.html

• His proponents refer to him as conservative http://www.examiner.com/x-7462-Atlanta-Faith--Family-Examiner~y2009m9d6-Glenn-Beck-Conservative-Talk-Show-Host-Exposes-Czar-Van-Jones

• His critics refer to him as conservative http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200909040049

• Our common sense, despite being a WP:OR violation, says he's a conservative

• His new book is #1 at conservativebookclub.com http://www.conservativebookclub.com/products/BookPage.asp?prod_cd=c7501

I think that we're covered.

MichaelLNorth (talk) 02:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Part of the issue is that conservative has become such a broad and moving term today that it may confuse readers as to Beck's views. Is he a Barry Goldwater conservative or George Bush's compassionate conservatism? He's obviously closer to a Barry Goldwater conservative, which is most closely described today as a libertarian or libertarianism (small "L" as this is a broader philosophy not the Party). I'd probably consider his views most in line with a Libertarian Republican (republitarian or liberty Republican) with a philosophy that most closely matches libertarian conservatism. So I would agree that conservative is a correct term, but I'm not sure it really helps describe his political philosophy (it's like saying he is on the right). It's true, but not very specific. I suggest we use both terms to clarify his opinions. I don't think we should pit these as opposites views like we have "He is a self-described libertarian[1], and his views on many issues are conservative [2]." We're just further confusing the issue. It would be better to say something like "Beck is a conservative commentator who describes his views as libertarian." Morphh ^(talk) 13:24, 08 September 2009 (UTC)

Morph, my use of "and" instead of "but" was an effort to not make it seem like the two viewpoints are pitted against each other. Some of Beck's most notable viewpoints are frankly NOT libertarian (i.e., government involvement in abortion, government involvement in gay marriage, government laws prohibiting drug use -- all of which go against the core principles of Libertarianism -- "the maximization of individual liberty"). I realize that Wikipedia is about verifiability, and not necessarily truth, but I'm trying to have my cake and eat it too. It says what the sources say, it says the truth, so the only question is whether it is WP:NPOV. MichaelLNorth (talk) 17:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Question - why is "Libertarian" not capitalized? We capitalize Democrat and Republican, no? Thanks. ObserverNY (talk) 19:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Libertarian (capitalized) usually implies the Libertarian Party, libertarian or libertarianism (not capitalized) is a more generic term for the political philosophy based on classic liberalism. I believe Beck has expressed he is a libertarian, not that he's part of the Libertarian Party. To Michael's thought, I'm not sure I would pin his views on these few issues. Most consider Ron Paul a libertarian but he is pro-life. I don't know that I've heard enough from Beck to make an assessment on the gay marriage or drugs. His views may differ with Federalism or breaking the welfare state. I think I've heard Beck state that these are distraction issues - so while he may have a differing view on an issue than the Libertarian Party, I think his core views reflect moderate libertarianism. Morphh ^(talk) 20:47, 08 September 2009 (UTC)

Morphh - fair enough, thank you. As a NY resident, I know the Libertarian Party is not on the ballot. I don't know what the situation is in CT where Beck is a resident. If someone uncovered info that Beck is a registered Libertarian, would that then qualify for its capitalization in the article? ObserverNY (talk) 20:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I'd like to be clear that there are three things that may not be in agreement:

1. The political alignment that Beck identifies himself as

2. The political alignment that Beck is registered to vote with

3. The political alignment that best describes Beck's views. — Mike :  tlk  21:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to point out that many Libertarians consider themselves conservative. This is more than likely due to the amount of conservatively based fiscal and government based planks. Some do identify with the socially conservative ideals of the Republicans. Some people say they are anarchists and Libertarian and that was addressed by the party many years ago. The use of "while" is much much better than "but" in the lead. There might be a couple other options since while emphasizes contrast.

• "He is a self-decribed libertarian who yada yada..."
• "He is a self-decribed libertarian with blah blah..."
• If a source is found that says "I am a Libertarian" "or I am libertarian" then directly quote it -> use a full stop -> go on to the next sentence or paragraph about conservative stuff. Example only: "Beck said on his show 'I am a Libertarian'. His conservative views are x,y, and z."

Some bloggers have mentioned this but it sounds like they are just blogging. Of course, if their is significant coverage that emphasizes the contrast then we should too.Cptnono (talk) 09:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

From the source used for the lede: "A: I consider myself a libertarian. I'm a conservative, but every day that goes by I'm fighting for individual rights." Seems to me that's pretty self explanatory.

I question the reference to the Glenn Beck Show as an "eponymous television program". Seems sort of pretentious. ObserverNY (talk) 11:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

That is perfect. The cite episode template could be used. I actually did not see that part.Cptnono (talk) 12:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

ObserverNY's changes look good to me. Reading the CNN article, this would be a very good reference for our Politics section. He states in the article "So what are my core values, the things that I refuse to compromise on? To figure that out, I decided to try to define what I think a conservative really believes." He then goes on to list his core values. This is exactly what we need in this section... not his this and that positions on things like emissions trading. Morphh ^(talk) 13:07, 09 September 2009 (UTC)

I added the eponymous television program. The paragraph previously repeated "Glenn Beck" 4 times in 2 or 3 sentences and it sounded clunky and redundant so I changed it to Eponymous as it is named after Beck. Feel free to reword it, it was merely a stylistic choice. As for libertarian, please check out the link I posted above to the article in Liberty magazine; Beck's libertarian views are called into question by actual libertarians. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 14:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Laurence Vance has been add odds with other self described libertarians many times in his articles. I think every group has their "you're not a real xyz". If we have sufficient coverage from libertarian organizations, I think it would be fine to include their opinion in the politics section. Morphh ^(talk) 14:26, 09 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand the desire to not make him sound like his views contradict what he describes his political stance as, but the contradiction exists in the subject matter of this article. Libertarianism is about individual freedoms, and his views on several social issues like gay marriage, abortion, drugs, etc... favor government involvement. "I consider myself a libertarian. I'm a conservative, but every day that goes by I'm fighting for individual rights." may be an accurate quote, but he is certainly not fighting for the individual rights of gays to get married, the inidividual right of a woman to get an abortion, and the individual right for someone to consume psychadelic mushrooms. Aren't these the issues where a libertarian is supposed to disagree with the typical conservative stance? What are the issues that Glenn Beck ("libertarian") and Sean Hannity ("conservative") disagree on? How would we treat this if Beck self-identified as a liberal, a muskrat, or other things he clearly is not? — Mike :  tlk  14:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

You are assuming marriage is a governmental right. I think Beck, and many libertarians see it as a cultural and societal norm, and as such, the government has no business defining marriage either way, but he can still voice his opinion on what society (not government) should accept culturally. Most libertarians for example, are against Roe v. Wade, not because they are anti-abortion, but because it takes away states rights. Bytebear (talk) 16:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

But if he (Beck) is opining in favor of normative group behavior over individual choice (any group, governmental, cultural, or societal), is he not advocating the polar opposite of libertarianism (which is a philosophy based upon individual liberty.) Beck, as evinced on his television show, also advocates protectionism over free trade and government interference with market forces. That is enough to make, me at least, view his self identification as a libertarian with suspicion, if not outright derision. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 17:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

You are confusing libertarianism with anarchism. Libertarians don't want no a laws, free for all. They believe that what can be done at the local level should be done at the local level, and that which required national intervention (i.e. international commerce, national defense) can and should be handled at the federal level. And they are for laws that grant more individual freedoms, so they would be in favor of a law that protects free speech, for example. Marriage should not be defined by any political body, and there needs to be a distinction between granting rights, which often includes monetary benefits, to couples (or groups), vs. acknowledging or modifying traditional definitions of relationships. Bytebear (talk) 19:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

To add to Bytebear's comment on Row v. Wade, many believe the ruling was unconstitutional. However, the extent of the individual right of a woman is also debated with libertarians as to the individual right of an unborn child to life (Ron Paul expresses this view). Beck has also expressed he thinks we should legalize Marijuana.[15] So I don't necessarily see this as cut and dry. In any case, I can't see removing what he states is his political philosophy. Morphh ^(talk) 17:30, 09 September 2009 (UTC)

Bytebear said:

Most libertarians for example, are against Roe v. Wade, not because they are anti-abortion, but because it takes away states rights.

You could use this same logic to argue that the second amendment is anti-libertarian, because it restricts state rights to pass gun control laws. Libertarianism is about maximizing individual freedoms, and often this specifically means passing legislation prohibiting governmental bodies from removing/encroaching on those freedoms.

Morph Bytebear -- Where did you get the idea that beck feels "the government has no business defining marriage either way"?.Beck has not just voiced his own view, has spoken out in favor of legislation that makes gay marriage against the law (I know it's not a wikipedia-appropriate source, and am only using it for the purposes of this discussion on the talk page). Passing laws that take away individual rights is the polar opposite of Libertarianism. I know that many of his views are in alignment with libertarianism, but he is also nearly 100% in alignment with typical right-wing conservative viewpoints (i.e., free market, no gun control, small government, anti-environmentalism, pro-pistol-whip-the-middle-east foreign policy, etc...). What matters are where his views deviate from the typical right-wing conservative stance, and so far all we have is Marijuana legalization (but no other drugs). I am also not suggesting removing that he SAYS he's a libertarian, but only that going to great lengths to make it seem as if his viewpoints don't conflict with his self-description (i.e., seven rehashes of the sentence near the beginning of the article that pertains to this discussion) is not objective reporting. — Mike :  tlk  17:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

In the video you posted, I didn't hear him speak out in favor of legislation that makes gay marriage against the law. I did hear him say that he supports civil unions. Morphh ^(talk) 18:48, 09 September 2009 (UTC)

I also didn't see anything about legislation. That's the problem with such labels. You can be a libertarian, and want free choice, but you can also argue for certain moral standards. I can believe that Marijuana should be legal (or at least regulated at a the state and local level) but I can also argue that it is wrong to smoke dope. I can say I believe that states should make their own laws regarding abortion and feel it is perfectly appropriate for one community to have a legal standard to ban all abortions, and still be pro-choice. It isn't a free for all, but rather it is about letting a community have enough freedom from Federal intervention to define what they want their moral standards to be. You can be a libertarian and a conservative, and you can be a libertarian and a liberal. Moral values and how you feel they should be encouraged (or enforced) are not the same thing. Liberalism is about how you enact your ideas. Conservatism and liberalism (in modern society) is what moral ideals you hold. Do you see the difference? Bytebear (talk) 19:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

here is a clearer source: transcript, video

BECK: ... because that's what makes everybody all upset, so let's just take that out. Let's just say that California wanted to - what do I love - ban donuts and M & Ms. And they wanted to ban donuts and M & Ms. The people said, "We want to put this into our Constitution." The people have a right to do that.

and then goes on to say

BECK: Wouldn't this be a civil right? I mean, can you ban civil rights?

SEKULOW (interviewee): Well, sure you can, I mean, not in the sense of a fundamental right. No courts recognize that this is a fundamental right. That would be under what is called the supremacy clause, the idea that the U.S. Constitution - if it is a right in the U.S. Constitution, the state can't get rid of, say, the right of freedom of religion, the free exercise of religion or it can't get rid of the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press.

He never challenges this guest, just nods and moves on. He believes that the people have the right pass legislation that encroaches individual freedoms, as long as they are not enumerated in the constitution (guns, speech, press, religion). Libertarianism makes no distinction between "fundamental rights" and other individual freedoms. — Mike :  tlk  19:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that goes more to the idea of giving the people a voice and more about democracy. The constitution does allow for this, but liberals are currently avoiding it because at the federal level, they would lose such a battle, and big time. Liberalism is also about a government run by the people, and at the federal level, that means that the country as a whole decides what is best for society. If we want to make this a national issue, we need to give the choice to the people. Right now it is being controlled by a minority who is using civil rights as a way to skirt the will of the people. You have to decide if marriage is a fundamental right? Most libertarians wouldn't even argue that food is a fundamental right, so you would be hard pressed trying to convince one that a moral issue must be accepted regardless of what the majority thinks. You have a right to work for food, but have no right to just get it. Same with marriage. Marriage gives monetary rewards for the union. That is taking away others freedom (in the form of redistributing taxes) to reward others. A true libertarian would say let society define "marriage" and let the government stay out of it altogether. Beck is only saying, if the feds are going to define it, then they should let the people decide. Bytebear (talk) 19:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Libertarianism is for the maximization of individual freedoms. If the will of the people is to make guns illegal, libertarians will still fight for the personal freedom of gun ownership. — Mike :  tlk  19:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, you are confusing libertarianism with anarchy. Bytebear (talk) 20:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Anarchism and Libertarianism agree when it comes to the issue of government control of individual liberties. I'm not sure why we are discussing this. The position of the Libertarian party is "Repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act and state laws and amendments defining marriage.". They also take a position on Abortion. Their stance on immigration is to "Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders" (pro immigration), and "The United States should both abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world and avoid entangling alliances". Let's not make this too philosophical. We don't have to analyze what the principles say the Libertarian party's position should be, we can just look at what it is. I'm doing my best not to cherry pick here, but there are only a few key issues that conservatives and libertarians strongly disagree on -- and I think those are the only ones really worth discussing here. — Mike :  tlk  20:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why we are discussing them either. Clearly Beck doesn't fall fully into the conservative bucket, nor in the Libertarian bucket. He personally want's to preserve marriage, but is ok with civil unions, which tells me, for him it is a moral issue and not a political one. Libertarianism is an ideal, simply because it is not a viable political position in modern American society, so those who lean more that way, must work through the existing powers that be, namely Republican and Democratic parties. And not all libertarians believe in all aspects of your source. Nationalism and Federalism also overlap with the ideals of libertarianism. You are taking the extreme, similar to equating socialism with communism when taken to extremes. But people can lean or agree with only certain aspects of such a system. You are correct, that none of this is important and this is turning into a forum. We should only be discussing what other people have said about Beck and his opinions. We cannot look at all of his positions and determine his political leanings or try to peg him into a specific ideological hole, as that is original reserch. Bytebear (talk) 20:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I'm done with this discussion. You have convinced me that the viewpoint that the article presently represents is major and valid. — Mike :  tlk  03:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I just want to thank you all for agreeing to the changes I made to the WP:LEAD this morning. Nicely done! ObserverNY (talk) 20:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY