Talk:Glenn Beck/Archive 2

message: Can we try and find more sources? Linking from just one site (mediamatters.org) gives the impression of bias. --Spunkz 04:58, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: First let me state that I actually watch Glen Beck, and when I came to this wikipedia article I was shocked that the New Orleans/9-11 victoms comments were not in here. Plus there is no mention of his decleration of World War III verses Iran. Are you seriously telling me that these comments don't rise to the level of being mentioned in the wikipedia article. Then I go into the discussion and see that the New Orleans comments were in, but then removed. Then i see comments like 'he seeks to entertain as he informs' and 'he brings humor into the equation'. These comments are blatently biased. I believe that Michael Richards could say that he was trying to be entertaining with his rant. But does that mean that story should not be a part of his wikipedia article. Certainlly not. Don't be biased with your edits. (66.173.230.50 00:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The Michael Moore thing doesn't bother me at all.  Anyone who actually thinks that Glenn REALLY wants to choke Moore is just looking for a reason to hate (or continue to hate) Glenn.  I think the qualifying phrase in that whole line is "In a comedy bit..." which should make it obvious that it was for humor.
Chancelot 14:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversial Statements 

message: A while back, I think there was discussion about the killing Michael Moore bit. Perhaps that would be a good place to start. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 12:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Michael Moore thing doesn't bother me at all.  Anyone who actually thinks that Glenn REALLY wants to choke Moore is just looking for a reason to hate (or continue to hate) Glenn.  I think the qualifying phrase in that whole line is "In a comedy bit..." which should make it obvious that it was for humor.
Chancelot 14:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: It appears that Glenn's show is no longer broadcast in Vancouver, so that part has been removed.  I have also re-added the "fan sites".  The removal of those sites is inconsistent with Wikipedia policy - if Glenn's fan sites are to be removed, it would only be fair to do the same for those of Al Franken and other talk radio hosts.  204.112.177.140 07:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "NO FANSITES"? 

message: Added a link to the mediamatters.org entries for Glenn Beck, to balance out the gushingly cute pro-Glenn sites above. --65.248.243.100 22:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misc. (added to External links) 

message: Glenn Beck occasionally breaks the traditional rule against dead air time. His long, silent pauses contradict the common wisdom that such absence of sound will result in loss of listeners. Also, he sometimes may be unconsciously imitating Howard Stern's voice. This is most notable when he lowers his voice to a confidential whisper. Lestrade 16:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beckian Traits 

message: I've added the Glenn Beck Program as an new article.  I took it from Glennpedia and based on this discussion page, it will need a lot of scrutiny.  Please have at it. --Jared W 17:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Glenn Beck Program 

message: There's an sentence that references 'recent events' without giving a relative timeframe: "As illegal immigration and other issues have come to the forefront in recent months..."  I think perhaps this should be changed to mark an absolute date or removed entirely.  A year from now, this will make no sense otherwise.
--Jrb90 23:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Recent Event' Reference 

message: Has anyone else noticed that ALL of the external links are pro-Beck in some way, shape or form? I think in the name of "balance," something touted on here quite a bit, other, less adoring info should be up. Try reading what Media Matters says about him (by actually linking to the site - the link on this page is bad) and his misinformation. If all you're doing is including links that take you to his list of "fake heartless corporations" and etc... then it's no more than an ad for this guy and his show.
The CNN link all the way at the bottom was not a "news article" - it was internal advertising by CNN for one of their shows. The two Media Matters links are good now but don't entirely balance out the frothing at the mouth adoration contained in the outrageous number of links above them.
:I trimmed the list way down. I removed all the fan sites, and one redundant Media Matters page and one redundant Beck page. I didn't know what heading to use for the MMFA and DailyKos sites. You should think about getting an account. And please sign your posts with 4 tildes (~~~~) so it's easier to follow. Thanks. --LV (Dark Mark) 14:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I object to the fan sites being removed, especially Glennpedia.  Neutrality is not the same as balance.  If there are more pro-Glenn sites on the web, there should be more pro-Glenn sites listed here.  Why shouldn't the external links be represented in their actual ratios. Listing sites that present an opposing view of Glenn is a great idea, but don't hide information from wikipedia readers in the name of artificial balance.  --Jared W 23:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links and the such.. 

message: I have just added a Glenn Beck on Headline news section.  Please review and enhance.  I would like to trim down the Glenn Beck Program section, or rather, move much of the content to the Glenn Beck Program article.  I'd also like to see the Book and Magazine section moved up with the Radio and Headline news section.  If a Live events section is added then this article will feature a section for each of the mediums where Glenn appears.  I will do this slowly and watch for objections.  --Jared W 22:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just condensed the Glenn Beck Program section.  I was careful to preserve the old content in the Glenn Beck Program article.  Since I am a Glenn Beck fan, I invite others to review my changes for NPOV. --Jared W 22:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I just added the Live Events section.  I've uploaded an image to wikipedia incorrectly and it is subject to deletion.  Can someone with more experience help me fix the licensing on that image before it is removed?  I explained in the note that it has been provided for the public to download, but didn't know what licensing to choose.  Thanks. --Jared W 16:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beck on Radio, TV, Print, Stage 

message: I separated out the Career and Early life and the Personal life sections into Career and Personal life.  In doing this, there where a few gaps that needed to be filled.  I think that having the personal life and professional life mixed together promoted a "touchy feely" sense in the career section.  It is my hope that with them separated, a factual account of Glenn's career can now be presented.  With this in mind, I intend to reintroduce a Criticism section with some of the content from the old Controversial statements section.  I think that by placing it in the Career section, it will be able to be presented with a neutral point of view.
I expect to use Not Just Another Conservative as the primary resource when I create the Criticism category and encourage other editors to read it before editing this article. --Jared W 16:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Glancing though some of the Wikipedia:Featured articles I came across the Tony Blair article and I really like the way his [section] is done.  I think we should model that section here.  Here is some quick brain storming of ideas. --Jared W 16:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Career & Personal life 

message: I removed the following from Political views section.  
:However Beck has no degree or actual range of expertise in climatology... He has also never mentioned on his TV show or his radio program the fact that the National Academy of Sciences recently conducted an investigation at the behest of the Republican chairman of the House Science Committee to find out if global warming was occurring and if in fact it was being caused by humans.   The National Academy of Sciences report that followed subsequently confirmed that global warming is no doubt real and is in also indisputably the result of human activity.  Many people feel that Beck's continued denial of climate change in the face of overwhelming scientific opinion is irresponsible and misleading, if not outright dangerous.
That section is about Glenn's political views, not about disproving his opinions, pointing out his lack of education, or warning the world about his irresponsibility.  There is a Criticism section now, and well sourced criticism can go there. --Jared W 03:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Global warming 

message: RamaHanuKwanzMas redirects to this Article but it is nowhere mentioned. --Majoran 11:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been fixed.  It is a stub article, but it is there.  I want input from other Glenn Beck fans to provide citations and increase the information on said page. Val42 19:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RamaHanuKwanzMas 

message: To User:-Dense- and IP address 67.71.150.154,
The reason that I keep removing the *The Best Page In The Universe link is because it is not a site opposed to Beck.  It is not even a page opposed to Beck.  Glenn Beck is only mentioned in passing on that page.  There is no commentary about why or what the author doesn't like about Beck.  It doesn't make sense to me to link to that page from this article.  --Jared W 14:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Best Page in the Universe 

message: I have added a paragraph on more-on trivia, as this is an important part of beck's show. I also added an external link to the More-on trivia fansite, per the rule for fansites, found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links Color me invisible 13:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More-on Trivia 

message: I agree with 157.201.154.219 that the whole critisms section should be redone, but I do not think that it should have been deleted. I am going to work on maybe writing a new one, providing quotes in context. I do agree that the entire section is NPOV. I personally think that the critism section should show only critism by outside sources. I will definitly try and rewrite the critism section. I do not want to delete the section! I also suggest that 157.201.154.219 should get an account ( if you read this ). Posts can be signed by just adding ~~~~ at the end of your post.  Color me invisible 16:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I restored the criticism section that 157.201.154.219 half-way deleted. I assume that you mean that the section is not NPOV.  Please help me understand what is wrong with it. --Jared W 21:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I Agree, but... 

message: Perhaps Glenn Beck's dark, deeply personal obsession with "The Apocalypse" and/or "End Times" should be mentioned in this article.  Hardly a show goes by where he doesn't mention these subjects, with every show offering a new 'prediction' as to when the "Tribulation" will begin.  I know he's simply pandering to his right-wing Christian viewership in order to boost ratings on an otherwise sensationalistic, loud, and moronic show, but he personally seems very serious about the predictions of his on-air 'specialists,' so maybe this obsession of his warrants a mention.  We can call the section the "Glenn Beck Apoca-Meter," charting the number of mentions/segments found in the show's history.  --Pseudothyrum 04:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beck OBSESSED With "The Apocalypse" 

message: I removed the incident and its POV-header.  It seems little more than a common joke that Americans make about the French, and the "outcry" listed seems limited to a couple of non-noteworthy blogs. Zz414 22:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Hate Speech" 

message: The link does not work. I am removing the link and the quote associated to it.
:Well, the link not working is not necessarily reason to immediately delete it. It's been cited there a while. Although it's good that you bring it up here so we can see if an alternate version can be found, etc. Mad Jack 18:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why did you remove the links to audio where he talked about michael moore —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.109.156.13 (talk) 18:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I did a mass revert because I didn't think this part (""No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out -- is this wrong?"") interpreted as this ("Glen Beck threatened to kill Michael Moore. He mentioned how he would look him in the eye while choking him to death. ") was fair. When it comes to something as highly contentious as that, it's probably best to just use his original quote Mad Jack 18:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Response to Criticism" 

message: In the first paragraph, it says he's doing a Parody of Rush L. Is this so? I thought Beck really WAS a conservitive, that he's really believing the things he's saying (albeit with hyperboly).  If his act is all ironey, he's got a lot of people fooled.  If not, we should correct this.
Steve kap (talk) 01:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parody? 

message: How is it controversial to call the German Nazi party socialist?  Weren't they nationalistic socialists?71.175.155.223 (talk) 14:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  It's a popular canard in certain quarters of the blogosphere, but not generally accepted by politologists.  They tend to believe in that old-fashioned idea that words have meaning, and the meaning of "Nazi" and the meaning of "socialist" are not very similar. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 17:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

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

text: And by extension, aligning Soviet Communism to Democratic socialism, to Social Democrats, to Labour, to labor unions, to the moderate centrist liberal US Democrats, or in short: NAZIS=COMMIES=DEMOCRATS. Beck could have just as easily had said DEATH=DISEASE=HANG-NAIL, and it would have made about as much sense. Shanoman (talk) 03:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

text: My problem is that even if Nazi Germany wasn't socialist there was no controversy surrounding it; I don't remember hearing about it anywhere.  Besides I think enough people think that hey were socialist that it's not a great fact that he's one of them.  It seems to have disappeared so this point is now moot. 76.116.227.205 (talk) 13:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with it is that Beck is playing the demagogue here, tying current events to Nazi Germany and implying that "socialism" is part and parcel with dictatorship. We have a term for Nazi Germany's economy: a mixed economy, with some resources in the public domain, and others in the private.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.39.50.26 (talk) 18:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nazi Party 

message: That term is subjective. I removed it because I don't think it belongs in an Encyclopedia article about Glenn Beck. 76.92.206.166 (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi.  Please read the wikipedia entry for entrepreneur.  I would argue that Beck, who has started his own businesses and ventures (books, stage shows) and routinely puts his own capital at risk, qualifies as an entrepreneur.  I suppose that it is subjective, but so it the statement that he's conservative.  E2a2j (talk) 15:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  How about "media entrepreneur"?  If his enterprise is media, that would be more precise. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 18:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Entrepreneur? 

message: I cut this, as it is the work of a troll:  "On February 21, 2009 what he put together at 9 P. M. is not for Americans at this difficult time. He should have a patience to wait at least a year before forecasting what the present government is capable of doing. The government is trying to workout the horrible mess created by the previous government. Such programs should be be discouraged at all time. Who is responsible for this?  The foxnews or the Mr. Beck?"
:Just a sidebar, I imagine what the writer means by "previous government" is the Bush administration, which is partially true. But note that President Clinton signed into law the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 which opened the door to the deregulation of all the insanely leveraged derivatives based on CDSs, CDOs, etc. There's plenty of blame to go around it seems. Kornbelt888 (talk) 21:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cut a troll edit... 

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

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

message: Should this page be semi-protected?  Not sure what the criteria for that is, but there seems to be a lot of vandalism. E2a2j (talk) 02:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea, just requested. Nicholas.tan (talk) 03:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-Protect? 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Quotations
"Linking
Unless there is a good reason to do so, Wikipedia avoids linking from within quotes, which may clutter the quotation, violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged, and mislead or confuse the reader."
Anarchangel (talk)
::You are correct.  I'll go one further and say that almost all or probably all of the quotes should be removed from the article.  Wikipedia is not the place for quotes, we have a sister project, Wikiquote, where all quotes belong. L0b0t (talk) 13:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: My impression is that the mere existence of wikiquote doesn't mean all quotes in articles get vacuumed out. --kizzle (talk) 04:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links within quotations 

message: Marriage is spelled wrong (Marraige). Can someone with permission update this?
:Fixed. --Smashvilletalk 14:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling error 

message: Is this the same man?  A couple of years ago I came here to view page and steal some (horrible) quotes for a flier to hand out at one of his shows.  The bio now seems to have been written by himself.  Will not come here for information anymore.  When I find the printout of the page from then I will type it up and send to y'all.  I'm not paranoid after all.  One can't find truth anywhere anymore.  RainM (talk) 02:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to retype, it looked like this two years ago.  Morphh  (talk) 2:55, 07 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm glad you linked to the past article.  Interesting that what was noteworthy about Beck then (Michael Moore, Hurricane Katrina, etc.) are long gone memories.  That's why specific criticisms should not be included.  Who cares if Beck was critical of Michael Moore 2 years ago, and that some left wing organization made a complaint about it.  It's useless fluff. Bytebear (talk) 18:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your argument falls horribly short given that the President of the United States is a vastly more important figure than a filmmaker like Michael Moore. Making incredibly controversial statements about the President, to the point that Fox News goes to the apparently unprecedented (for them) length of issuing a statement that Beck's statements represent only his own opinion and not the network's, is something that won't likely be forgotten. But even aside from that, the notion that no specific criticisms should be included is crazy. If we went by that standard, then this article will always look like it could've been an official bio on foxnews.com. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 07:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Glenn Beck vs Glenn Beck on Wikipedia 

message: http://www.snopes.com/computer/internet/clunkers.asp 
Glenn Beck promoted an urban legend on his news show. YVNP (talk) 03:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: because it isn't noteworthy.  It's just another trivial example.  If it were covered in a NPOV way, with reaction covered by Beck of his producers, I could see it covered on his show page, or perhaps on the Cash for Clunkers page. Bytebear (talk) 18:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

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

message: His "barak hates white culture" is the most significant thing he has ever done
I had never heard of him before these comments on national television.
I doubt many people had.
If most people know of him from these comments, how can they be insignificant?
I will bet visits to this wiki page have double since he made the statements, as such they are probably the most significant thing about him.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.102.94.130 (talk) 00:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Such traffic or apparent interest in Beck is not usable as a measure for notability. Today much interest can be easily created by bloggers, e-mail lists, twitter, and other methods, which are unusable sources for wikipedia. The measure for wikipedia is third party reliable sources. We measure those sources with the weight of other events in Beck's life and consider if it is part of his notability and worthy of inclusion in a persons biography.  As far as it being his most notable thing he has ever done, that's ridiculous.  He's a NYT bestselling author, has a highly watched TV show on Fox News, and he's a nationally syndicated talk-radio show.  It wouldn't even have been news unless he was already a notable person. Morphh  (talk) 13:17, 08 August 2009 (UTC)

text: I didn't say that it wasn't notable, please reread my statement.  It is notable, but just because it is notable news does not make it part of Beck's notability - there is a difference.  Wikipedia is not tabloid journalism.  Beck has many many comments that are notable, both good and bad, and each statement has context, requiring a representation of both points of view if included.  We have rules on the weight given to any particular event, comment, or content in relation to other content.  What I'm saying is that it doesn't matter what you or I think is part of his notability (or even notable news).  We have to show it by sufficient reliable third party sources covering the news.  These are Wikipedia's requirements, which are strict for the biography of a living person.  If you read the discussion above, you'll see that I'm fine with the inclusion of this particular statement, but we're still discussing the best presentation as it relates to Beck's notability and what examples to include.  Morphh  (talk) 12:47, 09 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barak comment 

message: Please remove the reference to an unnamed Yale professor saying "Beck, you belong here."  There is no further substantiation for this suggestion that Glenn Beck would have been successful as a Yale undergraduate. Timcorn (talk) 11:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it could certainly be improved by adding some context from the article in which it is quoted, where it says, "it was an experience that gave the high school grad a new sense of intellectual worth." Bytebear (talk) 18:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Glenn Beck's Yale History 

message: Essentially nothing above was very helpful, so let's try to start fresh. Bytebear you disagree with some of the things that are currently in the article. Why don't you specify what those are below, what you propose to do about them, and then we can discuss that. I know nothing about this fellow Skousen, but this is not his article, and therefore not the place to discuss him. Let's leave that one (fairly small) issue to the side for now.
Both of you have edit warred over this article. If that continues you'll likely both end up blocked. Instead, let's try calmly discussing the matter here. That requires remaining open to compromise, assuming good faith of other editors (please note that phrases like "unilaterally sanitize" and "slant it's POV toward your own impression of him"—each used by one of you above—very much fail to assume good faith), and working toward consensus. It might be easier to come to agreement than both of you think, so why not give it a shot? Bytebear perhaps you can lead off by stating your problems with the article as it currently exists. --Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 23:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok.  let's start with something simple.  Why is a debate with Whoopie Goldberg noteworthy?  From what I see of the sources, it was some "rock jocks" in the UK that reported on this?  How are they notable?  They certainly are not mainstream. Bytebear (talk) 23:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I actually agree with you on this.  I don't care if the View paragraph is in the article or not. --Hardindr (talk) 23:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  ok, done.  How about the issues unrelated to Skousen?  Let's start with the spoof on Beck's emotional outbursts?  Is it noteworthy to mention them at all, let alone a spoof about them? Bytebear (talk) 23:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I didn't put this into the article, but I think it is noteworthy.  It was widely mentioned in the media, and Beck even received criticism from fellow employees at the Fox network.  I have no opinion as to whether Beck's outburst was spontaneous or acting. --Hardindr (talk) 23:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good call on the View removal, I agree. I'm going offline for awhile now but will check back in on this later. --Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 23:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

text:  Additionally, I do not like your threat made here , User:Bytebear.  You are the person the one violating the 3RR rule, not me.  Are you an administrator?  Do you have the power to ban people? --Hardindr (talk) 23:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Would you prefer a formal warning on your talk page? Bytebear (talk) 01:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Are you an administrator?  What powers do you have?  Should I warn you on your talk page for your disruptive editing? --Hardindr (talk) 01:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

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

message: Agreement over the bit involving The View was easy. What is the next specific content issue we need to address? --Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 10:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I see Bytebear has presented his initial thoughts on this controversy below.  I will respond when I get back from vacation on July 16th.  I beg everyone's patience in the meantime. --Hardindr (talk) 15:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I am back from vacation, but more issues have come up in the real world.  I will respond next week, no latter than July 23.  My apologies for the delay. --Hardindr (talk) 18:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I want to thank everyone for their patience.  My initial responses are below. --Hardindr (talk) 02:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, anybody want to comment on the text in the section below? --Hardindr (talk) 15:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think that videos are primary sources.  It would be nice to get secondary sources for criticism.  I'd avoid media matters if possible.  If it's controversial enough to be in the article, I would think we shouldn't have to stretch to such partisan sources for the basis of inclusion, but they could be useful as a supporting reference.  I think too much weight is given to the crying bit.  I would give it one sentence (two at most) in the "Media persona and commentary" section.  No need to quote all these people, just describe that he sometimes chokes up on air and that he's been mocked by fellow commentators for his emotional style.  In the second paragraph, I don't understand how this is controversial or why it is important.  Why is it part of his notability and what makes it a unique example.  Morphh  (talk) 15:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the media matters columns just help to establish what the reactions of fellow Fox News employees was to Beck's crying incident.  They aren't being used to present the columnist's opinion of Beck.  The second paragraph is controversial because Beck promoted a conspiracy theory that is the sole providence of the Christian Patriot movement and other elements of the ultra-right on a major mainstream cable television news network.  This is unheard of in the mainstream media. --Hardindr (talk) 19:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: From reading the sources, it looks to me like the second paragraph is WP:SYN.  Morphh  (talk) 19:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: How so?  --Hardindr (talk) 20:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Each source only goes to support a part of the sentence referenced.  Like sources to a book, or that he had a book on his website, or that he looked at the theory.  But I don't see that the sources tie this all together as written and as you describe.  It looks like a synthesis of published material.  Morphh  (talk) 21:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Do I need to go through and copy edit so that each source only refers to a single sentence?  I'm not following you here.  Would the portion about Skousen be more appropriate down in the book section, where it is mentioned that Beck wrote the Forward to The 5,000 Year Leap? --Hardindr (talk) 23:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahh, ok.. source #11 I think is what is tying this together.  I must have missed that one.  It is not written in a way that expresses how this relates to Beck's notability or even what it is trying to get at.  The first two sentences discuss how he is dismissing it, yet it is intended to say he is promoting them?  Beck says he brought them up to debunk them. How is this controversial?  In any case, I don't see this as having enough attention to give it any place in the article.  Morphh  (talk) 0:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The first sentence of the second paragraph does not say that he is dismissing the conspiracy theory about FEMA camps; it states that he tried to do so and was unable (I have changed the sentence to be more clear).  The second sentence states that denounced the conspiracy theory later.  It is notable that a major television figure on a mainstream cable network said that he had attempted to debunk a ridiculous and outlandish conspiracy theory that is only believed on the hard-right in America (and has been debunked by others years before) and failed is certainly notable. --Hardindr (talk) 00:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "It is notable that a major television figure on a mainstream cable network said that he had attempted to debunk a ridiculous and outlandish conspiracy theory that is only believed on the hard-right in America (and has been debunked by others years before) and failed is certainly notable."  You need some reliable sources that make this connection, otherwise it's OR.  Also, even if we have several sources, we need to show that it is part of his notability (not that it is notable).  I'm ok with first paragraph of information, but would not support inclusion of the second.  Morphh  (talk) 0:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Many conspiracists (on their blogs and message boards) found it notable, including this one .  I think the Krugman column counts towards notability.  But, I must admit, that frankly I'm surprised that I'm having this conversation about a major news figure pushing an absurd conspiracy theory into the mainstream news and whether it is notable or not. --Hardindr (talk) 01:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Just seems weird.  Beck says he brought it to mainstream news to debunk it, not push or promote it.  So it seems the criticism is that he didn't debunk it fast enough?  Is this really about Glen Beck?  His research team likely did the investigating, so it's certainly more a Program thing, not a bibliography thing.  I apologize, I'm not trying to be difficult, I just don't quite understand the overall controversy.  Of course blogs and message boards are not acceptable sources, particularly from those that promote conspiracy theories.  Morphh  (talk) 2:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

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

text: I agree that Beck crying on the air should be included. If it is not included, perhaps something general about his repeated emotional outbursts while on TV or the radio should take its place (i.e., the "Get off my phone!" incident on his radio show, which was covered by several reputable newspapers across the world). The fact that Glenn Beck cries/screams/is very emotional on the air certainly differentiates him from other political commentators, and is a primary issue discussed by his critics. MichaelLNorth (talk) 16:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

text: I think this whole section is just a fluff of POV to try to connect him to conspiracy theories and needs to be dropped. Bytebear (talk) 18:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if you would call it "POV", but I think it is at least a little biased that someone whose uploaded pictures are all of Mormon temples is continually deleting the controversy section from an outspoken Mormon.  Just because an outspoken member of your religion is controversial does not mean you should be able to remove his notably controversial statements and views from the public.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mto880 (talk • contribs) 05:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please review the section WP:AGF. Your comments are unproductive and inappropriate. Bytebear (talk) 18:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

text: I don't agree with you.  This section is not POV, and has citations from reliable sources.  I don't know whether Glenn Beck believes in conspiracy theories and the paragraph as written doesn't allege that he does.  However, when hosts of highly rated shows on mainstream cable news networks repeat conspiracy theories from the hard right, it is worthy of inclusion in their wikipedia article. --Hardindr (talk) 02:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not really.  It goes more to cherry picking an incident to present a conclusion.  I goes more to notability than reliability.  Bytebear (talk) 20:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I guess we have different opinions as to what notable means.  When a person repeats fringe conspiracy theories from the Christian Patriot movement on a popular television program on a major cable news network, it is notable.  It a person on the left (like Rachel Maddow) looked into the camera and said, "I can't debunk these rumors about Bush/Cheney being behind 9/11, and enjoy this book from David Icke compliments of me," I think it would be notable.  I feel like we are going in circles here. --Hardindr (talk) 19:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, I would consider Rachel Maddow's statements not notable either.  Glenn Beck comments on a lot of things, and those things change every day.  To pick this above all others in a plethora of opinion and commentary is POV. Bytebear (talk) 03:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Do any other editors have an opinion on this issue?  We aren't making any progress here. --Hardindr (talk) 09:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think this also  counts towards notabillity. --Hardindr (talk) 20:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Starting over again

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

message: :I think this whole section is just a fluff of POV to try to connect him to conspiracy theories and needs to be dropped. Bytebear (talk) 18:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if you would call it "POV", but I think it is at least a little biased that someone whose uploaded pictures are all of Mormon temples is continually deleting the controversy section from an outspoken Mormon.  Just because an outspoken member of your religion is controversial does not mean you should be able to remove his notably controversial statements and views from the public.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mto880 (talk • contribs) 05:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please review the section WP:AGF. Your comments are unproductive and inappropriate. Bytebear (talk) 18:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

text: I don't agree with you.  This section is not POV, and has citations from reliable sources.  I don't know whether Glenn Beck believes in conspiracy theories and the paragraph as written doesn't allege that he does.  However, when hosts of highly rated shows on mainstream cable news networks repeat conspiracy theories from the hard right, it is worthy of inclusion in their wikipedia article. --Hardindr (talk) 02:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not really.  It goes more to cherry picking an incident to present a conclusion.  I goes more to notability than reliability.  Bytebear (talk) 20:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I guess we have different opinions as to what notable means.  When a person repeats fringe conspiracy theories from the Christian Patriot movement on a popular television program on a major cable news network, it is notable.  It a person on the left (like Rachel Maddow) looked into the camera and said, "I can't debunk these rumors about Bush/Cheney being behind 9/11, and enjoy this book from David Icke compliments of me," I think it would be notable.  I feel like we are going in circles here. --Hardindr (talk) 19:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, I would consider Rachel Maddow's statements not notable either.  Glenn Beck comments on a lot of things, and those things change every day.  To pick this above all others in a plethora of opinion and commentary is POV. Bytebear (talk) 03:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Do any other editors have an opinion on this issue?  We aren't making any progress here. --Hardindr (talk) 09:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think this also  counts towards notabillity. --Hardindr (talk) 20:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: FEMA

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

message: Ok, we have a lot of complains on the talk about including criticism of Beck and I agree that it is lacking.  There appears to be some consensus on several issues for inclusion (Obama is a racist, Keith Ellison comment, crying on air).  However, we still need to make sure we follow policy for each controversy.  I believe the best way to include this material is to make it part of his notability relevant to his media persona.  The issue is centered around making sure that these comments are significant enough to merit inclusion in a encyclopedic biography.  What we need is more reliable sources presenting the view that this is significant for Beck.  If it is as controversial and one of the most notable things for Beck as many suggest here, it should be easy to find many reliable sources for it.  We need to put up or shut up.  Let's get the sources and make it happen, or put the issue to rest - we have better things to do.  Morphh  (talk) 13:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That is fine, but I've been trying to move forward on the two issues here  for over a month and I've gotten very few editors to offer comments or suggestions.  I'm going to modify some of the wording in the proposed section.  Helpful and constructive comments are welcome.  Thank you. --Hardindr (talk) 14:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Made some changes... Morphh  (talk) 16:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: GEICO pulling from the show, may be noteworthy to the show article, but it isn't to this article.  I have proposed this before, falling on deaf ears.  Controversies dealing with the Beck show should be presented on that article, not this one. Bytebear (talk) 16:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: why I am reminded of the essay WP:Wikilawyering. --L I C 16:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Why am I reminded of the guideline Assume Good Faith?  You must have forgotten to read this part of the essay WP:Wikilawyering#Misuse_of_the_term.  I am also reminded of the policy WP:BLP which says, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives." Bytebear (talk) 16:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

text: The TV section, Radio section, and media persona and commentary section are in part a summary style of the TV and Radio articles (different aspects).  So if we place this in the TV article, is there a briefer summary that would be acceptable for this article in referencing the larger content in the TV article.  Morphh  (talk) 16:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think we can describe Becks style without going into polemic examples which are there just to introduce POV.  The only reason I think these issues are being brought up are specifically to "be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims."  The sources themselves only bring up those issues as examples, and are not direct news about the incidents.  Other than self published criticism of Beck, I can find no reliable secondary source that specifically reports directly on one of these issues. Bytebear (talk) 16:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: First, this isn't a "titillating claim" by any stretch of the imagination. That's for tabloid rumours about relationships etc. This is about a statement that Beck made as part of his public professional life. Second, there are plenty of news stories specifically about him calling Obama a racist in the mainstream press, including outside America and in sources not considered left-wing. And third, it is impossible to entirely separate what Beck says on his show from him as a person. If you want to do that, then all content about his show should be excised from his biog, which would be ridiculous. Bytebear, you're making a valiant effort, but your insistence that there is no mention of controversies involving Beck is wearing thin. I'd advise you to compromise. Fences&Windows 18:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I am trying to compromise.  This issue belongs on the Fox News article or the Glenn Beck show article, but not here.  The so-called boycotts were against the show, not Beck personally.  Second, the term "incendiary" is blatant POV.  Who decided they were incendiary?  That is a subjective call, and without a reference and attributed to a source, it is WP:OR.  The NPOV way to say it would be, "Specific critic felt Beck's comments were incendiary..." with a specific third party source. Do you have such a source in mind? Bytebear (talk) 00:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  The action that caused this whole chain of events occurred on Fox and Friends, the morning talk show. If you insist on separating Glenn Beck from the Glenn Beck TV Show, his comments on other shows have everything to do with Beck as a person, and nothing to do with Beck's TV show (other than the fact that advertisers are distancing themselves from Beck, via pulling advertisements off his TV show). Furthermore, the page for his TV show is even less complete than this article, and is frequently purged of any information that potentially could reflect poorly on Beck. There are only three or four sentences that apply to his controversial Fox TV show, and I am the one who wrote them. This issue is notable, and it belongs on his page. MichaelLNorth (talk) 20:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

text:  Any reason you struck out FOX's statement on the matter? No need to quote the whole thing, but I think it's worth mentioning that they issued a statement that disclaimed responsibility for his opinion. Andrewdupont (talk) 19:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it adds anything about Beck.  It's about Fox News absolving responsibility (using a canned statement... that's Beck's opinion, not Fox News - no big surprise).  It adds nothing in regard to Beck's media persona, context for the remarks, or criticism.  If he was reprimanded for it, then that would be worth including.  As presented, it was just unnecessary fluff.  Morphh  (talk) 20:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

text: I added the source for the Fox News statement as a footnote after the sentence stating Beck was criticized for the remarks. Morphh  (talk) 20:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In the past week, Lawyers.com, Procter & Gamble, Progressive, S.C. Johnson, GEICO, Men's Wearhouse and Sargento have all pulled advertising as a result of his comments. How is this not worthy of being mentioned on Beck's page? I would put this incident on par with Don Imus' "nappy headed hos" comment which is certainly discussed in detail on his page. Patriot Missile33 (talk) 14:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your assertion that this is "on par" with Dom Imas' incident is WP:OR.  Do you have any evidence to back up this claim? Bytebear (talk) 15:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Bytebear, my comment on the controvery was my opinion. You want evidence to back up my opinion? This is the talkpage so I'm fairly certain I can express my opinion here. Lawyers.com, Procter & Gamble, Progressive, S.C. Johnson, GEICO, Men's Wearhouse, Sargento and State Farm (just added to the list) dropping Glenn Beck is not my opinion, it's fact, and should obviously be noted on the Glenn Beck article. Here's the article: http://rawstory.com/blog/2009/08/more-advertisers-pull-support-for-glenn-beck/ Patriot Missile33 (talk) 17:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Blogs are not reliable sources.  Also, could you please summarize your thoughts in one area rather than responding with the same argument in several places, it is too hard to follow, and I don't like repeating myself.  Bytebear (talk) 17:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:   Reliable news source on Glen Beck show losing advertisers for controversial remarks:  Fox News' "Glenn Beck" loses advertisers:  http://www.reuters.com/article/peopleNews/idUSTRE57C07920090813  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.12.114.226 (talk) 17:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving forward 

message: Okay, this doesn't seem to be just some random controversial comment anymore with major advertisers like GEICO pulling out of his show. Bytebear has voiced concern that notability has been an issue in adding content -- with GEICO's recent move, I think we can agree that this has reached enough of a tipping point for inclusion. As such, this is what I propose for inclusion somehow weaved into the persona/commentary section:
Please strike out or add changes and then see if we can reach consensus for inclusion.--The lorax (talk) 16:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Made some changes... Morphh  (talk) 16:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: GEICO pulling from the show, may be noteworthy to the show article, but it isn't to this article.  I have proposed this before, falling on deaf ears.  Controversies dealing with the Beck show should be presented on that article, not this one. Bytebear (talk) 16:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: why I am reminded of the essay WP:Wikilawyering. --L I C 16:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Why am I reminded of the guideline Assume Good Faith?  You must have forgotten to read this part of the essay WP:Wikilawyering#Misuse_of_the_term.  I am also reminded of the policy WP:BLP which says, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives." Bytebear (talk) 16:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

text: The TV section, Radio section, and media persona and commentary section are in part a summary style of the TV and Radio articles (different aspects).  So if we place this in the TV article, is there a briefer summary that would be acceptable for this article in referencing the larger content in the TV article.  Morphh  (talk) 16:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think we can describe Becks style without going into polemic examples which are there just to introduce POV.  The only reason I think these issues are being brought up are specifically to "be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims."  The sources themselves only bring up those issues as examples, and are not direct news about the incidents.  Other than self published criticism of Beck, I can find no reliable secondary source that specifically reports directly on one of these issues. Bytebear (talk) 16:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: First, this isn't a "titillating claim" by any stretch of the imagination. That's for tabloid rumours about relationships etc. This is about a statement that Beck made as part of his public professional life. Second, there are plenty of news stories specifically about him calling Obama a racist in the mainstream press, including outside America and in sources not considered left-wing. And third, it is impossible to entirely separate what Beck says on his show from him as a person. If you want to do that, then all content about his show should be excised from his biog, which would be ridiculous. Bytebear, you're making a valiant effort, but your insistence that there is no mention of controversies involving Beck is wearing thin. I'd advise you to compromise. Fences&Windows 18:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I am trying to compromise.  This issue belongs on the Fox News article or the Glenn Beck show article, but not here.  The so-called boycotts were against the show, not Beck personally.  Second, the term "incendiary" is blatant POV.  Who decided they were incendiary?  That is a subjective call, and without a reference and attributed to a source, it is WP:OR.  The NPOV way to say it would be, "Specific critic felt Beck's comments were incendiary..." with a specific third party source. Do you have such a source in mind? Bytebear (talk) 00:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  The action that caused this whole chain of events occurred on Fox and Friends, the morning talk show. If you insist on separating Glenn Beck from the Glenn Beck TV Show, his comments on other shows have everything to do with Beck as a person, and nothing to do with Beck's TV show (other than the fact that advertisers are distancing themselves from Beck, via pulling advertisements off his TV show). Furthermore, the page for his TV show is even less complete than this article, and is frequently purged of any information that potentially could reflect poorly on Beck. There are only three or four sentences that apply to his controversial Fox TV show, and I am the one who wrote them. This issue is notable, and it belongs on his page. MichaelLNorth (talk) 20:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

text:  Any reason you struck out FOX's statement on the matter? No need to quote the whole thing, but I think it's worth mentioning that they issued a statement that disclaimed responsibility for his opinion. Andrewdupont (talk) 19:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it adds anything about Beck.  It's about Fox News absolving responsibility (using a canned statement... that's Beck's opinion, not Fox News - no big surprise).  It adds nothing in regard to Beck's media persona, context for the remarks, or criticism.  If he was reprimanded for it, then that would be worth including.  As presented, it was just unnecessary fluff.  Morphh  (talk) 20:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

text: I added the source for the Fox News statement as a footnote after the sentence stating Beck was criticized for the remarks. Morphh  (talk) 20:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In the past week, Lawyers.com, Procter & Gamble, Progressive, S.C. Johnson, GEICO, Men's Wearhouse and Sargento have all pulled advertising as a result of his comments. How is this not worthy of being mentioned on Beck's page? I would put this incident on par with Don Imus' "nappy headed hos" comment which is certainly discussed in detail on his page. Patriot Missile33 (talk) 14:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your assertion that this is "on par" with Dom Imas' incident is WP:OR.  Do you have any evidence to back up this claim? Bytebear (talk) 15:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Bytebear, my comment on the controvery was my opinion. You want evidence to back up my opinion? This is the talkpage so I'm fairly certain I can express my opinion here. Lawyers.com, Procter & Gamble, Progressive, S.C. Johnson, GEICO, Men's Wearhouse, Sargento and State Farm (just added to the list) dropping Glenn Beck is not my opinion, it's fact, and should obviously be noted on the Glenn Beck article. Here's the article: http://rawstory.com/blog/2009/08/more-advertisers-pull-support-for-glenn-beck/ Patriot Missile33 (talk) 17:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Blogs are not reliable sources.  Also, could you please summarize your thoughts in one area rather than responding with the same argument in several places, it is too hard to follow, and I don't like repeating myself.  Bytebear (talk) 17:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:   Reliable news source on Glen Beck show losing advertisers for controversial remarks:  Fox News' "Glenn Beck" loses advertisers:  http://www.reuters.com/article/peopleNews/idUSTRE57C07920090813  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.12.114.226 (talk) 17:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed "Obama is a racist" comment addition