Talk:Glenn Beck

Controversy Section - Calling Obama a racist

Source youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MI_0Kt_e3Go Thanks to add the video as a source. Kindly add a Respectable Controversy section with all the unacceptable comments he ever made, and Please Stop writing his Wiki page like you are his Mom, Fox News Bias towards the right should be discussed and linked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.233.94.31 (talk) 10:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. A Controversy Section would make this article a little more balanced Bananas21ca (talk) 15:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I think a Controversy section is definitely warranted. Idonthack (talk) 15:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Why? Because you don't like him? This is a BLP not an extension of The Daily Kos or Huffpo or MMdA. Arzel (talk) 15:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The man is controversial, therefore he deserves a controversy section. Heck, OBAMA deserves a controversy section by my same logic. It;s not about liking him or not liking him, it's about covering what the man has done as the public sees him, not just as one or two people might. Veled (talk) 16:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This article fails to grasp the polarizing effect he has among people. The Sanest Mad Hatter (talk) 16:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree that there should be criticism and controversy material and that it does not capture the polarizing effect he has, but a controversy section is not the way to go about it on Wikipedia biography. The content should be included in the relevant sections of his biography to avoid point of view issues with article structure and trolling areas for the latest insignificant criticism. Morphh ^(talk) 16:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Isn't a "Reception" section typically used for this? It is less of a POVmagnet, and does not risk forking as badly as "Criticism". You are correct that he is a polarizing figure, but you wouldn't know it looking at this currently sterilized article. MichaelLNorth (talk) 14:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Reception is less of a POVmagnet and does not fork as easily. My main concern is WP:STRUCTURE: "Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents." Particularly with Biographies, I think it best to work the controversial areas into the sections that best cover that aspect of his life as related to his notability. As suggested by NPOV "A more neutral approach can sometimes result from folding debates into the narrative, rather than distilling them into separate sections that ignore each other." Morphh ^(talk) 14:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Reception, if done properly, will not violate WP:STRUCTURE. For example, "Beck's proponents believe ______ and therefore _______. Becks critics generally believe him to be _______ and therefore ______". These are facts about points of view, but presented in a WP:NPOV way. I think that there's a great deal of confusion in this discussion about presenting content in a WP:NPOV way vs. presenting information about points of view. MichaelLNorth (talk) 14:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

This "Obama is a racist" thing should certainly be addressed. Have you seen how many sponsors have pulled their advertising from his show in the past week? The list seems to grow every day as a result of his comments. Definitely noteworthy. Patriot Missile33 (talk) 14:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

A controversy section is definately missing. How comes all the talk show hosts have them, except Glenn Beck? Is he less controversial or what!? In these regards, the article - as it is - is misleading. Also include that he consistently compares the Democratic Party with nazis. --Kräuter-Oliven (talk) 20:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

At this point I believe the controversy is significant. Look at this article http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE57C07920090813.24.22.51.132 (talk) 21:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Libertarian?

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

Removal of anecdotal incidents

I have removed several paragraphs of cherry picked anecdotal incidents that present a leading POV. There is nothing noteworthy about these events, and they are all written to make Beck look like conspiracy theorist wacko. I have removed them for their lack of notability and their leading nature, not to mention the issues with the more strict issues dealing with biographies of living persons. If you think one or more of these paragraphs should remain, please give specific reason why the incident is noteworthy and how it relates to the overall biography of Glen Beck. Bytebear (talk) 17:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The items I have included in this article are not POV or unnoteworthy. There is nothing "cherry picked" about them. They are properly sourced. That Beck has repeated on a major mainstream cable newschannel a conspiracy theory that is largely relegated to the hard, ultra-right in America (i.e. FEMA facilities turning into concentration camps) is certainly noteworthy. That Beck has written a foreward for, emphatically endorsed and handed out a book by a notorious conspiracist and John Birch Society supporter is certainly noteworthy, as is other conservatives' criticism of him doing so. I have no idea whether Beck is a "conspiracy theorist wacko" (your words), since I don't know whether he believes the things he says. I don't seen how Wikipedia:BLP applies to what I've added. You need to explain to me why these items are not noteworthy before you take it upon yourself unilaterally sanitize this article. --Hardindr (talk) 19:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course it's cherry picking. Beck has done hundreds if not thousands of shows on a wide range of topics, and you have chosen topics that in your own words, "a conspiracy theory that is largely relegated to the hard, ultra-right in America." That is cherry picking a topic. And your obsession with labeling Scousen a "Conspiracy theorist" is also cherry picking those descriptors, which other editors have already agreed. The burden of proof does not lie with me. And if you know the BLP policy, you should know that that burden is far more strict than with other articles. Now, if you want to discuss each paragraph, then by all means, but I see nothing of value in them. Bytebear (talk) 21:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Not commenting on all aspects, but certainly some of that material has been here for awhile. Beck is a very controversial figure (abnormally so, even for a pundit), and it's inevitable that we will discuss some of the more notable controversies here. "More notable" is determined by those which have received the most coverage. The thing with Keith Ellison was widely discussed and I think therefore worth including, as was his 9/12 Project show and the on-air tears (mocked not only by Colbert, but also a fellow Fox News anchor). One can debate about what belongs and does not belong, but it would not be in keeping with WP:NPOV if we didn't cover some of the most noteworthy controversies with respect to Beck. I would make the same argument over at an article like Michael Moore, incidentally.

Of course, we also need to cover the basics about Beck's life, popularity of his shows and books, etc. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

So you think 1) a comedy bit mocking his emotion, 2) a FEMA comment in one show, 3) a comment from a press secretary about a book endorsement and 4) a disagreement with Whoopie Goldburg on the View are all noteworthy controversies? Seriously? Bytebear (talk) 21:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

David Frum is a former speech writer for GWB and a prominent and incluential conservative. His criticism of Beck is definetely noteworthy, even more so because of its harshness. --Hardindr (talk) 22:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Obviously I did not say that, and anyway it's not about what you think or I think, it's about attention received in secondary sources. Being mocked on The Colbert Report can be notable, especially when Shepard Smith also mocks you, and especially when the incident is reported all over the place (surely you know this—the crying bit was widely, widely covered and it seems utterly appropriate to mention it here, indeed a huge number of people probably know him only for this incident). The FEMA comment got some attention but inclusion of that is certainly debatable, as is inclusion of criticism from David Frum (though he's a prominent conservative, obviously, which is worth considering, and by the way he was a speechwriter, not a press secretary). I had not heard of the thing with The View until I came here and have no idea how I feel about that.

If you're willing to discuss the specifics of these here then that is good. Again, what matters in terms of evaluating this is the amount of discussion of various incidents in secondary sources and the overall neutrality of the article. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

So you think that a mocking video or comedy skit about Obama would be fitting as well? I know that, "Barack the Magic Negro" got a lot of play on Rush Limbaugh and other conservative circles. Why is no mention of that on Obama's bio? The simple answer is, it isn't noteworthy. And neither is the material in question here. Bytebear (talk) 22:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It's better to structure this as a conversation, rather than a series of "what about this?" questions. No, I don't think that that video should be mentioned in Obama's article. You'll notice that I did not say that the Colbert video should necessarily be mentioned in this article—I said "being mocked on The Colbert Report can be notable," and pointed out that I think the whole "crying" incident should be mentioned in some fashion. Maybe Colbert's response should not be included, I'm certainly open to that. I'm willing to work with you here. No need to reply to this (unless you want to) as I'll engage with the conversation continuing below. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't have an "obsession" with labeling Skousen a conspiracy theorist, beacuse that is what he is known for, besides being a major supporter of the John Birch Society. I'm working on pulling together the necessary cites to have the article on him reflect this, particularly in the lead. It is irrelevent that Beck has done thousands of shows on a wide range of topic. It isn't irrelevent or unnoteworthy when a major figure on popular mainstream cable news televeision show repeats fringe conspiracy theories, or promotes the book of a notorious conspiracist. If Keith Olbermann or Rachael Maddow got up on their show one day and said, "You know what? I can't debunk these theories out their that 'Bush did 9/11'! Isn't that funny? Oh, and by the way, this book by David Icke, its "divinely inspired!" that would be noteworthy and definitely worthy of inclusion in their respective wikipedia entries. I think what I have posted about Beck is well within the BLP policy, though you are free to disagree. Do you want to move this to an RFC? --Hardindr (talk) 22:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

and you don't see that as being a wee bit POV? Pushing an agenda that Beck is wrapped up in conspiracy theories. I doubt you will get too far in the Skousen article either, since his theories were well regarded at the time. In fact, other than the category on his article "conspiracy theorists" (which I think is misplaced POV), there is no mention of him being such in the entire article (at least last time I checked- I am sure that will change soon). I am sure there are left wing sources to the contrary, and I am sure you will try to change the article to slant it's POV toward your own impression of him. Fortunately Wikipedia has rules and guidelines to thwart such behavior. Consensus has already proven that your pet name for Skousen has been shot down. But I cannot stop you from perusing your agenda. Good luck. Bytebear (talk) 22:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

"POV" is not an excuse for removing legitimate and well-sourced items from an article. Skousen's ideas about David Rockefeller and other "insiders" running both the US and the USSR were not "well regarded" by anyone, now or in the past, except by members of the John Birch Society. Your "left wing" remark reveals your own POV issues. I find this tiring. Do you want to start an RFC or should I? --Hardindr (talk) 22:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not removing them because they are POV, but because they are not noteworthy and by cherry picking only certain events, they present a POV. You putting up non-noteworthy items is just an attempt at pushing your POV. We have already established consensus on the use of "conspiracy theorist" to describe Skousen, but if you want to bring more people to the discussion, by all means, just don't cherry pick them like you do your facts. Bytebear (talk) 22:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I will add that if and when you find references to Skousen's supposed conspiracy theories (meaning you need a third party reliable source calling them as such), they should be presented on that page, not this one. Bytebear (talk) 22:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, let me get this straight. You do not regard the fact that a widely watched host of an opinion show on a major, mainstream cable news channel promoted a conspiracy theory that is believed by only those in the U.S. militia movement and other sectors of the hard right in America noteworthy? If Ed Shultz looked straight into the camera on his television program one day and said, "You know, I think Barrack Obama is controled by a Zionist cabal from the South Side of Chicago, and this book by Eustace Mullins is really great!" you wouldn't think it would be worthy of inclusion in his wikipedia article? As for Skousen, who is this royal "we" on Wikipedia that you speak of? I've put some cites into the lead of the Skousen article to accurately reflect his views, and we'll see what other editors think. I'll go to a local academic library in the next week or two to get some more. But Skousen really isn't the issue here. What will it take for you to stop sanitizing this article? --Hardindr (talk) 23:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Starting over

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Additionally, I do not like your threat made here [9], 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)

Would you prefer a formal warning on your talk page? Bytebear (talk) 01:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

(outdent) I haven't looked at this to closely, but I usually like to see this kind of "stuff" added MAYBE to the article covering the subject's book/show/radioprogram/wahtever. Is this "stuff" really that relevant to the bio? How noteworthy is it really? How widely covered by the main stream media was it? Just because you have a citation from some taking head or biased web site does not impress me or mean that it must be included. Also, please save "you want to scrub and whitewash the article" whinning, because that also will not impress me. Anyways, just a first thought, cheers, --Tom (talk) 00:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Starting over again

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)

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)

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)

I want to thank everyone for their patience. My initial responses are below. --Hardindr (talk) 02:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

An editor added a bit about the Obama/Gates issue. This is the problem with adding non-Noteworthy sections in to the article. It leads to more non-Noteworthy items to be added. If we add a section on every little thing Beck says or does because we want to push a POV against him, it will be bloated. There are articles dealing with these issues already. We don't need to repeat them here. If the issue isn't noteworthy enough to mention in the Gates article or incident article, it does not deserve mention here. and that goes for the other two issues mentioned below. Not noteworthy. Bytebear (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, anybody want to comment on the text in the section below? --Hardindr (talk) 15:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

From reading the sources, it looks to me like the second paragraph is WP:SYN. Morphh ^(talk) 19:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

How so? --Hardindr (talk) 20:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

Many conspiracists (on their blogs and message boards) found it notable, including this one [10]. 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)

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)

(Undent) Beck stated that he (I don't know if that includes a research team, if he has one, or his staff or whatever) looked into the alleged FEMA concentration camp rumors and could not disprove them. This gives the impression that he was giving his support to this long standing, fringe conspiracy theory, although Beck now claims otherwise. People in the mainstream news media, as almost an unbreakable rule, do not give these easily disprovable theories any credance. If that is not notable, I don't know what is. --Hardindr (talk) 17:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Disputed parts of TV section

After a March 2009 taping of Beck's FOX News show on which he appeared to choke up on air, wiping tears from his eyes and explaining, "I'm sorry. I just love my country, and I fear for it," Beck was mocked by fellow FOX personality Shepard Smith and Comedy Central satirist Stephen Colbert, the latter going as far as to imitate Beck, saying "I'm sorry. I just love Glenn Beck's sanity. And I fear for it." Regular Fox News political commentator Dennis Miller remarked that Beck was "a shaky cat." The New York Times ran a feature piece on Beck later in the month, quoting an interview with Beck in which he identified himself with Peter Finch's "mad prophet of the airwaves" from the 1976 film Network, Howard Beale, and continually noting Beck's reputation as a performer rather than as a journalist.

On the March 2, 2009 Fox & Friends program, Beck claimed that he had tried and was unable to debunk rumors that FEMA facilities were to be converted into concentration camps, a longstanding conspiracy theory that has circulated in the U.S. militia movement since the 1990s. Later, on the April 6, 2009 Glenn Beck Program, Beck denounced the rumor. After the airing of Beck's March 13, 2009 Glenn Beck Program Special "We Surround Them," Beck was criticized by former George W. Bush speech writer and conservative commentator David Frum for distributing copies of conspiracist and John Birch Society supporter Cleon Skousen's book The 5,000 Thousand Year Leap, in which Beck wrote the foreward for the 2008 edition.

Beck had previously promoted an excerpt from Skousen's 1958 book, The Naked Communist on his website.

Crying

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)

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 [11] [12], 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

FEMA

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)

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)

Please review the section WP:AGF. Your comments are unproductive and inappropriate. Bytebear (talk) 18:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I think that Bytebear has no argument, and will never change his mind, regardless of what is presented to him. I say it's time to ignore Bytebear, he's completely POV, his POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.213.215 (talk) 07:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I think this also [13] counts towards notabillity. --Hardindr (talk) 20:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

No Controversy section?

Glenn Beck has made some outrageous statements and had some equally outrageous hosts, including one that called for Osama Bin Laden to attack America to "Wake up" the people. Why are right-wing wikipedia scrubbers allowed to suppress these? [[14]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.254.193.190 (talk) 17:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Political views section

This section is woefully in need of citations. This is a violation of WP:BLP and I would like to see some references added. I would prefer they not be lumped together however. I think we can present them in conjunction with his various shows, talking about what he emphasized on each, assuming there are third party references. Otherwise, I think the whole section can be scrapped. I am going to push very hard for reliable third party sources, so don't be offended if you think I am blocking your edits. This article could become an example of how to write about a controversial political pundit if we work hard to make sure it is neutral and well documented. Bytebear (talk) 18:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Lack of neutrality

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

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

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

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

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

Here are the sources:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Conservative"

I disagree with the characterization of Beck as "conservative". It isn't conservative to characterize the President of the United States as a "racist". Beck seems radical to me. MikeOtown (talk) 14:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

How does one statement reclassify his political beliefs? Beck was talking about institutional racism. Some people would define that anyone supporting affirmative action is racist - that doesn't make them radical. Depends on how you define the terms and the context and background of what your discussing. Of course, none of this is mentioned by the attack dogs. If you look at the definition of institutional racism, it fits common positions and policies. Many policies put forward and in place offer preferential treatment to a particular group (relabeled as diversity). This is the type of racism that Beck was speaking about - he presented how the agenda amounts to reparations and social justice for blacks. From what I understand, most conservatives oppose these types of policies - they just don't have the balls to call it racist.

On the point though, I'm not sure I would call him a conservative either - he's a libertarian and in this society of labels, I'm not sure conservative accurately portrays his views in comparison with other "conservatives". Morphh ^(talk) 14:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Horrible Article

Here you have a guy who makes money on outrage, who makes money on behaving in outrageous ways, and who makes money by saying outrageous things. However, the wikipedians religiously scrub this article of everything noteworthy in these departments.

When a media figure flat out calls the leader of the free world a racist, it is *noteworthy*. That is non-POV, that is Glenn Beck's POV and it is a noteworthy one and deserves to be in this horrible article. Scrubbing noteworthy things that may cause someone's hero to be viewed in a bad light however, that is something that wikipedia should not allow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.68.250.6 (talk) 02:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

This article is totally bland. Beck is a controversial figure, but this article about him has been completely sanitised that an unfamiliar reader would be unaware of this. For example, he said that Obama is a racist,[15], and he asked the first Muslim congressman to prove he's not an enemy of America.[16] I didn't need to look far, as both examples are from the first page of news hits about him, and both are supported by mainstream reliable sources. Why aren't they in the article? Fences&Windows 02:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I've added a POV tag until we resolve this issue, which has also been raised by other editors above. A page about Glenn Beck is not supposed to be a page that is universally favourable towards Glenn Beck; notable criticism should be included. Fences&Windows 02:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not even criticism that is being taken out, it's notable controversial things he's said. At the very least, the Keith Ellison question should be included.--The lorax (talk) 02:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

From what I've read above on this talk page, it seems like there's only 1 editor who is preventing the inclusion of this material to improve the article. Is that acceptable? Right now I must echo (nearly) everyone' thoughts about how misleading this article is. General Epitaph (talk) 02:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a Bio, not a page for people to air their grievances, just because the left blogoshpere is currently up in arms about Beck doesn't mean that these page should reflect that narrow view. If you want to complain, go do it on Kos or Huffpo or MMfA. Arzel (talk) 02:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

OR, we could edit this article including the well-cited notable criticisms like we do to other bio's here. I think LIC's comment "so, the argument is it is not a big deal that a notable media commentator calling a President racist. interesting..." captures the essence of this perfectly. And complaints framing this into a "loony-left" issue are not helpful. General Epitaph (talk) 02:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

If you have issues with other article's comment on them. As for this article, there is very little commentary outside of the left wing bloggosphere on Beck's comments about Obama, and certainly Beck will not be known for such comments in his obituary. In other words, it's not noteworthy. Bytebear (talk) 03:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Bytebear, you've demanded that other editors assume good faith on your part, but you seem not to be doing the same to others. Though you may believe that the criticism of Beck is limited to the leftwing blogosphere, that is simply un-true, and 3rd-party reliable sources have been provided. You claim that "Beck will not be known for such comments in his obituary," without any evidence. Were Beck to die today, his criticism of Obama would absolutely be included in his obituary. Do you dispute this? aubrey (talk) 06:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I dispute that. Beck's opinion of Obama is not unique to him. Many conservative commentators have ethier alluded to or made explicit statements to the same fact. The primary difference with Beck was that his was on live TV and he is a much bigger fish to attack. I find it most ironic that the left, which claim to believe in freedom of speech, get so irate when that speech doesn't follow their personal opinion. Arzel (talk) 17:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Why is there a dispute to whether Beck has strong opinions about Obama et al? This seems to be a significant part of his persona and not in violation of BLP. As shown above, there are many sources that attribute this to him that aren't "left wing" blogs. At the same time, there appears to be an overrepresentation of Beck's interviews with Gov. Brian Schweitzer for some reason; Montana Beck fans perhaps?--The lorax (talk) 18:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Beck has a lot of opinions. Singling this out is giving undue weight. The alternative is to add every position he has said about every topic, which moves into trivia territory. It's not that it isn't true. It's that it isn't important. If you have other sources, present them and we can discuss them. If you have issues with other aspects of the article, present them separately. I don't know anything about the interview in question, but that discussion belongs under its own heading. Bytebear (talk) 18:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Beck has no other opinion even close to declaring bluntly that the President is racist. To suggest that this is just simple banter is disingenuous. I understand you clearly don't like the left, but we're supposed to leave that at the door when editing wikipedia. As stated earlier, a comment like that transcends the left-wing blogosphere. General Epitaph (talk) 19:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

No, you are adding undue weight to a comment that many people have said and believe after Obama's comments. Becks comments are not unique. Perhaps, to you they are incendiary, but the mainstream media has not singled out Beck in this arena. If you have evidence or references that prove me wrong, I will look at them, but I have not seen anything to validate your opinion. Bytebear (talk) 19:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

From above (the lorax): "Article on the comments by the Associated Press." General Epitaph (talk) 19:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

<--Outdent. Arzel, ByteBear, you're assuming that anyone who wants to balance this page with well-sourced notable criticism is on the "loony left" and should stick to the left blogosphere. That's hardly a neutral position, and it suggests that you're unwilling to work with editors who differ from you in their political views, as you're essentially saying that they shouldn't edit this article. I'm left wing, but I'm also British, so really Beck has little impact on me, but what I do know of him is that he's controversial and has attracted criticism, as well as praise from the Christian Right. An article that fails to reflect that is certainly being censored. Undue weight and BLP are not an excuse to gut an article of all critical sources. I very easily found reliable sources for two controversies about him within a minute of searching, so it's not like only obscure, fringe or partisan sources are discussing it. Guess what the third hit is when I Google "Glenn Beck"? This, from AP on Yahoo News:[17]. On page 2, this from the Daily Mail, not known for its left-leaning stance:[18]. On page 3, the New York Times describes him as "Fox News’s Mad, Apocalyptic, Tearful Rising Star".[19] And also see this lot:[20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27] We need to report these views, but not endorse them. p.s. This quote might help resolve the libertarian/conservative edit war: "I consider myself a libertarian. I'm a conservative, but every day that goes by I'm fighting for individual rights."[28] Fences&Windows 20:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It's fine if you want to summarize on his persona by the mainstream media, but it is undue weight to extract examples that only serve to defame. It is undue weight on those specifics. If you look at the summary I made of the Time magazine article it is far more balanced and NPOV than the original purpose for the citation, which was to make him look bad. A neutral point of view does not mean we need a balance of good and bad commentary. It means that any commentary is taken from third party sources and presented in a neutral point of view. In other words, we do not give our own opinions. And we do not add others opinions just because they make him look bad for "balance." You have a good start on those articles, and I am fine with their inclusion if they are presented in a neutral way. That has not been the practice of other editors, however. Bytebear (talk) 20:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

That's something I realize now I wasn't clear about in my earlier posts. What I think this article needs is to have those statements in there, and present them in a *neutral encyclopedic fashion*, for sure. Just don't leave them out altogether. I definitely don't want them included if they have wording to the effect of "look at how awful this guy is! look what he said!". Someone should be able to read this article, see those comments, and then make their own judgement. General Epitaph (talk) 20:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

This statement is true, but adding undue weight to certain issues is POV. Beck has made a lot of statements both good and bad, and we cannot include them all in this article. The key is noteworthy and undue weight, which fails on the specific issues wanting to be added into the article. Bytebear (talk) 20:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The use of the TIME and NYT articles in the "media persona" section tones down their stance too much. The article uses the blandest possible quotes from the articles as illustrations, giving no real indication of how many commentators see him. I don't want the article to be a hatchet job by any means, but it has to accurately reflect mainstream opinion of him. His views on gun control are given a lot of space but they're barely reported on, whereas his question to the Muslim congressman and his views about Obama have generated many column inches, and his 9/12 project is given a platform with no mention of the response to it from mainstream sources, let alone Colbert. I was cherry-picking criticism as that is absent from the article. Fences&Windows 20:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, the problem I have with those articles is that they are less about Glenn Beck the person and more about his personality on his show. For example, calling him a "mad man" is not accurate, but he does appear that way on the show. He screams and uses props, but that isn't really about him as a person, but more about him as a personality and his appearances on his show. They are better served if covered in those articles. Certainly you don't think Colbert is actually like his media persona in real life? But even if covered in other articles, we need to determine what is noteworthy. A mention of his gun control stance, to use your example may be appropriate if it reflects in his personal life. I don't know how it does really, but maybe you have a source that can shed some light on it. Bytebear (talk) 20:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

did he really express his "racist" view on his show? --L I C 22:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand your point. Are you saying if a news article covers the Colbert Report, it should be included in the Stephen Colbert biography? Bytebear (talk) 23:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I was under the impression he expressed those views when he was interviewed in Fox and Friends which should discredit your "persona" theory. --L I C 23:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

He express them on his show and in the interview. He presented some facts, his argument and conclusions on his show that week. He was then in a short interview on Fox and Friends where they clipped that little sound bite. Here is a source for what he was talking about (institutional racism), which discusses his thoughts on the Obamma agenda being about diversity, social justice and a method of reparations. Morphh ^(talk) 3:01, 06 August 2009 (UTC)

Morphh, you totally deserve a barnstar for helping mediate this dispute. I thought your previous edit to the persona section where you gave context to the comment was the most constructive missive in this whole edit conundrum. I think it should be re-added and/or ByteBear should come up with a compromise edit.--The lorax (talk) 15:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! :-) To Bytebears thoughts above regarding Beck's media persona, I agree that more content and focus be placed on the show article if is tied to such. However, I disagree with the aspect that such means removing it from this article altogether. His media persona is directly tied to and the primary reason for his notability. So as a person, for his biography, I think it is important to discuss this aspect of Glen Beck. As defined in the policy, I think it should be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. I think it would be appropriate to have a summary of his media persona and place a {{details}} tag at the top or bottom of the section linked to the Glenn Beck (TV program), which could cover it in more detail. I think adding the link for more details will hopefully keep this section concise and balanced. Future comments can be assessed for weight, replacing the content with those instances that are most notable. Morphh ^(talk) 16:02, 06 August 2009 (UTC)

Outdenting. I agree Morphh is working very hard here and deserves some recognition. Unfortunately, I don't think that this is going to be solved without higher level moderation. Bytebear, in response to my comment above you said you would dispute that "Were Beck to die today, his criticism of Obama would absolutely be included in his obituary." because "Beck's opinion of Obama is not unique to him." This is nonsensical; plenty of people are known for things which are not unique. Similarly, it's ridiculous to say that Glenn Beck has a Colbert-style persona on his show. I agree he's got a touch of the "morning zoo" style, but he absolutely does not use his show persona as a means of satirizing the ideas he's presenting. (note: Beck may have done this a couple of times, but that is the very essence of the Colbert persona, and these are not at all the examples we're discussing.) That is to say, his persona on the show shares his opinions with his real person (at least as far as I know; he speaks as himself, not as a character). Bytebear, I'm trying extremely hard to assume good faith, but you're making it quite difficult.aubrey (talk) 19:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I will comment on your assertion of nonsensical logic. You say, "plenty of people are known for things which are not unique." but that's not the point. The point is, Beck is not known for his accusations of racism toward Obama. In fact, it is a blip on his commentary. He is far more known for his crying on air, which is why I have let that slide, although I think it is petty and non-noteworthy as well. The issue isn't about defining Beck and his persona. it is in singling out specific non-noteworthy samples and generating a list of trivia. It promotes POV, and eventually becomes a "Criticism of ..." POV Fork. Nothing good comes from singling out trivial examples of criticism. The same thing has happened with the Criticism of Bill O'Reilly which is now slated for deletion because it is a trivial POV fork. If you want to add a reference to the article, present the article, and let's discuss it. The Time magazine article was fine, but it was presented in a POV way, and it was focusing on a metaphor used in the article as if that were the focus of the article, which it was not. I corrected that by giving a NPOV summary of the article. That is the way this article should be written. That is not what you and others are proposing. Bytebear (talk) 00:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The only significant thing Glen Beck has ever done as far as I know is say that Obaba hates white culture on national TV. I had never heard of him before that happened. I'm sure most people hadn't. I would bet half of the people who even know who he is know about him because of his statement re: Obama hates white culture. That's like having an article about OJ and leaving out the murder trial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.102.94.130 (talk • contribs)

Well, you are sheltered then. :) Beck has written several books, has a one man show that changes each year, and has had his own radio and television shows for years. His calling Obama a racists (something that has been bantered about since before the Election (see Jeremiah_Wright_controversy). It is hardly to the level of murder. Bytebear (talk) 01:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't saying his comments were like murder, I was saying they are on par with OJ's murder as far as how much they increased his overall fame. Take a look at this very pages traffic before and after he made these comments. A significant increase means the comments were significant. Right? And by the way, most people don't follow the Cable News talking head du jour. They only know about them when they do something else to make themselves famous. Like getting on national television and saying "Barak Obama hates white culture". That's how I heard about him. SO: are you willing to post the pre-comment and post-comment page traffic numbers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.102.94.130 (talk) 01:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

ALSO: There is a huge difference between "barak is a racist" banter and saying "Barak Hates White Culture". "You are a racist" is par for the course in partisan advocacy. A news figure saying "Barak hates White Culture" is NEWS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.102.94.130 (talk) 01:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

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. Morphh ^(talk) 12:57, 08 August 2009 (UTC)

Spelling error

Marriage is spelled wrong (Marraige). Can someone with permission update this?

Fixed. --Smashville^talk 14:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The 9/12 Project notable?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Glenn Beck vs Glenn Beck on Wikipedia

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)Peace, RainRainM (talk) 02:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

No need to retype, it looked like this two years ago. Morphh ^(talk) 2:55, 07 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

Why isn't this mentioned?

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) WP:RS aside, because I can't be bothered, there are pages and pages of cites for this (Yahoo search for 'Glenn Beck CARS.gov'), the vast majority of which swallowed Beck's version of the story whole. Here's one that didn't, with info that could be useful. Anarchangel (talk) 04:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

I am an Australian and don't have any strong feelings on America's domestic politics or it's pundits. However, We've started getting Glenn Beck and Fox News recently and his on air antics i find intruiging. When I saw this article, I was shocked that it makes no mention of his at least unconventional on-air style. After reading this talk page I can see why. It is you, Bytebear, who has obviously stripped this article off all of the content that would give a layperson who has never seen Mr Becks show an accurate and reliable representation of what that person could expect. You have accused dedicated, well-meaning wikipedians who have made meaningful, important and referenced edits of 'cherry picking' when it is clearly you who has cherry picked which parts of Mr Beck's career you do not want wikipedians to know about. You have scrubbed the article of almost anything you feel casts Mr Beck in a bad light and not once have you argued to include more content in it. As I mentioned I do not care what happens with regard to American media, but I do care whether Wikipedia can maintain a NPOV. Your treatment of this article, Bytebear, is deplorable and if you had any integrity you would immediately distance yourself from it. ScottMacGregor1985 (talk) 07:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

Barak comment

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)

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)

Morphh ?? Are you being serious ? Calling the president a racist on National Television is not Notable ? If you think so then you shouldn't be in charge of deciding what's notable and what's not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.233.94.31 (talk) 10:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

• The IP editor was way off base from the start. He said "I had never heard of him before these comments on national television. I doubt many people had." Just because you hadn't heard of him, you think most people hadn't. The fact that his show on FNC alone garners more viewers than anything MSNBC or CNN (his former employer) alone puts on should disprove that. The books and the #3 ranked syndicated radio show just make that statement more laughable. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

A controversy section or separate article MUST be created.

There are simply way too many notable, archived controversies coming from Glenn Beck. This article LIES by omitting massive amounts of information. All major political pundits on Wikipedia have controversy sections or separate articles, or at least mention controversies. A NPOV controversy section or separate article MUST be created.

I've read this talk page, which suggests that controversies be spread out over the article, but there is NO mention of any controversy whatsoever.

Since all other articles on pundits recognize controversy, I only conclude that this article has slipped under the radar and has been controlled by partisan hacks for an obscene amount of time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Novalord2 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds very close to a personal attack on article editors. Take this as a polite warning and assume good faith. Morphh ^(talk) 0:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a proposal for a WP:POVFORK to me. Bytebear (talk) 00:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

How about one compromise; I added back the Keith Ellison question. Of all of Beck's notorious on-air moments, this one appears to be the most notable. It was called incendiary by the New York Times, was singled out by Muslim groups in protesting Beck's inclusion on GMA, it is featured on Ellison's own wiki page and Beck admitted it was one of the most "poorly-worded questions ever."--The lorax (talk) 01:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Not really a compromise to try to slip in one non-Noteworthy incident. It also is more related to his show and not to him. Do you have more references than that? Was the incident covered by several analysts? Was it just spread around by a single AP source? This particular link violates WP:EL#Sites_requiring_registration. The particular incident isn't the focus of the article, which also shows it to be less than noteworthy. The other source you cite is just a transcript of the show, which is not a third party source, making your conclusion WP:OR. Do you have a reference that explicitly talks about this incident, or states your conclusion that this is somehow controversial? Why do you think this incident is noteworthy? Why is it more controversial than, say, his commentary toward Michael Moore? Bytebear (talk) 02:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Bytebear can claim that any of the numerous controversial statements he has made are not noteworthy, but together they are the single largest reason why Beck himself is noteworthy. Whether you think that Beck's statements are "what nobody else has the guts to say" or that they're crazy and offensive, these statements are why he is known. Having no mention of these statements in general, if not the statements themselves with appropriate references (i.e., organizations that act as "watchdogs" for Fox News controversies and inaccuracies, i.e., Media Matters, The Huffington Post, Daily Kos) leaves out the single most relevant characteristic of the person whom this article is about. Perhaps including individual controversies is seen by Bytebear as WP:POV, but certainly omitting or downplaying the entire topic of controversies and controversial statements by Beck is an even greater instance of WP:POV. Obviously these general statements need to be supported with references, so Congressman Bob Inglis telling his constituents that Beck is "trading on fear" would be a good start. MichaelLNorth (talk) 17:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The Washington Post had a pretty thorough analysis of the incident: "Until he starts trading bons mots with Diane Sawyer, Beck remains best known for what surely is his most embarrassing moment. It happened in mid-November, when Beck invited the country's first Muslim congressman, newly elected Democrat Keith Ellison of Minnesota, on the show"

[...]

"Three groups have written to ABC urging the network to keep Beck off "GMA," the Associated Press reported yesterday. "That blatant anti-Arab, anti-Muslim bias has been given credibility on a larger news show is something that concerns us," Arab American Institute spokeswoman Jennifer Kauffman told the AP."

"When "The Daily Show" re-aired the clip of Beck's question to Ellison, host Jon Stewart followed up with this thought: "Finally, a guy who says what people who aren't thinking are thinking."--The lorax (talk) 03:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The article might be good to pull some general information from, but it is hardly focusing on this incident, again proving my point that this is not notable. Bytebear (talk) 03:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

There's a lot of good information from that WaPo piece. Here's another article mentioning the Ellison incident: "Mr. Beck has often roused protests from the left, and never more so than when he interviewed Representative Keith Ellison of Minnesota after he was newly elected as the first Muslim congressman."--The lorax (talk) 04:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I already discussed the NYTimes article. It fails WP:EL because it requires log in. It also does not focus on the event as the sole subject of the article. Don't you see the problem. You are picking examples from various articles and creating focus on an incident which none of your sources focus. You are researching and picking and choosing what parts of the articles to focus on. It takes more than just pulling out quotes and putting them together. In fact, that is not allowed under Wikipedia rules on WP:OR. I will be more specific. You start your paragraph with the statement, "Beck's penchant for speaking his opinions candidly has sometimes spurred controversy." But, none of your sources make that assertion directly. They are not articles about his "controversial" nature. That is your assessment of the sources. In other words, original research. Bytebear (talk) 04:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Without commenting on the specific info and whether it belongs in the article or not...failing WP:EL in no way prevents an otherwise reliable source from being used as a source. --Onorem♠Dil 04:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, but one issue is notability, which means that reliable sources should be prevalent. That it is difficult to find reliable sources that meet the standards of WP:EL goes to show the lack of notability in this case. If the incident is notable, there should be a plethora of acceptable sources to choose from. Bytebear (talk) 04:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

This incident has been documented many times though in numerous reliable sources: In Time, at least two NYT articles, the Washington Post article, The Daily Show et al. Nobody would argue its place in Keith Ellison's article, why can't we say the same for Beck's article? Also, as opposed to the "sometimes spurring controversy" line, how about verbatim the NYT's line: "Mr. Beck has often roused protests from the left." I'm not trying to cherry pick, I'm just trying to include obvious missing parts of Beck's career that are absent from the article.--The lorax (talk) 05:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The incident is covered in the Ellison article because it is about Ellison and his political views as explored through Beck's interview. It is not about Beck or his views. Beck interviews hundreds if not thousands of people. The articles you cite are not specifically about the incident, but use it as examples. We can discuss the overall concepts of the articles in question (as I did with the Time article- which by the way does not mention Ellison by name, another whack at your notability claim), but we do not need to give undue weight to this or any other specific incident. It is being used as a POV wedge to make Beck look bad, (which none of the articles are doing by the way). That is where the original research comes in. You want to conclude an aspect of Beck from this incident that no article concludes. BTW, I cannot read the NYTimes article, so I have no way to verify your quote, but when is it noteworthy that a conservative commentator garners criticism from the left? But that is not what you asserted. Your claim said nothing about who criticized him, showing your own (not so) subtle POV that he is controversial, but really, he isn't, except to the left (which is to be expected and a given). Bytebear (talk) 06:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

1) Glenn Beck specifically says in the interview that he is uncomfortable with having a Muslim congressman, this does reflect on his views: "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 THATS THE WAY I FEEL (emphasis mine), and I think a lot of Americans will feel that way." Transcript here: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0611/14/gb.01.html 2) From the notability guide: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material" 3) Ellison is the only Muslim congressman, he does not need to be refereed to by name if his unique title is used. 4) The articles for Micheal Moore and Don Imus both have coverage of controversy. Micheal Moore's article mentions his comments regarding the RNC being moved because of Hurricane Gustav, which attracted attention primarily from conservatives. The Don Imus article has a giant controversy section that catalogs numerous racial slurs and offensive statements. Why is Glenn Beck different from this? The inclusion of a controversy article isn't destined to be POV. 5) Why is the statement from the Arab Institute not a reliable source? I've seen statements from the Anti-Defamation League used in Wikipedia articles all the time. novalord2 07:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

First of all, you cannot use a transcript as a source. Your commentary is WP:OR. Just by putting your emphasis on the quote, you are revealing youe own POV. Second, you are giving undue weight to a single issue. Beck has said a lot of things to a lot of people. What makes this particular incident more prominent than anything else he has said or done? It does not have more citations, or news covering it. Third, not mentioning the congressman by name does show that the article in question is not specifically about the incident. Fourth, "because they do it" is not a valid argument. If the Don Imus article has a criticism section, then maybe it needs to be changed. The Criticism of Bill O'Reilly article is already slated for deletion. Criticism sections are discouraged on Wikipedia. They create [[WP:{POVFORK]]s. They introduce WP:Trivia and cause bloat. Fifth, the issue is covered in the appropriate article, where it is pertinent. It is not noteworthy to Beck and we don't need to repeat it, and I am not really sure it even needs to be in that article. Bytebear (talk) 16:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't have citations or news covering it? Really? And explain to me how condemnation from the Arab Institute isn't noteworthy, unless you believe the opinion of the largest Arab advocacy group aren't significant enough this article. I emphasized the quote to show exactly where he reveals his opinion. Also, the criticism of Reilly is proposed to be MERGED into the main article by Aug 20, not deleted. The undue weight guidelines say this: "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents" and we do have several prominent publications.novalord2 21:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you absolutely can use a transcript as a source, and I quote Primary sources are sources very close to an event. For example, an account of a traffic accident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the accident. Other examples include archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews, the source cannot however, be the sole source, which in this case it is not.

Notability does not govern the content of articles in any way, shape, or form, it can never be used as a defense because no policy regarding said content exists, it is explicitly stated Notability is meant only for the decision regarding the creation of the article's topic, I reiterate, it cannot be used for the content of the article. WP:NOTE

Wikipedia does not discourage Criticism WP:CRIT, in fact, it has a policy dedicated solely to it, thus your statement is false.

Noteworthiness in no way dictates the inclusion of the content, if educated Criticism exists, it should be included under an appropriately named section and cited, not necessarily "Controversy", Wikipedia suggests the term "Reception" so as to include both negative and positive third party points of view, though it is correct for articles dedicated solely to the topic of Criticism to be considered non-notable and POV content. Trivia restricts mentioning a bevy of specific incidents as does Recentism, it is best that both positive and negative opinions be summarized intelligently without pedantic emphasis placed on an array of specific incidents, as is the case with most "Criticism" sections of articles. Revrant (talk) 22:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you are forgetting two issues. One is Undue Weight where we have todecide what should and should not be mentioned. No citation is specifically about this event, other than to comment generally about Beck's style as a commentator. And I believe that style is already mentioned in the article to a fair extent. To focus on this incident adds undue weight and POV to the character of Beck. Add to that that the congressman mentioned has stated that he didn't find the issue offensive at all. Add to that the issue of longevity. Someone complained that the criticisms of a year ago are not in the article, but it is clear that those criticisms are long forgotten. This issue will also be long forgotten in a year or two. It does not define Beck as a person. It is not noteworthy to his life. This article is not about his on-air persona, or about his interviews. It is about him. There is a big difference. I have said before that I am fine with mention of specifics in the show article, assuming sources are appropriately focused on his on-air personality and his show (example being the Time Magazine article). Oh, and although the compromise on the deletion of the O'Reilly criticism article was to merge some material, there are several comments about deleting the article outright. The compromise is about not trowing the baby out with the bathwater, but the majority of editors feel that most of the criticism items mentioned are not noteworthy, and should be deleted. Bytebear (talk) 22:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe the incidents do reflect him as a person. The current wikipedia article explains his political views in some detail. It is irrelevant and honestly questionable that Ellison wasn't offended (he says defensively that he does not deserve to be painted as an enemy in the interview). The publication of this in several newspaper, and the Arab Institutes efforts to prevent ABC from hiring Beck solely because of this incident make it notable to his life and career. I think also that you are being dismissive; the comments are obviously not forgotten if so many people have come here to argue for its inclusion. There a thousands of hits, although not certifiable enough for Wikipedia, who reacted to this comment. I would be willing to support moving this controversy section to the Show's article, but I do think there is substantial basis for its inclusion here. It is Glenn Beck who said these things, not his show. novalord2 01:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Right now the article suffers from undue weight, it shows a very favorable view of the subject, it should be balanced. I made no mention of including the incident specifically, and it is obvious you did not read what I said or read the policies I linked to. After perusing the history, it is not that the incidents were forgotten, editors zealously prevented them from staying in the article, unfortunately this is a theme with many media personalities, specific trivia need not be outlined in detail unless the incident was given heavy coverage and created sufficient controversy to warrant separate mention. I will repeat to you, notability governs nothing in regard to content, please read the Wikipedia policy I linked, if you will not acknowledge the policy then there can be no consensus on the issue. Revrant (talk) 19:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

From WP:BLP "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) 19:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with this, by quoting that you are insinuating that every criticism is a lie, sensationalist, and a "claim" instead of what it is, fact, you cannot continue on simply telling everyone no, you must quote policy to maintain your position, otherwise, if you were to keep reverting an article without quoting policy, it could potentially lead to a block from the editing of the site. WP:CRIT, you can get away from that possibility by reading the policy and finding a good sense case against the inclusion of a reception section with neutral, due weight to both sides, although I don't believe there has ever been a case against that given it is a golden standard for many FA nominations, to summarize since you didn't read my large post, a path without proper policy leads to blocking from Wikipedia, use policy to disagree, don't disagree and cite unrelated policy or incorrect beliefs as to the policy(Notability). Revrant (talk) 22:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Revrant, I think you may be misunderstanding the argument. I don't think we're talking about the Notability policy for article creation. We're talking about BLP policy that states "Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources..." Something that is notable news (tabloid paper) may not be relevant to the subject's notability (a historical encyclopedic perspective of a persons biography). Also, undue weight policy does not mean balance between positive and negative perspectives in a persons biography. It means that after it complies with BLP above, the policy "requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." Morphh ^(talk) 1:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I understood just fine, I was merely pointing out the emphasis placed on notability in regard to the inclusion of any criticism is incorrect, and you are incorrect about undue weight, and I quote Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources., the article is not written in an entirely neutral point of view and shows an obvious skew, it is the duty of the editors to represent these points of view fairly as policy states, not push their points of view, please state policy correctly in the future. Revrant (talk) 10:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Who said that notability policy was being used to remove any criticism? As for undue weight, I don't see where I contradict what what the policy states. I actually quoted the undue weight policy. I said that it does not mean balance between positive and negative, as you stated above. As quoted by yourself, it is to fairly represent all significant views. This may or may not mean "balance" between positive and negative. You need to show that it is not a tiny minority view and that it meets standards for including criticism in a BLP, which is that it is relevant to the persons notability. Morphh ^(talk) 12:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Bytebear, that was one of the reasons Bytebear continued to cite, noteworthiness and notability, you are outlining a facet of the policy where the entire policy falls under NPOV, therefore it is part of that policy's goal and not a goal unto itself regardless of that policy, it is a tenet of the policy and should be represented as such lest it violate the spirit of the policy. I need only look to the truly stunning amount of criticism removed and reverted from the page to show it is not a tiny minority, and I don't really know how the line of logic persists that what a commentator decides to say is not relevant to their notability, but I'm not arguing for that, at the moment I'm arguing for the compromise between editors that wish for no criticism at all and those that wish for an entire section devoted to it, a reception section. Revrant (talk) 18:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

You are wrong. Should we include the recent tirade by Hillary Clinton in her article? People will comment on it, and it is making news, but it isn't really noteworthy to Clinton, and I would fight to keep it out of Wikipedia, although I am sure I would be shot down by the right wing as much as I am being shot down here by the left. Bytebear (talk) 22:36, 11 August 2009

You are wrong is not an argument, assume good faith, and you are insinuating something that could be misconstrued as a personal attack, do not insinuate that attempting a consensus automatically means the users involved, myself included, are of the "left", it is derogatory to make that assumption, and while I have a very high tolerance for personal attacks against me, I will report the behavior if it gets out of hand. Your use of language in choosing tirade 1. a prolonged outburst of bitter, outspoken denunciation, is not appropriate when referencing one spoken sentence in which the subject demanded they be asked questions directly regarding their policies. I will not comment on your use of Fox News as a source, needless to say, it would not be considered reliable as a primary source on the issue given the obvious political bias, the same is true of The Huffington Post on Wikipedia in regard to articles of a political nature and regarding political figures. You have yet to make a case regarding policy, telling me I'm wrong and a mild exaggeration of an unrelated hypothesis is not the correct means to argue against the inclusion of a Reception section in the article, please cite policy directly to support your argument. Revrant (talk) 10:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

It is very difficult to assume good faith with someone who looks at FOX News as being an unreliable source. That is such a POV statement, that I don't even know how to respond. Bytebear (talk) 16:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I really don't care how difficult it is, it's a policy when dealing with other editors, and if you can't do it at the onset then you might have to remove yourself from the proceedings. There's no POV in that statement, there's a definitive reason why I don't think Fox News is a reliable source when addressing a political subject, and it isn't my own feelings, it stems from their amount of political controversy and bias allegations. Revrant (talk) 18:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I recommend you read up on WP:POVFORK.

(outdent) According to the Ellison article:

Asked about the incident later, Ellison dismissed it, "It's just shock TV. Some pundits think they have to ask the most outrageous questions."[97] On January 2, 2007, Beck said on his radio program that Ellison did not take offense at the comments and the two had a friendly chat off the air.

This is hardly indicative of your assertion that he was offended. Yes, some people were offended, and they voiced their opinions, but that doesn't make the incident noteworthy. Was Beck fired? Was he chastised by his employers? Was anything covered other than secondary mentions of the incident in articled that aren't specific about the incident? As someone pointed out, the popularity of a search is no indication of noteworthiness. If anything, it shows a lack of it, since those hits dramatically diminish over time. Wikipedia is not a news source. Bytebear (talk) 18:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Bytebear, I need a good lawyer. You available? E2a2j (talk) 19:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

What about the active efforts of the Arab Institute to block his hiring by ABC because of this incident? These are more than "secondary mentions", are these utterly insignificant in your eyes?

http://www.aaiusa.org/aai-bulletin/2743/glenn-beck-update-pelosi-appoints-arab-american http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/features/20070126-0548-tv-beck-arabs.html (the Union Tribune, a newspaper published in San Deigo) http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/1/25/212919.shtml?s=rss (Article copyrighted by the AP)

Reverant, I really don't understand; you say that the notability of an incident is irrelevant in its inclusion, but also say "specific trivia need not be outlined in detail unless the incident was given heavy coverage and created sufficient controversy to warrant separate mention." novalord2 04:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Revrant, sir, and notability does not govern the content of an article was my meaning, notability of sources or coverage is a different issue that is largely decided by peer review, it is the reliability of the sources that decides their inclusion however, not their notability. Revrant (talk) 10:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The argument against a "Criticism" section (or against any mention of Beck and his "Obama is a racist" comment), as I understand it, is that controversies about living persons should only be presented if they're "relevant to the subject's notability." I would argue that nearly all of Beck's present notability is related to the fact that he called the President a racist on national television. If this isn't "notable," then neither is it notable that Glenn Beck exists or has a television show.

Talking heads make outrageous and controversial statements on a regular basis — it's part of the job description. The arguments made against such statements' inclusion on this page could just as easily be made on the talk page for Rush Limbaugh. Andrewdupont (talk) 13:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

So your saying that the NYT Bestselling author, nationally syndicated radio host, and TV host on a self titled show on Fox News was not notable until a few weeks ago? The statement is only news because Beck was already notable. If controversial statements are made on a regular basis, how do we determine what to include and what not to include? Wikipedia is not an collection of statements, we need to apply it to his notability and pick the most relevant examples. The Obama comment may be one that should be included, but people need to stop complaining about it and provide the sources to better justify the argument for inclusion based on policy. Morphh ^(talk) 13:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

In the past week, Lawyers.com, Procter & Gamble, Progressive, S.C. Johnson, GEICO, Men's Wearhouse and Sargento have all pulled advertising as a result of his comments. How is this not worthy of being mentioned? Patriot Missile33 (talk) 13:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Glenn Beck's Yale History

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)

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)

Moving forward

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)

That is fine, but I've been trying to move forward on the two issues here [29] 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)

Proposed "Obama is a racist" comment addition

On Tuesday, August 4, GEICO instructed its ad buying service to redistribute its inventory of rotational spots on FOX-TV to their other network programs, exclusive of the Glenn Beck program,” said a spokesperson for GEICO Corporate Communications in an email to ColorOfChange.org. “As of August 4, GEICO no longer runs any paid advertising spots during Mr. Beck’s program.^[30]

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:

Beck's sometimes incendiary comments have sparked advertiser boycotts. On the July 28, 2009 Fox & Friends in response to President Obama's criticism of the arrest of Henry Louis Gates, Beck said that Obama had "a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture." When rebutted by Brian Kilmeade, who said many of Obama's staffers were white, Beck replied, "I'm not saying he doesn't like white people, he has a problem. This guy is, I believe, a racist." Fox News SVP of Programming Bill Shine said in response to the comments, "Glenn Beck expressed a personal opinion which represented his own views, not those of the Fox News Channel. And as with all commentators in the cable news arena, he is given the freedom to express his opinions." In late July 2009, Beck argued that reparations and social justice were driving President Obama's agenda, discussing issues of diversity and institutional racism. 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." These remarks drew criticism from MSNBC commentators, the NAACP, and others. Advertisers including LexisNexis-owned Lawyers.com, Procter & Gamble, Progressive Insurance and GEICO have requested their ads be removed from his programming.

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)

Made some changes... Morphh ^(talk) 16:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

why I am reminded of the essay WP:Wikilawyering. --L I C 16:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

A new compromise.

Apparently, Glenn Beck's statements accusing Barack Obama of racism are not notable enough to be put in this article. I contend that making these statements is, in fact, the most notable thing Glen Beck has ever done. The statements were covered in the mainstream media and have inspired at least one major corporation to pull its advertising from Glenn Beck's show. His sibling died of a heart attack? So did my grandfather. He's a Mormon? So are millions of other Americans. The "9/12 Project"? Which newswire covered that? I suggest that if Glenn Beck's statements are not notable enough to be included, that this entire article is not notable and should be deleted. I'd do it myself, but I'm not bold enough. 97.83.117.40 (talk) 19:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wrong section

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

Moving forward - Keith Ellison and the Arab community

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

Please review these sources:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• "Beck's quick wit and candid opinions have helped make his shows successful,<ref>{{[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki/Template:cite%20web cite web|url=][http://www.glennbeck.com/content/program/about/ http://www.glennbeck.com/content/program/about/]|publisher=Premiere Radio Networks|accessdate=2009-07-13}}</ref>". Can we get a better source for this than Beck's own website? Fences&Windows 22:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ellison and Obama

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)

Making a Mockery of Assuming Good Faith

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

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

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

Pro-Life

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)

Article constantly censored by mod from the same church as Glenn Beck himself

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.[31][32] 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)

RfC regarding notability of controversies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Attempt at compromise

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