Talk:Glenn Beck/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

What about Glenn's dad, who was a major influence on him? --Merovingian 14:11, Jan 3, 2004 (UTC)

Can't say I've listened to his show and some biographical information on him (e.g. date of birth) is particularly difficult to find. I'll look for some more articles on him and see what I can find. (Feel free to take part of the wikimoney back if you feel the article is insufficient. I think it's a pretty good start, at any rate.) -- Matty j 21:38, Jan 3, 2004 (UTC)

---

An anon user removed the statement that Beck opposes multiculturalism. I was about to revert when I realized that, never having heard of Beck, I don't know how he does feel about it, nor what he's said about it, if anything, on the air. In other words, I don't know if our anon friend (whose other edit was to say the US is "the greatest country on earth" and was qickly reverted) is disputing that Beck takes this position, that it's an example of a right-wing position, or that its inclusion is NPOV. ♥ «Charles A. L.» 21:37, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)

---

How about adding a "raised Catholic," phrase to his background info? (Source: 22 Jul 2005 broadcast, while stating how scary he finds the movie "The Exorcist.") --Michael Garoutte 16:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Beck's bumper announcements are to the effect that his show is the "perfect blending of entertainment and enlightenment", or words to that effect. Apparently he feels that this is something of a signature comment comparable to Limbaugh's "performing all my assigned host duties flawlessly, with zero mistakes." It probably ought to be in the article if someone can articulate it and add it better than I. Rlquall 23:02, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Content from Glenn Beck

The following was written at Glenn Beck. Obviously a duplicate - it may be useful content: Based in Philadelphia, Glenn Beck, 40, is casting a tall shadow as the next phenomenon of talk radio. The former Top 40 DJ entered the talk format in 2001 and already his show is broadcast on 160 stations nationwide. Millions of listeners are drawn to this modern-day story teller who is armed with a quick wit, an informed opinion, and a unique ability to inspire others to experience their full potential with an open heart. His on-air presence is both commanding and inviting – a trait he has been refining for the last 26 years.

Glenn started in radio when he was only 13 years old by winning a local radio contest to be a DJ for an hour. Soon after that auspicious day, Glenn had three jobs – one at a Christian station, a Rock station, and a Country station – all of which his parents had to schlep him to in their home state of Washington. He was fired from all three jobs – on the same day when he was 14 years old!

After high school graduation, Glenn pursued his career as a Top 40 DJ at stations all over the country. Eventually, he landed an opportunity in Corpus Christi, Texas as the youngest morning guy in the U.S. at 18 years old. His career was soaring and took him to Top 40 morning shows in Baltimore, Houston, Phoenix, Washington, and New Haven, Conn. He rode the wave of professional success into the 1990s when things began to change. Today, Glenn points out, “When you have that kind of success that early in life, it’s easy for you to turn into a monster. And I did! I was not a good guy.”

At the age of 30, Glenn lost his passion for radio – and everything else – as alcoholism and drug addiction took him over. Struggling to find some answers to his problem, Glenn pursued higher education. Though he was accepted by Yale as a Theology major, he lasted only one semester, faced with a divorce from his first wife and separation from his two daughters – the oldest with Cerebral Palsy. He was emotionally and financially decimated and relegated to one of the smallest radio markets. The shooting radio star had fallen to earth.

Finally, he turned to a program of recovery.

Coming to terms with his past and staying sober shifted his life direction. He found a new love (his second wife, Tania), religion (he was baptized Mormon in 2000), and a new vision of his career – he would pursue talk radio.

Soon after his baptism, Glenn received a call from an agent who was interested in representing him. Days later, he had an offer to host his own talk radio show on WFLA-AM in Tampa, Florida, forcing him to move away from his daughters in New Haven. He and Tania decided to live in Tampa for two years and then, whether Glenn succeeded or failed, they would move closer to his girls.

He inherited the 18th placed position at WFLA-AM and took it to the #1 position in his first year, giving the station its highest ratings ever. Within 18 months, Premiere Radio Networks, the leading radio syndication company in the country, offered Glenn the opportunity to go national. In January 2002, The Glenn Beck Program launched on 47 stations.

He also kept his promise to his daughters and moved the national show to Philadelphia. The Glenn Beck Program airs weekdays from 9 a.m. to noon ET and be heard on more than 150 stations nationwide.

-- Chuq 03:25, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

NPOV

The statement "In May of 2005, he threatened Michael Moore on the air. This inappropriate commentary received little notice by the now right leaning press," is NPOV. It should be modified to conform to Wikipedia neutrality standards. The nature of the threat should be described in greater detail. If Moore or a media watchdog group publically described it as inappropriate, this information should be included. Appropriateness or inappropriateness is subjective and should not be included in the text as a factual statement, even if you feel the statement crossed a line. The phrase "now right leaning press" is a slanted and controversial statement.

The transcript of Beck's statement aired on May 17, 2005 follows.

"I'm thinking about killing Michael Moore, and I'm wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it. No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out -- is this wrong? I stopped wearing my What Would Jesus -- band -- Do, and I've lost all sense of right and wrong now. I used to be able to say, 'Yeah, I'd kill Michael Moore,' and then I'd see the little band: What Would Jesus Do? And then I'd realize, 'Oh, you wouldn't kill Michael Moore. Or at least you wouldn't choke him to death.' And you know, well, I'm not sure."

-- Great Scott 15:21, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

If you knew about his disdain for political correctness, you would understand that Glenn is simply being sarcastic. Jm51 04:55, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Just trying to present balance

Beck IS controversial and he is not loved by all. I don't feel its right to have a puff piece praising the man when there is another side to the story. Beck has been vocal when any Democrats or liberals joke around. He didn't think it was funny when Whoopi Goldberg made jokes about the President for instance. While I realize he was "joking" about Moore, many (including me) found joking about murdering someone to be in poor taste. Moore is a hated figure on the right--what if some unbalanced individual didn't get Beck's "joke" and hurt him. If an article is neutral about a controversial figure it should present both sides.

I have no problem putting the Moore bit in this article. I do have a problem saying it is "threatening." It was a comedy bit relating to Dave Chappelle. And if an individual harmed Michael Moore, it would not have been Beck's fault. It would be that individual's fault. Beck should not be responsible for other people's actions. If he were, any murder, domestic violence, or drug abuse would have to be blamed on COPS, rappers, or basically any movie or TV show out there. You would have to blame the war in Iraq on Moore since he simply joked about it. Quit blaming people for other people's actions! Moore is a great proponent of free speech, and Beck's comments did not violate his rights. I doubt Moore likes Beck very much, but he must respect his rights. SkeeloBob 14:48, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Beck has been vocal about things he has deemed tasteless many many times. He has made it clear he won't watch "R" rated movies for instance. Why is Joe Pesci swearing, an explicit sex scene and "Will and Grace" all bad things but joking about murdering someone is OK. I know you think he is hilarious but he ain't no Richard Pryor or George Carlin. I listened to a show were Glenn went on for quite awhile over some Good Charlotte lyrics that he thought were tasteless. He isn't funny and his nowhere near hip and his words are hypocritical and he contradicts himself constantly. I respect his right to speak but he doesn't respect my right to watch "Goodfellas" or someone elses right to watch "Will and Grace" (Don't even think about joking about the President--I heard Glenn compare or current Commander in Chief to Churchill once--he wasn't joking but I laughed at that one!). The biggest laugh in this article is from the statement that he is against political correctness. He is against liberal political correctness but (for instance) when Whoopi Goldberg made fun of President Bush, Glenn went on for weeks talking about how horrible it was for Whoopi to joke about the President. I get it---it's Ok to joke about Michael Moore, Howard Dean, Bill Clinton, gays, unions, etc. etc. but joke about a Republican President or any "red state" value and you've crossed the line with Glenn. My point really has nothing to do with this argument anyway---my point is the Wikipedia entry made Glenn Beck look as if he was wildly popular and beloved by all---I wanted to fix that. It was a puff piece written by fans---I wanted to let the other side be known.

I'll give it to you that Glenn is a little strange when it comes to watching R-rated movies (I believe it has something to do with him being a Mormon.), but he isn't against other people watching them. And I do think Beck is funny, but not "hilarious." (And although I may sound like a heretic to some, realistically, there are better comedians out there than Richard Pryor and George Carlin (unless you're really old), but that's an argument for another place and time.) I am pretty sure Beck would never consider himself "hip." I have absolutely no problem showing the other side. I think it is important to see all of the angles on a subject. And I cannot comment on his remarks about Whoopi because I don't know what he said about it. Do you have any quotes of his or anything? Was he commenting on the sexual nature of it? Or criticizing the President during a time of war? And what is so wrong with comparing Bush and Churchill? More greivous comparisons have been made, i.e. Moore's camparison of Iraqi insurgents and the Minutemen, IMHO. --SkeeloBob 14:37, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please---comparing George W. Bush to Winston Churchill? What an insult to Churchill!! Bush is leading us down the wrong path and his numbers are now sinking as the country catches on. Beck attacked Whoopi for the sexual nature of her remarks and for criticizing a President during wartime and for the fact it was at a Democratic fundraiser. I didn't think the joke was any big deal and in a free country (we still are in a free country I hope) you have the right to joke about a President even in wartime unless you are a talk radio host trying to sell people on a fictional "Real America" that never existed except in the Norman Rockwell fantasies of people like Glenn Beck. America is great because of freedom (real freedom--R rated movies and all) and diversity and I hope it stays that way forever.

I think the problem you two users are dancing around is basically this: Michael Moore and Glenn Beck believe in the same thing - freedom of speech. While I don't think Beck was threatening Moore with his insults, I also don't find joking about murdering someone to be in good taste. But guess what. He's allowed to do it. That's why we live in America. Because both Moore and Beck may say what they want. The first amendment is there to protect words and speeches that are UNpopular, not popular. If we reprimand Beck for his seemingly tasteless remarks, we must be forced to reprimand Moore for his many tasteless remarks. So it really boils down to two options: we understand that both men say what they think and do what they want because they live in a country that allows them to do it, or we bring civil action against both men for offending thousands of people with their words. And I do believe Glenn Beck IS against political correctness. Political correctness is what prevents both liberals and conservatives from saying what they truly want to say. If Beck gets angry at someone for insulting the president, it is because in his opinion, they are wrong. Doesn't mean that he's got the correct opinion, but he HAS A RIGHT TO HAVE IT just as much as they have a right to say what they want. And Beck has said many times over that he believes in freedom of opinion, and it's okay if people disagree with them, because they're exercising their rights. Doesn't mean he has to like their opinion, nor does it mean others have to like his. In fact, Glenn is very supportive of his detractors, and he makes all his hate mail available on his website, because he acknowledges that you cannot be loved by everyone.

homosexually themed television

I don't think I would classify Glenn as against homosexually themed television. He does seem to be against overtly sexual television and anything that pushes the limits of television standards like Janet Jacksons superbowl boob etc. The reason I make this distinction is that I specifically remember Glenn saying he enjoyed watching Queer Eye For The Straight Guy, when the show was first coming out. Just a minor distinction... ß Why is it that when you are logged off it calls Glen Beck an idiot and other name calling distortions? I s this really necessary? No. I personnally have never listened to his show, but, you end up losing any credibility by name calling. Just the facts please!

Good job, everyone!

The other day on his show, Beck called WP "a good resource for looking up just about anything," describing this entry as "eerily" accurate and "possibly more accurate then the bio on my own web site." - Calmypal (T) June 30, 2005 20:04 (UTC)

We do what we can. I have emailed Glenn a few times touting the great articles on Wiki about him and the stuff he does. --SkeeloBob 1 July 2005 13:48 (UTC)

I added this quote to the entry itself. It may not stand the test of time - I'll leave it to the experts. But I thought it was interesting and relevant for Wikipedia readers.

He again said the Wikipedia article is more accurate than his own website bio. I'm not too sure what day it was, but it was sometime this past week. Chalk another one up to WP! --SkeeloBob 16:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Let's avoid gushy bios, please?

Especially with a controversial personality like Beck, there is a tendency if you like a famous person to repeat the phrases you have heard him use in describing himself and others. These phrases are sometimes dialectal in origin, almost always ambiguous, and sometimes slanderous. It is important to at least attempt objectivity. My changes went to that purpose. If you want to debate the finer points, please do so here, but don't just roll it back or bat it around like a tennis ball in a boring political fray. That's not the purpose of Wikipedia, IMHO. --Doug Alford 19:29, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

SkeeloBob, is it really "notable" that Mr. Beck is "rather plump" -- or, for that matter, 6 feet 4 inches tall? The height is not particularly notable, but it is at least factual in context. The "plump" bit is not factual at all. It's just a quaint phrase that has no basis in definition or "notability". It could stay in the article, but only as a self-descriptive phrase used by Beck, if that is the case.--Doug Alford 04:51, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is pretty notable that he is rather plump. It is a topic on his show very often. I am not sure if Beck has ever called himself "plump," but it is factual. He talks about fitness fairly often, and his weight is normally the topic at-hand. It could possibly be said a less colloquial way, but I am not quite sure how to put it any other way. --SkeeloBob 13:36, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Then it's notable that he talks about it. "Plumpness", which, again, has no definition in the sense that there is no measured standard, is not notable because there are millions of people who could be described as "plump", including many radio personalities, so any objective description would not single out Mr. Beck as notable for this characteristic. It's really the word "notable" I have a problem with here. It's simply not true in this context, and it stands out as another example of taking someone's self-description and casting it as objective description. Can we at least change it to say something like "Beck often mentions his plumpness" ... or something else that doesn't read like Entertainment Tonight? ;-) --Doug Alford 14:50, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Well it is something he is known for. Should we not put personal information into articles? Should we not list James Madison as the shortest president? Should we not say that Richard Simmons used to weigh 300 pounds? Personal information is often used. And it's not "self-descriptive," it is "descriptive." It is something people know about Glenn Beck. Like I said before, maybe "plump" is too colloquial, but how else should we say this? --SkeeloBob 13:35, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

If it's something that he's known for, and if he mentions it frequently on the air, then maybe something like, "On the air, Glenn is also known for often referring to himself as overweight (or "plump") when making a particular point." Not necessarily that, of course, but something like it might work. Just a suggestion.Stanselmdoc 16:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

External Links

The Big Frog 109.9 FM - A fansite for the fake radio station used on the Glenn Beck Program

More On Trivia DOT ORG - Tips and Suggestions on how not to be humiliated on the Glenn Beck Program

Both have been mentioned before on the Glenn Beck Program. --Spunkz 19:11, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality: You Vandalized This Article

It seems you are the all-knowing when it comes to Glenn Beck since you are now the only one who can update the damn thing. I will no longer contribute to this article, nor will I recommend it for anyone to use as a reference for Glenn Beck. Great JOB! The only author who can edit this article (see Neutrality) is nothing more than a liberal socialite who enjoys censoring opinion that opposes his own. There is no irony in that all the edits he has made (which you can view in the Glenn Beck wiki history) have a left leaning opinion. He takes his "facts" from out of context quotes from a liberal website named mediamaters.org. Ironic indeed that when the rest of us had the ability to edit the article we didn't remove your "Controversial Statements" section.

You removed mentions of Glenn's new baby, refuse to let us correct the spelling of Tania's name, and deleted the More On Trivia section! Yet you were sure to replace that with the mediamaters.org talking points (which if we want to be technical should be migrated to wikiquotes cause that's what they are).

You claim that this is part of a clean up. Yet, you never followed wikipedia guidelines and logged your vandalism of the article.

If you would like to see an honest reflection of Glenn's life I recommend this site:

GlennPedia.com

--Spunkz 04:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

What Happened to this Article?

Once upon a time, there was a great biographical article. Then the evil POV-ers came and ruined it. And I mean POV-ers from both sides: Pro-Glenn and Anti-Glenn. The problem is there was no reason for a protection to go up to prevent "vandalism" that wasn't even occurring! And the "Controversial Statements" section? Don't even get me started, EVERYONE knows you can't just put quotes in an article without adding some substance behind them. That's not wiki policy, that's wikiquote policy. If you want to quote his controversial statements, back it up with information like who got mad at his statements, who sent him hate-mail, who organized a protest or something. You can't just put the quotes in. Ugh, when I have more time, I'll bring up more issues. Stanselmdoc 15:08, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Unprotecting

Time to edit. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 17:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Beck's Side Websites

Is there a reason that the sites that I have put up on the page keep getting erased? I have made it abundantly clear that these certain sites have been put own by Beck and his show, and are therefore not fansites:

• Jim Dingle Talking Issues
• Evil Conservatives
• Nerf Hoffelmeyer for NYC Mayor Campaign Site

These sites were created by Beck and his staff as a joke based on the topic. The Jim Dingle site has been going for at least three years, continuously. The other two have been around at least for a year. There sites are not fan sites.

Sites like More On Trivia is a fansite and I have therefore not included it. Do not erase Beck Sponsored Sites. --Saxonjf 01:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Note: Nick Berg was not a Wall St Journal Reporter. If you click on "Nick Berg" it describes him and his occupation. This should be corrected.--GRW 13 October 2005

9/11 & Katrina Victims v. Survivors

The quote from Media Matters (the blatantly left-wing propaganda machine) ought to be left off. Glenn was in no way degrading the survivors of Katrina & 9/11, but those who tried to play the 'victim' role. It could be a whole article in and of itself.

If the Michael Moore thing weren't so funny, we would think about removing that, but honestly, who likes Michael Moore? --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.117.81.200 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Apparently Lord Voldemort won't let us delete the quotes taken out of context without discussing. Lets discuss the stupid quotes so we can remove them. Anyone care to actually take the postition that the quotes aren't out of context?!? Chancelot 02:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I was thinking that that quote was notable, so it might warrant inclusion, but if you remove that one, why not remove the other quotes out of context? But you are correct, we should at least have the full quote, not just the snippets mediamatters plucked out to fit their POV. Okay, go ahead and remove them until we can come up with some consensus here on the talk page. Nevermind I'll go ahead and do it. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 12:48, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I've got no problem removing all the out-of-context quotes, but I definately think that the 9/11 & Katrina victims is completely out of context. I'm not sure if you listen to Beck, but during that entire show he mentioned that he had nothing but respect for the survivors of such tragedies, but he was disgusted with how quickly people start to become greedy and scummy. He doesn't hate the 9/11 families, he loathes the families that sought to make it all about them. If you want to have a full quote, we'll pretty much need to start a whole new article just one his controversial statements. Chancelot 05:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Statements without context hidden from article page

On May 14, 2004, Beck said on his show that Michael Berg, the father of the murdered Nick Berg, was "despicable" and "a scumbag," saying "can you let your son's body become the same temperature as your son's head before you turn this into a political campaign against the president—could you do that?" and that "I find this guy despicable. Everything in me says that. The want to be a better person today than I was yesterday says he's a dad, he's grieving, but I don't buy that. I'm sorry, I don't buy it. I think he is grieving, but I think he's a scumbag as well. I don't like this guy at all." [1][2]

In a May 17, 2005 comedy bit involving what people would do for 50 million dollars, he asked, "Would you kill someone for that?" He said he was "thinking about killing (filmmaker) Michael Moore" and pondered whether "I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it," before deciding: "No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out—is this wrong?" [3]

Glennpedia (added to External Links)

I added Glennpedia to the list of external links, as it contains a lot of valuable information - including recaps of each show. It is made so that a new listener to the program can understand the origin of many aspects of the show. 140.254.224.194 20:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Right-wing?

I made the previous changes and it was not my intention to vandalize this site. I just feel that the term "right-wing" is perceived as a derogatory comment. I feel "conservative" more aptly describes Mr. Beck's work. I am a Democrat and still enjoy Mr. Beck and don't consider his work right-wing. Also I have seen it noted on plenty of sites that his ratings were 8 million or above.

Beck is now on more than 180 stations

The show has grown to over 180 stations and now also features a weekend version. Also in the works, is a new magazine--"Glenn Beck's Fusion".

Fixed the 180 stations thing. Will work on Fusion Magazine stuff. SkeeloBob 16:16, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Immediate Response

Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia where anyone can contribute. We would like to thank the user Neutrality for contributing to this article. Ben, please stop removing edits and additions that others make. I created a section called "More On Trivia" which is a highly sucessful segment on the Glenn Beck program. If you listen to the show then you would know that this segment explains a lot about his character and at least a mention should be included in his entry. Half the time Ben, I think your edits are just attacks against the guy. The rest of us are just interested in a rounded profile that represents his true character. Unlike the others you have banned from making edits in this entry, just open a dialogue with us. Thanks. --Spunkz 04:44, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

This article is a mess.

Is it just me, or is this article a complete mess? It doesn't flow, isn't in the proper format, and doesn't even have a picture of Glenn at the title. The criticism section, which is longer than all the other sections combined, is copied word for word from liberal attack blogs. There is very little biographical information, and the information that is there seems to be rather biased against him. Sections seem to be pasted in at random, such as RamaHanuKwanzMas. In my opinion this article needs cleanup. It is clearly not following wikipedia's NPOV policy. But, what do I expect, this is wikipedia, and it is well known which way the editors are biased. Fsjonsey 22:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Speaking of messes and Wikipedia policies, please note the follow is right at the top of this page:

Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).

Put new text under old text.

Since you might be new to Wikipedia, perhaps you did not know this. Please put future comments at the bottom of this page, not the top, and sign them.

If you have more biographical information, please put it in. For me to add it, that would require Beck to give more details and a valid source to publish it.

Attempts to clean up this article are often met with complaints about POV and therefore, many editors have given up on this.

As for a photo, if you have one that matches the legal requirements of Wikipedia, we would be very happy to put it in the article, however, I have neither a camera, nor access to Beck, so I can't take one and put it here.

Rather than complain that it is "well known which way the editors are biased", which by the way is not well known to me, since I've seen bias in all directions here, perhaps you can help us by posting some non biased information here.

Welcome to Wikipedia and I hope to see you around here often. Thank you. Fanra 21:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for forgetting how to sign my posts. Its been a year since I've really done anything here, and am a little rusty. I'm not real familiar with wikipedia's copyrighted photo policy, but i thought that low resolution publicity photos could be used here. Fsjonsey 22:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, its really great being met with hostility when i bring some concerns to the talk page of an article on a controversial figure. It seems that you are the sole person doing most of the edits here and controlling the tone of the article, deleting and, or changing the edits made by other users. It can be gathered that you are not a fan of Beck, and are using wikipedia's guidelines to cover your biased edits. Fsjonsey 22:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Hostility? I just reread what I posted and I fail to see any hostility. I requested that you follow Wikipedia policies and specially put in that you might be new here so I explained them rather than just lash out at you for not following them. I used please and thank you and said "I hope to see you around here often". I'm sorry but that is the exact opposite of hostility.

Wikipedia's copyright policy is that any photos of living persons (where you can still go get a photo of them, rather than dead people, who you can't) is that we want non copyrighted photos. See: Wikipedia:Image use policy. Note that while images can be used under "fair use", that is highly discouraged here.

I am not the sole person doing edits here, in fact, I have not done edits much here at all since I was accused of POV and I decided it wasn't worth it. I am not a fan of Beck's but I decided that I'm not going to get people to realize what an idiot he is by changing his Wikipedia article. I.E., "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him think". As a result, I restrict myself to just trying to keep this article to the facts and I don't bother to remove information that really doesn't belong here because I just get accused of removing pro-Beck stuff.

Feel free to put in how great he is here. I really don't care. People see what they want to see. I mean there is a fight over at the Joseph Stalin page where people are trying to defend a man who is the greatest mass murderer in history. Compared to that, I really don't expect to change anyone's mind about Beck. Again, feel free to make him out to be the second coming of Jesus, just be sure to follow Wikipedia's rules and that is fine. Fanra 23:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Oh, and if you really want his photo here, the best way to do so is to write him an email requesting that he license one under a license we can use. Go here: Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. People in his profession want their name and image to be spread about so he is pretty likely to be very happy to send you a photo with the proper permission. Fanra 23:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Fanra, you basically just admitted that you are very biased against Beck, and that you did attempt to edit this article to make him out to be an "Idiot." I think the statement "I'm not going to get people to realize what an idiot he is by changing his Wikipedia article" sums it up your feelings toward him pretty well. I agree that this should not become the Glenn Beck fanpage, however, it should be held to the quality standards as articles on other Radio Personalities. This is supposedly an encyclopedia, and should not be used to try to influence the reader's opinion one way or another. Fsjonsey 00:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• I admit that I dislike the positions he takes on issues. I did not say that I attempted to edit this article to make him out to be an idiot, please read more carefully, what I said was that I know that if I did so that it would make no difference to his supporters' views that he is God.

I agree that this is an encyclopedia and should not be used to try to influence people, other than hopefully by presenting facts in a neutral way that people can learn something. It is the purpose of Wikipedia to do this, i.e., "Know ye the truth, and the truth shall set you free", is pretty much Wikipedia's goal. No one in the entire world is unbiased and everyone has a point of view, so the idea that someone who admits that they have one is unfit to edit Wikipedia would just mean that would only allow liars (maybe just to themselves, but nonetheless) to edit here. Everyone is encouraged to help work on Wikipedia regardless of their personal viewpoints, they just have to make sure that their edits observe NPOV. Fanra 21:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Organizations like Media Matters and Media Research Center should not be used as sources, especially for quotes. These organizations only cite other sources, often times picking and choicing the context and offering up a partisan political viewpoints. Quoting these organizations is nothing more than 3rd party hearsay. I believe only original published sources should be referenced, and all Media Matters citations should be removed. If the content is valid then the person placing it should do more research and cite the original source and not 3rd party political axe grinders. Wodat 03:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)wodat

I fully agree with Fanra. The author of the article is not required to like the person he is writing about. If that were to be, it would have been quite difficult to find an author for the entry on Hitler - if you let aside an outright neo-Nazi for the job. (Schusterjunge (talk) 00:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC))

Tired Of Free Speech?

glenn beck said on headline news that hes "sick of all this free speech bull crap" what a stupid m.

This is not the place to make ad hominem attacks on the subject of the article. Please leave speech like this to forums of political discussion. -- 6/27/07 Fsjonsey

Seriously, this isn't the place. Matthew 14:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Beck never said he was tired of "free speech". In an interview with Penn Jillette on November 2, 2007 who asserted that he was "extraordinarily frank", he replied:

"Aren`t you sick of all the politically correct bull crap?"[4]

Freedom Fan (talk) 16:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a stupid MF, and I'm tired of all this free speech crap, and all the politically correct bull crap. No, really, surely you can't be confusing most of America's frustration with the bastardization of the ideals of free speech with censorship and nazism. I mean, today's "free speech movement" is just a partisan lobbyist's quest paid for by the newsmedia, pornographers, and spammers--especially so if he really said "politically correct"--which adds another element of those overtly trying to change the definitions of common words. So Beck's comment is a non-issue. --Mrcolj (talk) 20:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

External Links

I added my popular blog to the list of sites opposed to Beck. Please do not remove it, it has been linked many time on large blogs. Achorn 20:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed a broken link to an Atlanta Journal Constitution page describing his TV deal with CNN.

Criticism and NPOV

A criticism section does not violate NPOV and should be included in this article. The Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Negative content section states Views that are relevant to the subject's notability, are based on reliable sources, and are not given undue weight are usually appropriate content. If a view represents that of a tiny uninfluential minority, it has no place in the article.

Other examples of Biographies of living persons with appropriate criticism sections are:

• Tony Blair#Criticism and Criticism of Tony Blair — Wikipedia Featured Article
• George W. Bush#Criticism and public perception
• Rush Limbaugh#Subject of criticism
• Pope Benedict XVI — An excerpt from this article is "This has drawn sharp criticism from Catholic gay rights advocates like journalist Andrew Sullivan, who claim that Benedict is espousing a form of fundamentalist edict, and is opposed to external questioning of his doctrines"

Glenn has many critics. It is part of his notability. To remove or hide what Glenn's influential opposition says about him would make this article biased. I argue that in order for this article to be NPOV it needs the criticism section. Please refer to my comments on the subject in the previous section. Sweeping changes to an article should be discussed here before they are made. And please use your wikipedia account before making sweeping changes to an article. --Jared W 17:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Is there a problem with explaining that his criticism has thus far been primarily "liberal" groups? The article states that Beck's a conservative; the organizations that have criticized him are "progressive" or liberal. It's extremely relevant to indicate what kinds of organizations are criticizing him. I don't want to enter a revert war, so I'm posting here. Zz414 19:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

It is probably appropriate to describe the standpoint of his critics when discussing them. However, in the case of FAIR, the more accurate term would be "left-leaning" instead of "liberal." Twalls 20:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Per the discussion here, FAIR has been called "left-leaning." The Wiki page for FAIR notes that it identifies itself as a "progressive" group and that it has been described as "liberal" by the Columbia Journalism Review and Media Matters. "Left-leaning" is the agreed-upon resolution here. Please stop making anonymous changes when a resolution has been reached here. --Zz414 14:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Organizations like Media Matters and Media Research Center should not be used as sources for quotes. These organizations only quote other sources, often times picking and choicing the context and offering up a partisan political viewpoint. Quoting these organizations is nothing more than 3rd party hearsay. I believe only original published sources should be referenced. Wodat —Preceding comment was added at 03:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the criticism section is it doesn't include any criticism. It just says "X said that Beck said [insert direct quote.]" Therefore no "criticism" as such, just a watchdog-sounding name before a quote, and most of the quotes aren't to me shocking or extreme, since they're obviously all extremely hyperbolic and sarcastic, delivered for a specific purpose. Even calling it "criticism and controversy" doesn't solve it, because there's no mention of controversy. I just feel it's a little like the stretchy arguments for why a particular line from Obama or Clinton or even McCain are "offensive," when no one can actually find anyone who's offended by said line, especially no one who's seen the quote in context. --Mrcolj (talk) 13:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Highly Biased

This article is highly biased with most criticisms of Glenn Beck being deleted. My links to the audio of Glen Beck threatening Michael Moore keeps disappearing. He mentions how he would look him in the eye and choke him.

(sigh) The article is not "highly biased". It is in accordance with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Please read and understand wikipedia guidelines. --Jared W 06:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. This article is about Beck, not about everything he's criticized about. There are a few of the more prominent criticisms, but to avoid things like undue weight, the amount of criticism is proportional to the length of the article. Zz414 20:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

To speak more directly to your point, I think that the statement in the Criticism section makes it very clear that he has spoken unprofessionally about a number of people, and readers can see the details in the reference links if they are interested. -- KellyLogan 19:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This article does NOT need more information on "Criticism". This is an article about Glenn Beck. Why do we need to hear everybody's opinions of him? That is no better than an article praising his stance on things. It should be neutral all the way around. State his beliefs and views on the issues and let people judge for themselves. We don't need Critics to sway our judgement,... do we??? Personally, I can make my own mind up whether I agree or disagree with someone on any particular issue without any particular groups consensus or criticisms. 5by5 22:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

IS it just me, or is that section shrinking. I think it has to be there but not as crticisms but as controversies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.37.146 (talk) 23:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The following is copied from Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons:

[edit] Criticism

The views of critics should be represented if they are 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 side with the critics; rather, it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral, in particular, header structure for regions or subsections should reflect important areas to the subject's notability.

Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Editors should also be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.

Asher196 (talk) 00:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The term "criticism" better applies to scientific discussions about theses and ideologies I find. Maybe "controversy" would be a better headline for that passage. And Mr. Beck is incredibly controversial. In his CNN-show on September 5, 2008 he talks himself into a trance-like rage, so totally is he inebriated by his ego. He winds up comparing Barack Obama to Benito Mussolini! His three conservative guests are totally bewildered. I suppose you guys are mostly US-Americans, right? I am an European, a German to be specific and I gotta say, Becks behavior especially him getting away with it shows how wide the cultural divide between the US and Europe has become. What Beck does in that case is not mere political incorrectness (which would be excusable if it serves a higher cause like in political satire), it's demagoguery. In Germany this would cause a public outcry and Beck would consequently loose his job. We do sincerely value the freedom of speech. But also do we believe that a talkshow host, even more a host on nationwide TV, has to live up to the responsibility he bears. (Schusterjunge (talk) 01:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC))

Indeed. Perhaps we should send him to a concentration camp. Asher196 (talk) 02:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow. E2a2j (talk) 12:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions

Glenn Beck earned his way to national fame in July 2003 at his Tampa, FL. radio station, he recieved a "local" news story on a comatose woman awaken after years of being in a coma by the name of Terry Schiavo was going to lose life support. The article may add the fact that Beck is the first major radio host to bring forth the Terry Schiavo life-support controversy to national consciousness and the politically heated event would be lost if it wasn't for Glenn Beck got the story around the world.

Another thing to add is on the January 18, 2007 segment of the Glenn Beck (radio) program (09:15AM EST)- courtesy of his official web site, when he's the subject of verbal attacks by congressman Robert F. Kennedy Jr. that Beck is a "right-wing fascist". Keep the article updated on whether Glenn Beck may sue Rep. Kennedy Jr. for libel or slander, or he brushes off those comments that are unfounded, since Beck has no formal ties with neo-fascist parties or organizations to begin with. Mike D 26 05:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It should be mentioned that he actually covered the Schiavo story almost a year before it made national headlines, and stood on the opposite side, for almost 10 months, before researching it, talking to her family etc..

Also, In his BIO, it says that in 2006 he was on 164 stations, and had almost 3000 listeners. That number is off by three decimal places, he had nearly 3 million listeners at that time.

Chuck —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.222.48.206 (talk) 15:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

George W. Bush

Hello!!!!!! I am new to this article, and actually just started to read it for the first time today! Any way under the George W. Bush section it says the following

"Beck sometimes questions the Bush administration, however, on issues including border security, government spending, some aspects of the Iraq War, and the nomination of Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court."

This is an incomplete thought.... whoever has knowledge on this part should correct it. Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople 05:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

This looks like a complete sentence (and thought) to me. Though, I would have put the "however" at the beginning of the sentence, however, so that the sentence would be easier to read.  ;-) Just drop the "however" (and the commas before and after) and read it again. It makes more sense that way. I've reworded the article to do this. If it still doesn't make sense, bring it up on this page; I may be wrong. Val42 06:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The guy's racist

Whoever wrote "The guy's racist" in this discussion page is apparently not familiar with Wikipedia guidelines and practices. POV has no place in the article. Glen Beck has always stated his views about particular groups openly and as far as I have seen, heard, and read he doesn't catorgorize any whole group as good or bad, but just the opposite... that every group, or race if you prefer, has good and bad qualities. He does however frequently state his negative opinion on "Extremists" which raises quite a bit of controversy since certain members of the Muslim Religion find his point of views offensive. 5by5 22:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Remove Dansig(sp) section

Can we find better sources than attack blogs? Thanks --Tom 14:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Blogs are not reliable sources here. There are tons of other forums out there for this kind of stuff. Please stick to reliable sources. I am no fan of this guy, but this article needs to maintain a certain level of review. You don't like this guy which is fine, just keeps the blogs out otherwise this article won't be worth much. Cheers! --Tom 18:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree 100%. Blogs are not factual, but just POV. It seems that there are many people who just want to throw in their criticisms on this article instead of the Facts. 5by5 22:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Blogs and attack sites

Please stop adding blogs or hate sites. If this guy is a baby killer, great, get a reliable source and add that material. If he wanted nude pictures of some broad, even better! Get some RELIABLE sources that cover it and include it. If in ANY doubt, do NOT include it. I am an equal opportunity remover of unsourced/questionable material for EITHER side. There is a new sherrif in town :) just kidding. Seriously, I know this guy is a lighning rod to folks but lets rise above this. Any other thoughts? Thanks!--Tom 19:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, i see how it is. My site has been linked on countless sites, I've been on air america radio, and i have a large following and am a respected member of the blog community, but my blog isnt good enough for wikipedia? What do you consider "reliable"??? mediamatters? thinkprogress? crooksandliars? cause i can post them all here if thats what you want. Achorn 19:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Achorn, congratulations on your success, but I would refer you to WP:RS. Sorry for being a stick in the mud but i am just one tiny editor trying to keep Wikipedia up to encyclopediatic levels. --Tom 19:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Blogs are at the cutting edge of political discourse. Blogs are the next evolution of the internet. I'm sorry that wikipedia apparently only allows sources that are in magazines or newspapers, or the "big media" companies, but I guess wikipedia wants to be behind the times. Achorn 19:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Now you are getting it. --Tom 19:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

So lemme get this straight Tom, you have deleted all sites opposed to Beck. So now people coming to wikipedia will think no one opposes him. Great message to send. I guess we know where you stand now. Achorn 19:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Many articles have critizism(sp) sections or the like. This article has one, doesn't it? This article and most articles would be crap if the external links section was open ended. Please see WP:EL. Also, find some pro Beck stuff that isn't sourced and I'll remove it and then his fans can scream at me. I really don't care about guy as much as you do, thats pretty clear. Anyways,--Tom 19:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The issue is over. But I am editing Beck's site now to remove unneccessary and redundant information. Achorn 19:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Especially, unsourced, questionable material should be removed. Also, WP:OR is a huge problem in these parts. People/editors love to use reliable sources and then form their own analysis to add material. Another big no-no. As you have seen, I am a huge believe in less is better than more. Anyways--Tom 19:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

There are too many links to Media Matters in the criticism section. Media matters takes all of Beck's statements out of context. Can you say 'Harry Reid'? Please at least reference source material instead of reading hate blogs. Danielwe77 23 October 2007

I agree, much of the "source material" comes from places like media matters, and "FAIR" let's at least be honest and call a dog a dog. these two groups are prominent amongst the 501c3 groups that have extreme bias, and should not be used at all as "Source" or very limited at best. Chuck —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.222.48.206 (talk) 15:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

March 20, 2007 factual errors introduced by anonymous IP edits

The first error that caught my attention is the change of the radio station WFLA-AM in Tampa, Florida to Washington. The second glaring error is his religion. According to his bio at Glenn Beck, he was "he was baptized Mormon" at the age of 30. Looking at all six edits, this anon IP stumbled around making spelling mistakes until it finally settled on its final version.

Based upon these errors, I will revert to the last correct version before these edits. Ronbo76 23:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Dina Sansing interview

It was a joke gone bad. Why would he mean anything else? He's on tv. -Yancyfry

Have you actually read the transcript of the entire interview? The “proposition” at the end was nothing of the sort; it was an attempt to point out the hypocrisy of Sansing’s position. In the interview, she repeatedly suggests that having revealing photos taken isn’t something that would ruin someone’s career. To point out what a ludicrous suggestion that is, Beck jokingly suggests taking pictures of her. Since she does not quickly accept his suggestion, it demonstrates that she might have some doubts about the fallout from such an invitation. Perhaps the point was lost on most people, but that doesn’t change the fact that it was a joking point, not an actual proposition. 75.30.231.157 08:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that this section is completely biased and lacks understanding the true context of the conversation between the two. It was in joking fashion and both Glenn and Dina took it in joking fashion. Certain members of the media do not like Glenn because of his conservative position. This ought to be taken into consideration when adding a section about Glenn.

That may be true I dont know him personally. I also dont believe that people should make judgement on a person's character based upon political views. It is unfortunate that people think someone is a jerk just because they are liberal or conservative. He may very well be a jerk but that doesnt mean he actually sexually harrassed anyone. Context, context, context. We must place the whole conversation context not just a portion of the conversation. That my friend is biased.

Archived Stuff

I created two archive pages, one all subjects talked about prior to 2006 and one with 2006 subjects. This will make it easier to read and use this discussion page. If you have a subject that you feel needs to be here with current discussion, just start a new subject here with what you want to say. Thank you. Fanra 22:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

RamaHanuKwanzMas

Can anyone verify that Glenn actually coined this term? It would help if we had a source describing where and when. I can recall about a decade ago when I first started hearing this term on the radio, but not from GB. On an unrelated note, RamaHanuKwanzMas should have its own page. 134.84.100.80 02:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

There used to be a page by that name, but it was deleted because it wasn't "notable". It would need proper citations if it were to survive for long. Val42 02:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I dont know whether he coined the term but did sell t-shirts that had RamaHanuKwanzMas on his website.

Al Sharpton

Someone put in "Beck began his broadcast with the following:" and then puts in a quote that is cobbled together from some remarks he made DURING the broadcast. He didn't begin the broadcast with them, as can be seen here: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0705/10/gb.01.html So I'm removing it. Fanra 11:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Al Sharpton interview

I spent a lot of time fixing up this section to make it clear and factual. But after reading it, I wonder why it is in the Criticism section. Has anyone criticized this interview? This is a very interesting interview and I liked reading about it but if it belongs here at all, I don't think it belongs under Criticism. Fanra 12:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right. I moved it up as a sub-header to the show. -- MisterHand 15:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Lawfamily

Lawfamily recently reverted a bunch of things I added to the article. He claimed in his edit summary that I was violating NPOV. Some of what I posted might be considered POV information, at least I could see that it was open to discussion. However, he reverted everything I added, some of it was absolutely neutral no matter what your viewpoint. He didn't post here that he had a problem with anything I posted, he just reverted. I'm not posting this to complain about him. I'm posting this to explain why I'm going to restore most of what I posted and I wish to avoid an edit war. I've left a message for him on his talk page. Fanra 20:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Exposed: The Climate of Fear

I have added a main tag to link to the main article: Exposed: The Climate of Fear which needs to be improved.--Zeeboid 19:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Exposed location

I can't help but think that the section on Exposed: the Climate of Fear should be under the T.V. show, not the beliefs. 207.233.124.3 03:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• It's a mess. But I'm not going to fix it because I've been accused of bias and my edits will just be reverted by the accuser and I don't think edit wars are worth my time. Fanra 10:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the more I get to thinking about how this should look. I looks like he'll be doing a series of Exposed specials like this one and The Extreamist Agenda. Why not give them all a section under the T.V. show? A subsection under the T.V. show, and a sub-subsection for each Exposed special; I think each special can probably be summed up in two or three lines, but what do I know; I'm a bloody IP address! For now, I can move the section on The Climate of Fear into the T.V. section and start an Exposed section. Mr. Fanra, you can tag it for cleanup when I'm done, since I don't know how. Others can add to or (preferably) subtract from the work at will, since I suck at layout. If someone with an account doesn't like it, please let me know why not; I seek to better myself. 71.136.224.242 07:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC) All done. A few notes: That first paragraph under Exposed: The Climate of Fear is probably enough information. I'd delete the second paragraph, but deleting information is a bit more cowboy than this IP address is comfortable with. Also, it needs some information on Exposed: The Extreamist Agenda. Again, not in-depth; just so the reader can get an idea of what the special was about. If this stays, thanks for the confidence boost. 71.136.224.242 07:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Montreal Protocol

Well, my carefully researched statement, which took information right from Beck's own website and the link he himself put on his website to "prove" he was right, was totally gutted. I've put a POV and Fact dispute tag on that section. I hope someone can mediate this to avoid an edit war. Fanra 12:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• It has been a while and no one has responded to my statement. Therefore, I assume no one will have a problem if I remove any opinion on the issue other than his and put a See Also in the section. That way we remain neutral here (I'm not putting back my original text because I don't want anyone claiming I'm putting in a POV) and anyone who cares whether or not Beck is right or wrong about the treaty can go look at it themselves. Fanra 19:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

"tough interrogation methods"

Ok, someone put in, "He does not approve of torture, but does approve of tough interrogation methods as a means of exploiting terrorist information in certain circumstances.". Exactly what is "tough interrogation methods" and how are they different than torture?

Also I've found a transcript of his opinion on torture. However, if I put in in this article, I'm sure to get some response from people here. So, I'm going to put it here first and see what people say.

On Beck's October 6, 2005 radio show, he interviewed a caller who claimed to have been an American intelligence officer. After the man described the methods used to extract information, Beck said the following, "Mitch, I've got to tell you I appreciate your service. I don't know your circumstances at all. I, you know, I have to assume that, because we wear the white hats that we're not doing this at the drop of a hat." and "If you're comfortable telling this kind of -- it's not something that when you first meet -- say, "Hey, by the way, for 30 years I tortured people." I mean, it's kind of an awkward, weird, kind of thing. But I have to tell you, when all is said and done, I'm glad people like you are on our side."

http://mediamatters.org/items/200510070011

Before we all start jumping all over this, I really ask, a.) Did Beck really say this? It appears he did. b.) Does this represent his opinion on the issue? It appears it does. c.)Is putting this in the article biased? Well, it is what he really said. If someone feels that he does not feel this way could they please find a quote of Beck saying differently? And if he does say that he feels differently then should we put both quotes in and leave it to the reader to decide which one is his true opinion? Fanra 03:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

See Also

The See Also section needs to be changed completely. It looks like someone has vandalized it and replaced whatever was there with fictitious holidays instead of valid links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.168.242.17 (talk) 06:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Glenn Beck uses Ramahanuquanzmas. He may use the others too, but I haven't heard them on his program. — Val42 14:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

High School

How is it that Glenn Beck graduated high school at the age of eight? The article states he was born in 1964, yet graduated high school in 1972. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.202.119.246 (talk) 17:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Woah...that's creepy...i'll try to find out if that's accurate (O_o) or vandalism. Matthew 14:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 10minnickm (talk • contribs)

Not Encyclopedic

It is not encyclopedic to mention that he ignores the topic of former U.S. Laws - sounds like agenda driven writing:

" while omitting subjects such as the Alien Registration act, or Smith Act of 1940 which made it a criminal offense for anyone to "knowingly or willfully advocate, abet, advise or teach the desirability or propriety of overthrowing the Government of the United States, or for anyone to organize any association which teaches, advises or encourages such viewpoints, or for anyone to become a member of or to affiliate with any such association". Hundreds of "Communists" were prosecuted under this law between 1941 and 1957 under the repression of Mccarthyism. " —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdhunt (talk • contribs) 02:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Small Changes?

In the criticism section the following sentence appears: "Glenn Beck has twice suggested that all American Muslims must prove they are not enemies of America: once to Rep. Keith Ellison and once to activist Sharida McKenzie." I would like to change it to "Glenn Beck has been accused of suggesting that all American Muslims must prove they are not enemies of America on two seperate occasions: once to Rep. Keith Ellison and once to activist Sharida McKenzie." Any objections?Mystico16 (talk) 03:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Go ahead. — Val42 19:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Good call. In fact, Glenn has vigorously denied the claims on his radio show, and the quotes do seem out of context. The Evil Spartan 05:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Illegal Aliens/"Border WAR"

This guy has been ranting about this for nearly a month now. Can this be used ? He makes Michael Savage look like a liberal. 65.163.112.205 05:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

He has claimed that Mexican TROOPS, police are kidnapping Americans, worse, compares Mexico to a toilet, WORSE, and I mean WORSE. 65.163.112.205 05:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

In fact, you are correct; this is one of Glenn's biggest issues, and its omission from the article is a problem. However, if you (or someone else) adds it, please make sure to adhere to WP:NPOV. The Evil Spartan 05:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Scope

Is it just me, or are the quotes provided here selectively narrowed so as to facilitate misunderstanding? Let's try to stick in accordance with Wikipedia's Second Pillar, the NPOV Policy, by providing more of the content from quotes. Nobody learns from soundbites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.25.195 (talk) 19:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

If there is a quotation you would like to see expanded, you can always search for the transcript and fill in the quotation more fully. I agree with you that some quotations are taken out of context. Stanselmdoc (talk) 17:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Quote Link

The Salt Lake City News quote in the references goes to a "Recent Comments" page, not the actual article. I couldn't find the actual article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deane (talk • contribs) 17:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Ron Paul

The statement currently in the critisim section on Ron Paul does not seem to be an honest account of what was said. "On November 12, 2007 during his television show, Beck claimed that Ron Paul is a domestic threat to the United States and that his supporters were domestic terrorists[21][22]." I do not see anywhere in the original video or transcript where he calls Ron Paul a domestic threat or calls his supporters terrorists. The second source is a very obviously biased article against him, so that doesn't seem like it would be a good source. Any suggestions as to what it should be changed to or should it be deleted completely? Mystico16 (talk) 21:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to remove it for now. If someone has a better wording, please feel free to post it. Mystico16 (talk) 06:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Live Event Marshall

Would one of the Glenn Beck apologist actually add a source for the number of people who attended the rally at Marshall University. The number has been in dispute since September and here we are nearly 3 months later with still no source.Reinoe (talk) 22:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Undid Revision 180390941

I undid this revision because I think the readers of this article should be allowed the opportunity to read Beck's comments in it's entirety and then decide whether or not the criticism was fair or not. Also the comment for the edit read "scandal better addressed in his book". I would recommend that the editor expand the article on [Beck's book].Reinoe (talk) 15:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

YouTube video

137.99.17.121, I read the caption of the video also. What was the surgery? Larry R. Holmgren (talk) 21:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

On the video Glenn showed a quilt he said he was given when he toured with Project Linus. Can someone find a reference for this (2007?) tour. It is a 501(3)(c) non-profit charitable group, giving away blankets to the needy. Larry R. Holmgren (talk) 22:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

He will be back at his show on Monday. Presumably, he will give more information. I think we'll have to wait until then. — Val42 (talk) 22:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it true that Glenn beck is a homosexual?64.149.80.134 (talk) 21:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The preponderance of the evidence is "No." — Val42 (talk) 07:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

An Inconvenient book

I propose that the following be removed from the article:

Beck also writes: "God bless you, Hollywood, for speaking out. But what you have to understand is that if you find yourself in the minority opinion, it's not because of some vast, right-wing or left-wing conspiracy. It's because you're out of step with everybody else. You're not going to be rounded up in the middle of the night and taken to jail...That doesn't happen in America.

I can't seem to find the reference in the first chapter, unless I totally missed it or it could be in a different chapter. --Hourick (talk) 17:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Obama/Osama

Is it really necessary to mention that he slipped up once and mistakenly called Barack Obama "Osama" before realizing his mistake and correcting himself? I mean, this has happened many times to many people, and Mr Beck's slip was hardly the most noteworthy incident. That honor undoubtedly belongs to Senator Ted Kennedy, who made the same mistake on the Senate floor. As the incident was neither noteworthy or relevent, I'm removing it from the controversies/criticisms section. SpudHawg948 (talk) 11:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

MediaMatters as a source

I was looking over the criticism section, noticed that the only source used as a reference is Media Matters. Can a partisan 501(3)(c) political organization that gathers oft out of context quotes from other secondary sources be considered credible, or for that matter NPOV? Fsjonsey (talk) 07:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Should this article be semi protected?

I've been following the edits on this article for a few days and it seems to have an inordinate number of anonymous edits which often take on the appearance of vandalism. Should it be semi protected? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trilobitealive (talk • contribs) 17:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC) Trilobitealive (talk) 17:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. Over the last week, there have been only five instances of vandalism by anonymous editors. That doesn't seem like a lot compared to other articles I've seen. Additionally, in that time there have been several good edits (non-vandalism) by anons as well. -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 17:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess I'm just used to articles about obscure botany subjects which go months between vandalisms. Trilobitealive (talk) 18:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Too Liberal

Article is very far left especially criticisms. It need to state both veiws or at lest note that his critics such as media matters are liberal 68.163.40.83 (talk) 19:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Most of the article revolves around describing Beck's views, his life experiences, etc., so I guess I don't see how it's "far left" or "liberal." The criticisms sections obviously contains criticisms from groups who are on the left end of the political spectrum (it would be strange if it did not). However I think the section is fairly well balanced. At four different points we cite a response from Beck (or his spokesman) to the criticisms offered. I don't think it makes sense to describe Media Matters as liberal since we do not do that in the opening paragraph of the article on that organization. Folks can click on the link to Media Matters and read about them there in order to get a sense of their point of view - we generally try to avoid using POV adjectives to describe groups, even if there is some truth to them (for example in an article quoting the Ku Klux Klan we would not say "the racist Ku Klux Klan said..." even though most would agree that is the case). If you have additional material (for example responses to criticism from Beck or his surrogates) that you would like to add in then maybe you can mention it here and we can discuss before adding it. We will need to be able to source it though (for example, we cannot say "Glenn often makes such comments while laughing," as you did in your edit, without a source for that).--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

mentioning Glenn Beck critical to pop culture

I did watch some of his shows and I admit, he's a total ass. But I notice he seems to be critical to pop culture like Miley Cyrus, Pokemon, and Britney Spears, and I even added this in with a sample link that leads to a Youtube video criticizing Grand Theft Auto IV and having Jack Thompson as his guest. I was wondering if it alright to mention this. --Dark paladin x (talk) 01:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

FAIR as a "liberal" organization?

"Liberal" is not exactly the more accurate term to describe FAIR, which I'd say is left of mainstream "liberalism." Calling it a progressive media criticism organization is better and the one used in the main article on the non-profit. I'll go ahead and be bold my making the change, not intended to cause any edit-war, of course.Giovanni33 (talk) 18:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Media Matters quotes

I'm afraid that per WP:BLP, any straight-faced claims that Beck wishes to put Hollywood celebrities in gas chambers or to put Muslims in concentration camps will need better sources than out-of-context quotes from some watchdog group. I'm not contesting that the quotes are factually incorrect, but the editor placing them here apparently isn't making any attempt to put them in context. Kelly ^hi! 07:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I added context. Any other concerns? JCDenton2052 (talk) 07:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that you've labeled these statements "controversies", but I'm seeing no reliable sources stating that there was any controversy at all over these statements. The only sources are obviously ideological watchdog groups. Read WP:COATRACK for more on my concerns - for biographies of living persons, especially one on a prominent media figure, the sourcing needs to be impeccable for claims like this. Kelly ^hi! 13:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Did any or all of these quotes cause a "controversy"? Did other, promenent people criticise Beck for these statements? E2a2j (talk) 14:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Why am I being singled out? Plenty of other controversial quotes in that section are only referenced by FAIR or Media Matters. Insist that they also meet your arbitrary bar for controversy or remove them too. JCDenton2052 (talk) 19:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

You're right, that whole section needs to be pruned, eliminated, or possibly have notable sections merged into the rest of the article per WP:CRIT and Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Article structures that can imply a point of view. I may take a crack at it later if nobody else does. Kelly ^hi! 19:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, Really looking forward to your input to clean this section up. E2a2j (talk) 13:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

A little calm, please?

We all have an opinion, right? Some of us like Al Sharpton, Al Frankin, Rush Limbaugh, whatever. Can we just keep the article NPOV and to the facts? Can we keep the discussion civil? Thanks! E2a2j (talk) 02:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

No. Don't be silly. 66.77.144.5 (talk) 23:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

National Treasure 2

I noticed during the credits of National Treasure 2, that Abraham Lincoln was played by a "Glenn Beck". Is this the same Glenn Beck? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Than523 (talk • contribs) 16:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

No. Lincoln was played by this Glenn Beck Asher196 (talk) 16:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Shot?

Since when was he "shot ten times in Brooklyn"?

Obvious vandalism now removed. Asher196 (talk) 15:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

More of a wish than a statement of fact. Oh well, maybe next time.

-G

Updated Bio

I updated and corrected some information in his bio. It was his brother-in-law that committed suicide not brother as Glenn has no brothers, he has two sisters. Also I added that another brother-in-law had a fatal heart attack about the same time. Place of birth, Mt Vernon Washington, was also added. All of this info can be found at Glennpedia and he has stated it on his radio and tv show. -- 03/07/07 jsager75

I have an old VHS archive and I found an old commercial for an old radio station called B104 in Baltimore, Maryland. I posted it to YouTube. One of the viewers of my video pointed out that the Glenn Beck in the "Glenn Beck and the Morning Guys" was the one and only modern talk show host Glenn Beck. The URL for the commercial video is http://youtube.com/watch?v=YrhwljCD8Fk . I see no mentions of this on his Wikipedia page. Can someone further research this and add this information into the Wiki? Thanks. -- 09/29/07 sconcequence —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.158.97 (talk) 20:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I deleted "Beck played the cornerback position at Northwestern University." since he never attended much less played. Mchalland 02:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Someone has reverted his bio to include that his brother commited suicide. Again, he never had a brother it was a brother in law. Once again I will correct it. Jsager75 (talk) 23:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not Glenn credits Alcoholics Anonymous with his recovery is in conflict with the Twelve Traditions of AA, which reminds members to maintain anonimity (conceal membership) at the level of press TV and film, as not to either ride the coattails of AA, and as not equate themselves as an example of the program (see AA Big Book). For such statements to be continued in this article is an ongoing violation of his program, and also violates the program in general. As for reformed alcoholic, I see no violation to the program in that statement, since AA is not equated with him directly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.198.238.5 (talk) 08:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

New TV program

I would like a confirmation on the tv programs name. On foxnews.com it has the name "Beck". However the digital on-screen graphics on his show call the show "Glenn Beck Program". Is there any press releases that can verify either name?Halvy2013 (talk) 21:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Religion? Really?

Is there a reason that Glenn Beck is a part of the religion project? Is there some cult that worships him by sacrificing bloggers? Can we get photos of this? Soxwon (talk) 20:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

He's a strong Mormon; we should probably remove the Catholicism. In fact, I'll do it. Upbringing is irrelevant if a person has converted and does not deal regularly with an issue. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Education

"Glenn Beck considers himself a "self-educated" man, and he did not attend college."

I thought he has mentioned a few times that he attended college briefly? (i.e. for at least a few days)--70.128.121.235 (talk) 11:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Reworded. Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Article cleanup

I've started some basic cleanup tasks but this article still needs a lot of attention and any help is most welcome. The criticism section was removed recently, while I do feel that no articles should have criticism sections (criticism should be interwoven throughout the prose structure of the entire article), the info the section contained may be valid so I am relocating it here for now.

"Criticism On November 16, 2006 Jon Stewart of The Daily Show criticized Beck's recent remarks during an interview with Keith Ellison, the then newly elected Minnesota representative and first Muslim ever elected to U.S. Congress. During the interview, Beck stated:

"I have to tell you, I have been nervous about this interview with you, because what I feel like saying is, 'Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies.' And I know you're not. I'm not accusing you of being an enemy, but that's the way I feel, and I think a lot of Americans will feel that way."

Stewart responded to Beck's statements with "Finally, a guy who says what people who aren't thinking are thinking."

David Segal of The Washington Post described the Ellison interview as "surely [Beck's] most embarrassing moment" and a "stink bomb." He then speculated on Beck's popularity: "Maybe an attention-deficit host is exactly what an attention-deficit public wants. Listen to a few of Beck's shows and what strikes you most is the enormous ratio of words to substance — how Beck can monologue for minutes at a time and leave behind almost nothing except the impression of great vehemence."

By 2007, Beck's success on CNN had ABC wanting him for occasional appearances on Good Morning America. As reported by the Associated Press in January 2007, three groups wrote in urgency to the network to keep Beck off GMA. Arab American Institute spokeswoman Jennifer Kauffman told the AP, "That blatant anti-Arab, anti-Muslim bias has been given credibility on a larger news show is something that concerns us."

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." 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."

Cheers all. L0b0t (talk) 18:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

For neutrality, let's use lampooned, satirised, or humorously commented instead of mocked. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 18:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I like it. --kizzle (talk) 21:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

So what happened to this? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I cleaned up the article quite a bit (mostly organization). If anyone disagrees with any of the changes, please simply correct the one issue rather than revert the whole thing. I also found: a lot of duplication, which accounts for the smaller section; biographical information out of chronological order, and so forth.  EJNOGARB  19:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

In popular culture

• [5]. Don't know how to attribute it in the article. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 17:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

You don't. It's just a cartoon someone uploaded to Youtube. L0b0t (talk) 18:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, it isn't just a random cartoon; it's from Current TV. That must be notable -- it's got an article on Wikipedia. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 18:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

No, no cartoons via youtube for a BLP. Please.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind it's a cartoon, I just think it's still in the recentivism phase and isn't notable enough, but that's just my 2 cents. --kizzle (talk) 04:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Mention of Beck's leanings/endorsements throughout the pres. primaries

and the general election the last go around IMO could find a place in this article. (Somebody deleted the thread I already started on this topic, though.) Anyway, it appears he backed Mitt. (?? See here: http://committedtoromney.com/2008/10/27/romney-on-glenn-beck/ ).

Does anybody have further links to fill in any other pertinent pieces? ↜Just me, here, now … 06:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Attendance at Yale currently overstated

The current entry states, "He graduated from Sehome High School in Bellingham, Washington in 1982, and attended Yale University as a non-traditional student with a major in Theology.[9]" This implies that he spent a significant time as a student, which, as the GQ article cited notes, was not the case at all--he only took one class.

The referenced article says "With a letter of recommendation from Senator Joe Lieberman—who came on Beck’s Connecticut radio show several times and whom Beck voted for—Beck enrolled at Yale as part of a special program for older students, studying theology. He took only one class—the night before the semester began, he and his first wife decided to divorce, and suddenly he had two households to support—but when his professor told him, “Glenn, you belong here,” it was an experience that gave the high school grad a new sense of intellectual worth."

I think it would be fairer to say, "He graduated from Sehome High School in Bellingham, Washington in 1982. Later, he enrolled at Yale University as a non-traditional student with a major in Theology[9], but took only one class before leaving due to the need to support two households."

Heyamishgirl (talk) 20:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it would be fairer to say: "He graduated from Sehome High School in Bellingham, Washington in 1982 and took a single theology class at Yale University." The other stuff is filler fluff. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. I changed the wording to what it is now because the editor that added the info and source had misrepresented what the source actually said. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 00:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I attended Yale as an undergrad (at roughly the same time when Beck claims to have been there)---there is no institutional way to "major in theology" there. Yale has an undergraduate "Religious Studies Department" and a grad-level Divinity School, in either of which it is perhaps possible that Glenn Beck took a class on theology. But if Beck claims to have "majored" in "theology", that's a lie. In any case, candidates for an undergraduate degree at Yale do not declare a major until after their first year of study. If Beck took one course there through a "continuing education" program for adults, he never would have declared a major. And if he had declared a major, he could not have declared it in Theology, because there is no Theology Department as part of Yale College (in which one takes all undergraduate-level courses). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.116.126.87 (talk) 21:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Any mention of his time at Yale should arguably be dropped per WP:WEIGHT. Little information exists, the source is weak, and if he really only attended a single class (in the nebulous pseudo-subject of theology, no less) it would seem that personal recollections of "really belonging" are pretty ludicrous. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Although I agree that this issue isn't particularly salient, you don't need to attack theology here. A class is a class at a university, and its perceived importance by an atheist doesn't dictate whether or not it should be mentioned.  EJNOGARB  22:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

A critique quote

• "His success is pretty simple," said Robert Thompson, a professor of television and popular culture at Syracuse University. "He puts on a consistently good show that is a great mix of culture and entertainment, with painstaking research to back it up. Plus, Beck's show is personality-driven. People genuinely like him."---PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW ↜Just me, here, now … 06:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Columnists are not generally considered to be reliable sources for anything other than their own opinions. I've already seen commentary from other columnists critiquing that column. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Though the standards for BLP are especially stringent, Wikipedia:Reliable_reference#Biographies_of_living_persons states that opinion pieces may be used if they're identified as such. I think the quote should be allowed.  EJNOGARB  21:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what value it adds. The columnist herself is not notable, nor is the academic it was extracted from although the academic it was extracted from at least has a stub here. We're not looking to add fluff pieces here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

This isn't an overly long article and it characterizes his popularity. If the OP wants to add it, I'll support it.  EJNOGARB  22:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

the quote can be added if it is consistent with what the majority or mainstream thinks of him. how are we going to decide that. subjective. may we can add both opposing opinions of him. --Like I Care 23:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The article has a lot of criticism and therefore, balance is not a problem. the only issue i see here is the notability of the person who opined. --Like I Care 23:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of journalistic balance, IMO

1. the recent NYTimes article,
2. the New York magazine article, and
3. the AP article from today

-- do pretty well. ↜Just me, here, now … 01:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Protect

The page needs to be semi-protected. Majority of changes are adolescent vandalism and reverts.E2a2j (talk) 16:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Glenn Beck: "I'm scared as hell and I'm not going to take it any more." 24.218.204.165 (talk) 15:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

"The 9/12 project"

I submit that, as it currently stands, this section should be eliminated entirely. Where are the third-party sources? Where is the establishment of relevance and notability? There are three citations, all of them "theglennbleck912project.com", and none of the text states why it should be included. Zelnr (talk) 20:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, Beck appears to be trying to lead a political movement - an addition to his broadcasting, book/magazine publishing, and stageshow endeavors. Group claims some half million people. I'm guessing that there are third party citations - will take a look.E2a2j (talk) 01:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that this section be expanded. The 9/12 Project has no unified network, but is a slogan used by several different groups and organizations across the country. I would like to propose something to the following be added:

Glenn's official site for the 9/12 Project was not prepared for the initial number of visitors it recieved and crashed shortly after being announced. Fans of the movement have developed their own 9/12 groups across the country. There are 9/12 groups in several states on meetup.com as well as Facebook. Attempts are being made to unify the various groups under one coalition or network. The diversity and effectiveness of these groups has yet to be determined. These organizations are posing themselves to have an influence on the 2010 elections. Candidates who are seeking the support of these groups are now calling themselves 9/12 Candidates.

There is a new site, in an open forum format rather than the WordPress blog/intense debate site, for 9-12 discussion. It's located at:

The 9-12 Project Forum —Preceding unsigned comment added by EllaRun (talk • contribs) 04:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Television section

The television section reads more like a criticism section. Do we need trivial criticisims by pundits who criticize everything (at least everything conservative)? They seem trivial, and very POV. Bytebear (talk) 22:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Beck's 20 May 2009 guest spot on The View.

...has received a lot of media commentary.

The show aired a snippet from a Beck's radio show where Beck talked about riding AmTrak with women from The View in which Beck said, "You cannot reserve a seat on Amtrak, they don't do it. Well, all of a sudden the police enter, 'Clear the path!' it's Barbara Walters and Whoopi Goldberg. How did they reserve seats on Amtrak, when you can't reserve seats on Amtrak? Now, as the train took off and Barbara said 'Glenn Beck.' and I said, 'Yes Mrs. Walters, how are you?' 'You're going to be on our show in a couple of weeks I understand.'"

Cutting back to The View, Whoopi Goldberg then interviews Beck: "I wanted to make sure, before I brought this up to you. We didn't reserve seats, I don't know - wait, lemme just - wait a minute -"

Glenn Beck said, "I don't know what - lemme say - you're accusing me of lying."

Goldberg said, "You did lie! What do you mean I'm accusing you? You sat there and you're a lyin' sack of dog mess."

Beck and Goldberg's interuptions of each other continued for awhile, then Goldberg says: "Why did you try to make some stuff up about Barbara and I? That's what I'm trying to find out."

Beck said, "Mrs. Walters, I am sorry that I, to use Nancy Pelosi's words, misspoke about being, you calling me over. You did not call me over. I went over."[6]

Should mention of this be made in the article? ↜Just M E here , now 14:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I saw the segement and heard Beck's discussion of it on the radio the next day. IMO, it's not terribly notable, especially unless the "media commentary" you mention is cited. I am a bit curious what that other commentary was.E2a2j (talk) 13:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:RS, the amount of commentary proves the event's notability, even if in anyone's own personal POV the brouhaha is a tempest in a teapot/much ado about nothing. (Wrt POV, btw, my own political leanings pretty much align with those of Noam Chomsky...nonetheless I've a softspot for the crosswinds the poor commentators more on the conservative side of the spectrum have to weather!) In any case, the most in-depth commentary by far has been at Breitbart.tv's "The B-Cast": part 1, part 2.

But since there's not much hay able to be made from Beck's confessed micro-prevarication, most media mentions simply highlight Goldberg's pithy put down, eg Media Matters, Salon, Kos, Gawker, HuffPo, TVGuide, Entertainment Weekly, Time (with conservative critiques of the media likewise making only passing mention of the media's only passing mention, eg NewsBusters, The Week, etc.).

On the segment of The View, Goldberg angrily denounces Beck as a liar and Walters says Beck, "as an investigative reporter," should have checked with them before reporting the incident on his radio show. (Which accusation of lying was, according to my read of the tangled threads of cross-conversation, referring to the idea that a table had been reserved on AmTrak somehow for Walters and Goldberg.) However, whenever Beck would address this substance of his radio story about the reserved seating, he would be cut off. So therefore the substance of what Beck was being called a liar for was either (1) that Beck had mimicked Walter's voice (which complaint was emphasized over and over again by Goldberg), and/or (2) that Beck, in retelling the meeting, said that Walters had said, "Glenn Beck..." when in actual fact, Glenn introduced himself and Walters did not say Beck's name to open the conversation (which "mischaracterization" Beck repeatedly and profusely apologized for on the show).

"The B-Cast" part 2 produces e-mails that Beck had written while in transit after he and his wife and party had boarded in Connecticut that said the table was being reserved for un-named parties and then that at NYPenn station the AmTrak police ushered in Walters and Goldberg to the table; "The B-Cast" further believes the substance of Goldberg's argument hypocritical since comedian Goldberg mugs in her commentaries as well, likewise engaging in raconteurship and mocking dramatizations of conversations as part of her own schtick. ↜Just M E here , now 18:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

An example of comentary from columnists in flyover country is the section "Defending Glenn vs. 'The View'" in Neal Zoren's column in the Delaware County, Pennsyvania Daily Times. ↜Just M E here , now 19:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Beck's response on his 21 May radio show:
"I don't know what Whoopi Goldberg believes and I wasn't afforded the time to ask what exactly I was lying about or reply or defend myself or anything. But so I don't know exactly what her deal is. I told the TV staff, call her, invite her on the show. I'd love to talk to her on the show.
[... ...]
"I don't have any intention of making enemies, but I'm not going to also hold my tongue. I will say what I believe. This is what I do. You know, I mean, Barbara Walters, 'So you call yourself an investigative journalist.' No. Don't you ever do your own homework, Barbara? Don't you check your facts? No, I don't call myself an investigative journalist. I'm nothing of the kind.[...]And I'm not a journalist as a badge of honor quite frankly. I am a ‑‑ exactly right. I'm more of what Whoopi Goldberg does. I'm a storyteller. I'm somebody who just kind of reflects on what happens in life. I tell you my point of view on what's going on.[...]I wonder if the journalists like Barbara Walters called my office to check on my facts because I have four witnesses. No, no. No, she didn't. She didn't call to get my side of the story before she put me on national television and called me a liar. But it's not ‑‑ see, this isn't ‑‑ but you know what? It's okay for her not to check her facts but to the apparently for me. And I'm sorry, and I apologize. And Whoopi, I told her at the end, she said, you know, if you have a ‑‑ if something like this happens again ‑‑ and I'm thinking to myself, I don't think this is going to happen again. 'But if something like this happens again,' she said, 'You just call me. Just call me.'
[... ...]
"I don't even know if they were accusing me of lying about who walked up to whom first.
[... ...]
"Can I tell you something? Here's the thing. And you know, I don't really even ‑‑ I don't care because Barbara Walters made it very clear that I was not to make fun of her.[...]So I'm not making fun ‑‑ so I'm not going to make fun of her. Look, she is a woman who accomplished an awful lot in her life, in the many, many, many storied years of her life. She has accomplished an awful lot. She broke ground for women way, way, way, way back. So I'm not going to make fun of her. I am going to say this. I did have the feeling she was Norma Desmond. Now, if you don't know who Norma Desmond is, just remember this one line: I'm ready for my close‑up, Mr. DeMille. It was almost ‑‑ because it was creepy. It was creepy. She was extraordinarily hostile. When she asked me ‑‑ and we'll play this back. She was doing a stare‑down. Like she was like 8 years old. She was doing a stare‑down with me. And I thought to myself, what are you doing. And I felt, I actually ‑‑ in the end I feel bad because I feel like she ‑‑ maybe is she sensing that she's ‑‑ you know, I felt like Jerry Seinfeld: Do you even know who I am? You know what I mean?"[7] ↜Just M E here , now 19:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

1. According to the conservative website NewsBusters: “About what was Beck accused of lying? Beck, on a recent radio program, recounted a tale of meeting Goldberg and Barbara Walters on an Amtrak train bound for Washington D.C. Finding seats was apparently difficult on that day (odd, for Amtrak), and upon finding a few open seats, Beck was told by an Amtrak official that those open seats were reserved. A few minutes later, Beck says, Goldberg and Walters walked onto the train, and sat down in the reserved seats.”
2. Nonpartisan website Politics Daily: “Whoopi Goldberg went after him for what she said were his lies about a chance meeting between Beck, Barbara Walters and Goldberg on the Amtrak train to Washington before the White House Correspondents’ Dinner this month. Beck recounted the meeting on his radio program, saying Barbara and Whoopi had approached him and then dismissed him. Whoopi said Beck should have remembered that he approached them (not the other way around), introduced himself and then had a pleasant conversation. ‘Why do you lie? You’re a lying sack of dog mess,’ Whoopi said. ‘For you to make something up like that, and to say we pulled you in, it was a lie.’” ↜Just M E here , now 00:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
3. Keith Olbermann[8]
4. Allahpundit[9] ↜Just M E here , now 00:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
5. The Independent: Last week, Glenn rocked-up on The View, a popular daytime TV chatshow along the lines of Loose Women, and was promptly called "a lying sack of dog mess", to his face, by co-host Whoopi Goldberg. His crime: telling a very minor fib about a recent meeting they'd had to listeners of the radio show he broadcasts each morning. In a somewhat grovelling manner, he admitted to having 'mis-spoken'. But his ratings soared." ↜Just M E here , now 06:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Follow up

The B-Cast's Scott Baker, who investigated the matter (his video is here), is interviewed by Beck:

Scott Baker: Yeah. Well, yes, you are right, you've got me because, you know, we've had you on your show that we do on Breitbart TV, the B Cast and we've hung out just a little bit a couple of times you've been in Pittsburgh and so I knew firsthand that you are a lying sack of dog mess. I knew that right away.

Glenn Beck: (Laughing).

BAKER: So I went in with that, you know, as my obviously.

BECK: Yes, yes. Glenn is clearly a lying sack of dog mess.

BAKER: Exactly. And in fact, what happened, I called I thought, you know what, I'm going to start with Amtrak, you know, before I call ABC. Because since Barbara Walters had said on the air, you know, a reporter should check out facts, you should have called me, it would have been no problem. I was expecting I'd have no problem on getting information from ABC. So I called Amtrak[.... ... ...] Finally the top guy at Amtrak calls me back and I actually have the first adult conversation that I had the entire two weeks, and I was expecting he was nice, which was shocking, and I was expecting that I'd get the same kind of basic answer, but he said, I have some news for you. And I kind of just like gulped. And he said, I can confirm that ABC did contact Amtrak to request a police escort for Barbara Walters and Whoopi Goldberg. And I was like, well, holy cow. You know, that's kind of what Glenn described. And then he said

BECK: They came in, and they came in and that's exactly what happened. I said that on the air.

BAKER: And he said, here's the deal on how, you know, on probably what happened with the train. And he admitted he did not talk to the person that was the cabin attendant and he didn't know. So it's still unclear whether ABC requested specific seats, but really that doesn't matter. We know that ABC requested special accommodation for Barbara Walters and Whoopi Goldberg, special treatment.

BECK: Wait. But wait. We called Barbara Walters' office and you just asked her and she said, if you just want to know, you just call my office.

BAKER: So I e mail the PR guy at The View.[ ... ... ... I]n fact, what the PR guy had said in one of the e mails. "They talked about this on the air. Didn't you see it." And so she said, you know, here's what happened; Glenn Beck was wrong; I called him out. And it just and I was like, well, that doesn't answer any actual question. So I wrote back, thanked her and the PR guy for responding in the first place. And I said and I was very clear. Said, look, I understand it is possible, maybe even probable that the women, Barbara Walters and Whoopi Goldberg, didn't know that ABC had requested this. However, I think that as you get out of your Town Car and police are around you walking you along, it might occur to you not every Amtrak passenger is getting this sort of escort. So I found that but still possible that they thought maybe Amtrak just on their own, you know, they won the Amtrak lottery that day. So I wrote back and I said, here are my questions, though. And I was very specific because I went over. I said, you know, Glenn never said that Barbara Walters approached him, you know, on the train. He didn't say, "I accused Whoopi Goldberg and Barbara Walters of reserving seats on this train." He just said, "I got on the train and they told me that's seats were reserved and then these people got on." So this is all silly except for the fact that it became a seven minute segment where it was clear that Barbara Walters and Whoopi Goldberg are like, we're going to take this guy down a notch; we want to wipe that smug smile off his face. And that's the part that got me mad. And I get an answer back from the PR guy that just says, there will be no further, you know, communication about this story. So I get nothing from Barbara Walters, nothing from her office. So after all of this, you know, sort of sanctimonious lecturing of you

BECK: Do me a favor. Do me a favor. Will you write this down for me in a short pithy what you have. I'm going to attach it to a letter myself and I am going to send it to Barbara Walters' office myself because she said, "All you have to do is call." That's fine. I would like a statement back from her.[10] ↜Just M E here , now 21:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

This whole conversation is moot. Wikipedia sources are secondary, not primary. Do you have a secondary reliable source that comments on this interview? If not, it is a primary source, and should not be used. Bytebear (talk) 03:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, reference to the Amtrak spokesman's telling Scott Baker about ABC's request for assistance for The View ladies from the Amtrak police (otherwise found in the above interview on Beck's site, on Breitbart-TV's site, and on the Naked Emperor site) is already found on the (conservative) News Busters site, here; and perhaps with more time, other secondary sources will make mention of it, too. ↜Just M E here , now 06:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The June 5 Washington Examiner's op-ed page also linked to TV Newser's mention/link of reporter Baker's piece. ↜Just M E here , now 07:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• As for the primary source of the interview itself, note that WP:NOR says about primary sources, "an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source." The Glenn Beck website sometimes contains transcripts of interviews broadcasted on his syndicated radio show, which primary source of such transcripts is often used in reliable secondary sources with no-one claiming such transcripts unreliable; therefore this transcript can be used to say that Scott Baker has asserted such-'n'-so.
  Nevertheless, even if it were to be argued, say, that a transcript of an interview of the Charlie Rose Show contained on the Charlie Rose website could not be considered a primary source but instead should be considered a source self-published by Rose -- (?) -- Well, even so, we'd end up with the self-same conclusion: Since a self-published source is considered reliable with regard the biographies and beliefs of the writers of the source themselves, we could still use the transcript to establish Baker as having made the assertion about ABC and Amtrak. Thus, taken together, even if we considered Beck's site, the B-Cast's site, and the Naked Emperor site all to be self-published sources: Beck's participation in the conversation would be established by Beck's self-published site; Baker's participation by the B-Cast webshow's website; and the author of the Naked Emperor website's having made a video about Baker's investigation, pieced together from snippets of audio and video from the forementioned shows, would be established by her blog -- with Baker's investigation about this apparently controversial Amtrak episode also being accepted as reliable by the partisan media watchdog News Busters website and there being no parties, not Amtrak itself, nor mainstream media sources to include ABC itself, nor any independent media watchdog publication or website, nor any competing, partisan media watchdog such as Media Matters for America, nor any political blog such as the Huffington Post, etc., who have questioned as of yet Baker's assertion. ↜Just M E here , now 18:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I see a whole bunch of material above. What is being proposed/discussed? Inclusion of the View segment in the main article? Is there some proposed text? Sorry, I just don't see what the "discussion" is about. E2a2j (talk) 01:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous said, "I just don't see what the 'discussion' is about."

Not every talk page discussion must be hashing out controversies. In the present case, as this section's first post said, what's being proposed is this: " Beck's 20 May 2009 guest spot on The View has received a lot of media commentary. [...] Should mention of this be made in the article?" I don't know how to be more straightforward than that. There has been no counter arguements to speak of, and the remainder of the posts merely marshall sources. ↜Just M E here , now 19:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I've proved the notability of "Beck v. The View." How should a contribution of this material be composed? I suggest something parallel to the article's mention of the controversy over Beck's apocalyptic talk and tears. Perhaps News Busters's summary of Scott Baker's investigation could be referenced, balancing that with the analysis (below) provided by by Politics Daily?[11]

"No sooner had the Fox News host taken a seat among the ladies during the "Hot Topics" segment than Whoopi Goldberg went after him for what she said were his lies about a chance meeting between Beck, Barbara Walters and Goldberg on the Amtrak train to Washington before the White House Correspondents' Dinner this month.

"Beck recounted the meeting on his radio program, saying Barbara and Whoopi had approached him and then dismissed him. Whoopi said Beck should have remembered that he approached them (not the other way around), introduced himself and then had a pleasant conversation.

"'Why do you lie? You're a lying sack of dog mess,' Whoopi said. 'For you to make something up like that, and to say we pulled you in, it was a lie.'

"Barbara then went at him. 'You are an investigative reporter.'

"Beck: 'No I'm not.'

"Barbara: 'You are a reporter. Do you check facts?'

"Beck: 'No, I'm not- I'm a commentator. I commentate on life.'

"Eventually, Beck apologized for his radio riff about the train encounter. 'I am sorry, to use Nancy Pelosi words, that I misspoke. You did not come over, I came over.'"

↜Just M E here , now 15:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion (this weighty topic deserves an even more exalted word; OK, ahem, "my summation")

I think Beck broke the social convention among celebs -- among any group of people who interact socially, truth be told! -- that ya don't interact with people socially and then turn around and broadcast to everyone in a mocking tone how the interaction went unless ya want to make those who you're mocking your enemies. Yet, of course, celebs are members of the "media establishment" and as public figures in their own right really ought to be able to handle such mocking and have thick skins about it or else they've gotta simply get into another line of work. Therefore, Beck's funny story telling about the special accomodations given the ladies (1) yes, reasonably provoked their "You lying sack of dog mess"/"Doncha offer those ya report on chance to comment before ya publish??!!" response; yet at the same time (2) Beck is fully justified to allege that Whoopi/Barb have equivocated to the extent they want people not to believe that they walked behind fully uniformed Amtrak police officers onto the train and were seated at a table or whatever the hell this brouhaha originally was about. Whatever its genesis, this feud has become part of Beck's story in the popular culture and so I'll try to make some offhand rendering of what I believe to be the most common aspects of it that have been mentioned in the media (eg the very recent 20-20 interview that included a snippet of Goldberg's fury) and make a quick contribution of what I come up with to the article. If any other contributors find my take to be POV I hope they'll re-edit it toward achieving better balance. ↜Just M E here , now 15:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The new section re: The View looks good. I'd only add that, as it turns out, the ladies did in fact receive special treatment and reserved seats, according to the Breitbart reporter. Well done Justme. E2a2j (talk) 01:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it is important to note that ABC did confirm contacting Amtrak concerning Barbara Walters and Whoopi Goldberg riding that train. They did not confirm if seats were reserved but Amtrak certainly knew those two would be riding that train.Arclarke84 (talk) 22:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Ratings

How about something about this dude's MONSTER ratings? He routinely DOUBLES his ENTIRE competition....COMBINED!

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/the_scoreboard_friday_june_12_118993.asp

Wow! Makes a liberal want to puke in their mouth a little, huh? haha

68.40.123.217 (talk) 21:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Books

Glenn Beck's Common Sense: The Case Against an Out-of-Control Government, Inspired by Thomas Paine, released June 2009.

Change to: Glenn Beck's Common Sense: The Case Against an Out-of-Control Government, Inspired by Thomas Paine, released June 16, 2009.--12.23.111.178 (talk) 17:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.23.111.178 (talk) 16:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

For real?

Some - such as Cenk Uygur of theyoungturks.com - have questioned the extent to which Beck actually believes what he says, suggesting that he might be (in some sense) playing a role. I believe that there should be some acknowledgement of this in the article. 90.214.227.242 (talk) 05:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• What is the basis for Uygur's claims? Anyone can say that a person is lying, but what is the evidence? Npeters22 (talk) 15:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Specifically a video in which Beck is seen laughing and joking with a photographer about whom he had not long before said some very harsh things - I think it was for a recent GQ Magazine shoot. Uygur played it during a segment of his show, commenting that he found it difficult to square the hostility and vehemence of Beck's on-air persona with the relaxed affability of the person in the video. My own view - which I know doesn't count here, but I'll give it anyway - is that Beck probably does believe a lot of what he says, but is playing Devil's Advocate at least to a limited extent. Others have commented on this apart from Uygur, I'll try and get some detailed refs. 90.212.113.124 (talk) 07:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
    • OK here's one article: [[12]]. Apparently Beck is a big admirer of Orson Welles - perpetrator of one of the biggest frauds (in a sense) in broadcasting history. He even named his media organisation, Mercury Radio Arts, after Welles' theatre company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.212.113.124 (talk) 07:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Date error

In the article on Beck's history there is a mistake in a date, given as 4009, that should obviously be 2009, just prior to the mention of the book "The 5,000 Year Leap" and its author. John Edward Mahalo D'Aura —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.50.132 (talk) 05:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

fixed. Bytebear (talk) 05:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

"wrote the foreward" --> forew*o*rd

This seems to be a typo. Please correct it if you have editing rights. -- 89.54.217.44 (talk) 11:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for pointing that out. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:29, 12 July 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)

"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) — 76.68.250.6 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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,[13], and he asked the first Muslim congressman to prove he's not an enemy of America.[14] 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:[15]. On page 2, this from the Daily Mail, not known for its left-leaning stance:[16]. On page 3, the New York Times describes him as "Fox News’s Mad, Apocalyptic, Tearful Rising Star".[17] And also see this lot:[18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25] 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."[26] 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) — 70.102.94.130 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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) — 70.102.94.130 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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) — 70.102.94.130 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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)