Talk:Glenn Beck/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Article part 2

Wow, where to start, I never engendered such a scintillating discussion before. As I know very little about Mr. Beck, any and all discussion is welcomed and I feel almost all of the above is very productive. Note to Cptnono: if I were a bulldozer, I would not have stopped in the middle of the article but would have continued to rv the excess verbiage. I am not offended, there can be a fine line between Bold and Beautiful, ooops, I mean Bulldozer!  :-D and your comments were very perceptive, ty. I really appreciate the welcome to my "fresh eyes". So let's wing it.

• First, I did not mean any section should Be a separate article, I was remarking that too many sections are long enough to Be articles, (although that may be a consideration down the line.)
• AerobicFox, I appreciate your passion, but in checking several other articles, a simple listing of the author's books is sufficient, we are not a bibliography, again, e.g. see Bill O'Reilly's article.
• I did not highlight "undue weight" because I was not meaning the Wiki definition, the whole article is overweight/obese! Poetic license...DocOfSoc (talk) 10:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
• In carefully rereading the article and comparing it to [1], there are some copyright violations, sentences lifted wholly from that article and copied and pasted here. Those can be summarily deleted without discussion if not totally rewritten. Our copyright committee is very skilled at that.
• "BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement." There is also too much disproportionate space devoted to far too many viewpoints, and are overly promotional in tone as per BLP.
• If I have deleted anything someone deems vital, this is the place to discuss it.

Gsbus8 thank you for your comment, I agree it is worth including. Beck's views on gay marriage would need to be sourced, but my suggestion is let's get this article significantly pruned before adding new topics. Comments? I am attempting to cover all your remarks above, if I miss anything I am sure you will iterate ;-) Someone who doesn't give a "crap about the political process" will probably not fit into any party designations. No use beating that "dead horse." There is at least one item in which there is contradiction, that of his non-existent secondary education. I am getting the distinct impression, that Mr. Beck will say whatever suits the occasion and may be taking some liberties with the truth. Comments? Beck's income and all its sources may be interesting but adds nothing to the article. Do we need to know more than he made $32 million last year? Although he may be notable as a commentator, he calls himself an entertainer, which gives him far more latitude in his comments. I think it is worth keeping that in mind when we are editing. Looking forward to tomorrow. Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 11:24, 2 January 2011 (UTC) Made a few edits. Categories with their own page only need one sentence. DocOfSoc (talk) 14:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

user box was full of extraneous info that is not standardDocOfSoc (talk) 13:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

If you have deleted anything someone sees as vital then maybe you need to think about that before deleting it. It is easy to assume what some people will see as contentious so open it up for discussion before deleting it. And money made is OK. It is often discussed in the media for not only Beck, but others who bring in signifigant sums. There is even s parameter in infoboxes for business people.Cptnono (talk) 19:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Points to Ponder

I have never seen a Header like "Public reception". If I were a bulldozer ;-) I would zap it, after moving a sentence or two. The rest seems fan-like and frivolous, rather self-serving. "Public disputes" needs clean up, a couple categories are superfluous; the rest could be put in one paragraph. His every "live appearance does not need to be described in detail, pruning suggested. HB Secret Garden, I like your ideas, added a few more bullet points. More tonight. DocOfSoc (talk) 14:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Never heard of it? I have seen them around. Anyways, something like "criticism" has some POV and is frowned upon so integrating both criticism and support into a single section with a neuteral header is the way to go. And "reception" for such a public figure is more than appropriate.Cptnono (talk) 19:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I like your idea of combining for balance. Does anyone else want to tackle the copyright issue? I did, a bit. Would you find me an example of "reception" for comparison, I had no luck. In "disputes", we have outdated items that suffer from "they were important at the time, but not for history". That's covered here: "established articles that are bloated with event-specific facts at the expense of longstanding content—is considered a Wikipedia fault." it's the backlog of "Recentism" [2]. Input please :-D "cya" later! DocOfSoc (talk) 05:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Bulldoze away. AerobicFox (talk) 06:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, smash! Copyright issues just need to go or the paraphrase needs to be done better. As long as it isn't a link to infringement I am less worried. I am not going to find you a comparison for the section header right now because I am lazy and it is completely ridiculous to think it is not throughout Wikipedia. If you really cannot find it let me know and I will find examples but I would prefer not to do 5 minutes of leg work (with links) when it can be seen in 1 with honest looking. Even typing that out seems silly when it is obviously there. Yes, I assume there are recentism issues. Start listing them and killing them. However, we do need to watch out because the recentism issues might have stemmed from issues that were never important in the first place but required extra lines to explain them to provide the full context of a news story that was titillating but lame in the grand scheme of things. Cptnono (talk) 09:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Doc, I believe you sincere and find your self-confidence inspiring. Still, there's a tiny learning curve editing Wikipedia and it's us your fellow editors' job is to help, sharing what we've learned from experience. With this in mind, let me just say that the reason that the word reception is used every once in awhile in Wiki articles is 'cause people are trying to be NPOV and be sure to imply that both positive and negative criticism is going to be discussed/included. Be that as it may, the word criticism can mean either kind so that word works just as well. (I sorta like perception: eg see Public_image_of_George_W._Bush#Domestic_perception_of_Bush.) IAC, if you have some kind of allergy to reception, just substitute criticism or some other word and be done with it--or figure out some other way around your dislike for that word. There are any number of additional ways to suggest cultural resonances/reactions/image/etc., or one can even choose not to amass a distinct section for these type of things but instead opt to leave them scattered throughout the article.

And please also trust that I am sincerely trying to be helpful and not insulting in sharing the basic technique of using Wiki's search function, as follows: There is this bubble thing on the upper right of a Wiki page, yknow? OK, just type in a word for an article subsection you're looking for--in this case, that is: "reception" but don't hit return; instead look below the bubble, where you'll see the words "containing... reception ." You move the cursor down to those words and click Return then scroll down the page to----

-The_Secret_Garden#Public_reception
-The_Larry_Sanders_Show#Reception
-Lopez_Tonight#Critical_reception
-The_Colbert_Report#Reception
-Barbara_Boxer#Public_image.2C_political_reception_and_controversy
-Geert_Wilders#Public_reception
-MTV_Latin_America#Public_Reception
-Julian_Assange&diff=prev&oldid=405677083#Public_reception
-Robert_Thurman#Public_reception
-Emi_Suzuki#Public_reception
-Erin_Cummings#Public_reception
-Philip_Carl_Salzman#Public_reception
-Yas#Public_reception
-Magibon#Public_reception
-Shauna_Burns#Public_Reception
-John_Brownlee_sex_scandal#Media_and_public_reception
-Thomas_Burke_(author)#Reception
-Jennifer_Hawkins#Reception
-Evelyn_Waugh#Reception
-Christopher_Nolan#Critical_reception
-Søren_Kierkegaard#Reception
-etc.

--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 19:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

For example, in point of fact, WP's blp for the political commentator, accasional broadcast political pundit and consummate political blogger Andrew Sullivan's only separate section for Reactions is called

-Andrew_Sullivan#Controversies.

As for media personality and media mogul Oprah Winfrey, her blp has a section called

-Oprah_Winfrey#Influence.

--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

-Public_image_of_Sarah_Palin#Perceptions_of_Palin.27s_political_style
-Bill_O'Reilly_(political_commentator)#Political_views_and_public_perception
-Matt_Drudge#Comments_by_journalists
-Alan_Colmes#Criticism
-Ann_Coulter#Controversies_and_criticism
-Chris_Matthews#Criticisms_and_controversy
-Michael_Savage_(commentator)#Awards.2C_criticisms.2C_and_controversies

-Oliver_North#Political_and_historical_legacy
-Ed_Schultz#Evolution_of_political_views
-Nate_Silver#Recognition_and_awards
-James_Carville#Quotations

--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 21:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

No matter how long you are on Wikipedia, there is always a learning curve. I appreciate the time you guys have taken to further educate me. When you stop learning you are dead. I am unfamiliar with the "Bubble" you are referring to, just the search box (But I did learn what an Immaculate Reception was, Thank you! LOL) I am not the least bit insulted. Hodg if in your judgement, you want to move the websites NP. I had seen them at the bottom in other articles but have no strong feeling about it. I do have strong feelings that Oprah took over my fav health channel, but I digress. On "reception" I have mixed feelings, but that could be is one of the things I do for a living is weddings LOL. "Reactions" is ok, Cpt or Hodg, use your best judgment. Still mystified about the "Bubble. Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 03:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)"

Internet offerings

The Net section mentioning Mercury Radio Arts' GlennBeck.com and TheBlaze.com websites was moved to the bottom of the page. Is there a reasonable rationale to mark some kind of clean separation/dichotomy between Beck's personal and corporate oeuvres? If not, shouldn't it join the sections for his books, etc., in the section currently arranged around Beck's "career"? Of course like many complicated media empires, in Beck's such things as, say, his books are "team written"--he speaks them in meetings and also calls at odd hours with his ideas and his collaborators commit them to paper--as is accomplished the creation of the scripts/outlines for his one-man stage performances or his broadcast shows, so it isn't always easy to know what parts of "Glenn Beck" are his own utlimate contributions and what parts were contributed by the various folks he has selected to collaborate with him on whatever project. And, for example, the blp for Oprah Winfrey has one section for her eponymous show, under the heading of "Television," and has another section that groups together subsections that cover her various other media enterprises: for "Film," "Publishing and writing," "Online," and "Radio." (Btw, here's the entire subsection in the Oprah blp about her radio channel):

"On February 9, 2006, it was announced that Winfrey had signed a three-year, $55 million contract with XM Satellite Radio to establish a new radio channel. The channel, Oprah Radio, features popular contributors to The Oprah Winfrey Show and O, The Oprah Magazine including Nate Berkus, Dr. Mehmet Oz, Bob Greene, Dr. Robin Smith and Marianne Williamson. Oprah & Friends began broadcasting at 11:00 am ET, September 25, 2006, from a new studio at Winfrey's Chicago headquarters. The channel broadcasts 24 hours a day, seven days a week on XM Radio Channel 156. Winfrey's contract requires her to be on the air thirty minutes a week, 39 weeks a year. The thirty-minute weekly show features Winfrey with friend Gayle King."

--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 06:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Beck's view on Muslims

Does anyone have any other lines to suggest to go into a new paragraph in the Viewpoints section? If he has said enough things then it should be easy to craft a paragraph that summarizes his views.Cptnono (talk) 03:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Believes number of muslims who are terrorist is close to 10%: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/12/13/2010-12-13_glenn_beck_claims_10_of_muslims_are_terrorists_cnns_fareed_zakaria_blasts_him_fo.html

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/12/12/fareed-zakaria-glenn-beck-wrong-about-10-percent-muslims-being-terrorists/

This isn't the first time he said this. In 2003 in a book he said:90 percent of Islam is peaceful, while 10 percent of Islam "wants us dead."

http://www.sify.com/news/glenn-beck-s-10-per-cent-of-muslims-in-world-are-terrorists-claims-are-total-nonsense-news-international-kmoqknbghhb.html Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 14:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Someone needs to teach Mr. Beck about demographics and simple ratios... Soxwon (talk) 19:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Do we have anymore sources not related to the ratios? I am under the impression that he is not a fan of Islam (or at least certain elements) and that deserves some place in the article. The ratio thing is only a small portion of everything he has said about terrorism.Cptnono (talk) 21:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

We are not denying Beck or anyone else their First Amendment rights. He can say anything he wants. But advertisers don't have to support his brand of hate mongering, and audiences don't have to take Fox News seriously if one of its top names has become a "circus clown."

Actually, Beck is worse than a clown. He's more like a terrorist who believes he has discovered the One True Faith, and condemns everyone else as a heretic. And that makes him something else as well--a traitor to the American values he professes so loudly to defend.

—Cokie & Steve Roberts -->link

--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 22:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

What does that have to do with the conversation?Cptnono (talk) 22:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Jon Stewart that it isn't helpful to term W. Bush a fascist or to call Barack Obama a Communist. I also think it isn't helpful to say that 10% of a particular religious group are terrorists. Such a way of speaking is over the top, IMO. (Just as Cokie and her husband terming Beck a terrorist isn't particularly helpful, IMO. Albeit, in light of his rhetoric, sort of an interesting counterthrust....) In any case, I ALSO happen to be of the opinion that if Beck's rhetoric is to be included in this article, it ought to be given within its full context (as follows):

Okey dokey—here are the facts. All of this is according to a scientific poll of people in Muslim nations done by the respected group World Public Opinion. Support for attacking civilians who just happen to work in Islamic countries range from 6%-30%.

The lowest amount of support in the polled nations is in Azerbaijan where ONLY 4% of people approve of violence against civilians on our territory, with another 10% having “mixed feelings” about it. That number rises to 9% approval in Pakistan, with another 15% having “mixed feelings”. Do you want me to mention the Palestinian territories? Do you? 24% approval, 15% mixed feelings.

To put it another way—someone in the Palestinian territories who is open to violence on civilians in the United States is about as easy to find as an American citizen who approves of the job performance of President Obama.

But these numbers, ranging from 10% to 39%, are just the beginning.

Specific support for Al Qaeda’s attacks on civilians range from “only” 9% in Morocco to 21% in Egypt.

Specific support for Osama Bin Laden? That ranges from 4% in Azerbaijan to 56% in the Palestinian territories. Include those who have mixed feelings towards the largest terrorist in American history—and you get a range of 10%-78%.

Let’s remove the Al Qaeda brand name, and look for support for groups in general that attack Americans. Support ranges from 25%-30%.

If you think killing troops that just happened to be stationed in the Gulf is terrorism—then it gets much, much worse. Support for violence ranges from 13% in Azerbaijan to a ridiculous 78% in Egypt and 87% in the Palestinian territories. That doesn’t include those who have mixed feelings about killing troops.

“Alright, now that we have the facts…let me articulate the left's last ditch argument:

“But those are only people who advocate terrorism! Not people who are terrorists!!”

First, allow me to point out that your argument has now boiled down to:

“Glenn Beck lied! He said that 10% of Muslims want to kill innocent civilians when the truth is that 10% of Muslims SUPPORT killing innocent civilians!”

Secondly, even that point is wrong. Read the definition of terrorist again:

a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.

“But, that’s not what Glenn meant! You’re only saying that to cover after the fact!”

Am I? Here is the 10% statistic as laid out in 2003, in Glenn’s first New York Times bestselling book The Real America.” (Emphasis mine.)

–Ninety percent of Islam is peaceful.
–Ten percent of Islam wants us dead.
–That ten percent of the faith is composed of extreme radicals who have taken Islam through a time tunnel and twisted it into something that is ugly and barbaric.

What is truly amazing is how completely shocking this is to most of the media. This is very basic information about the war on terror. Anyone who has ever covered a terrorism story should be intimately acquainted with these polls.

— Stu Burguiere (Producer, The Glenn Beck Progam)

--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 22:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Again, is there anything not related to this recent story? Also, his producer is no him.Cptnono (talk) 22:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The "10%" quote if from a three-way radio show conversation involving Beck, Gray, and Burguiere. Then, Burguiere posted the above blogpost and Beck went over it point by point with Burguire on his next radio show (link).--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 23:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, didn't realize. That's cool. Now do we have any thing else baout his views on Muslims or is the only thing in all of his years this news story?Cptnono (talk) 23:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, Cptnono. Sounds like a useful thing to look up! Smiles. (Btw, wrt the outrage over Beck's "10%" rhetoric, here is Mediaite's most recent follow up.)

Fareed Zakaria pointed out that, by Beck’s own definition, he would be a terrorist himself. Today, Beck responded with his own extension of logic that by pointing out that, by Zakaria’s definition, were Beck to vocally advocate the CNN host’s violent death, he “wouldn’t be in trouble.” Whoa. This argument took a hard left turn at some point.

--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 23:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking it took a hard turn early on, and the further it goes, the easier it is to see where its twisted path leads. Dylan Flaherty 02:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I am all for including Burguire's explanation. However, it shouldn't be presented as a concrete rebuttal of Zakaraia's criticism. Most people aren't buying the explanation. And he uses a very questionable definition of terrorist to to make his point. But, even if one accepts his definition, his argument still doesn't work. The poll basically identifies people who say they agree with the use of violence against the US, that is different from actively advocating terrorism. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 13:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Your interpretation of the explanation or the poll or anything are of little matter. We report what other reliable sources report, we don't interpret what they mean. Arzel (talk) 14:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Sure, but we have to use our judgment in how they are presented is my point. Like I said, I am fine with including beck's producer's explanation. But it is clearly an argument most people aren't buying. And his definition of terrorist is questionable at best. Oops I forgot, experts on subjects like me can't weigh in. Your right, let's just hand the article over to beck's producers. Because it is basically being written by his followers already. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 14:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

So nothing, huh? This one news item is the only thing? Can you guys keep the discussion about the 10% thing up above? I mean, it really should be easy to craft a complete paragraph for this biography. At the end of the day, this news story is little but he has said some inflammatory stuff before so look at the big picture. Cptnono (talk) 01:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

"Most people aren't buying" it? Who are "most people"? Did you conduct a poll or something? Even Beck critics admit that he is technically accurate and their own anti-Beck arguments are, quote, "admittedly flimsy," yet they cling to them anyway. If anything is telling about Beck and his critics, this is:

... Look, I know my argument is more about feelings than facts... And therein, basically, lies the crux of my (admittedly flimsy) argument. ...

— Mediaite

-- Glynth (talk) 09:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Stop bully editing Cptnono. Of course there is plenty of material out there on Beck's view regarding muslims. I am just not going to spend hours tracking it down. In the mean time, this story provides insight into the guy, and is a major controversy. It is also a fairly unique statement to come from a significant political pundit. Just stop blocking it for your own purposes, and please start being more polite. You are just one editor among many here, you are not the manager of this page. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 13:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Glynth one blogger says his argument is flimsy. Zakaria never said that. And as someone who studies terrorism every day, I assure you, if we are going to pick apart arguments Becks response is simply a bad one, based on a bad understanding not only of terrorism, but of the terms within the definition and in the polls he cites. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 20:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

What a blogger says is of no importance here. Anyways, can you keep the back and forth on the news story up above? I would love to see a paragraph on his views on Muslims (good or bad) so hopefully this section of he talk page can pan out.Cptnono (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I would be concerned about a whole section on his view on Muslims. I think he has expressed some thoughts on them, but it isn't like he's laid out a doctrine on Islam. Theoretically you could cobble together a "view on muslims" for any commentator (say a Bill O'reilly or Keith Olberman). If the person is known for having a concrete point of view on the religion, then by all means go for it. Don't believe that is the case with Beck. 173.48.16.187 (talk) 18:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I did not say a whole section. I said a paragraph in an existing section. But yes, a whole section (as proposed by DG) is a concern. And there is tons out there that is just as titillating as the recent couple day news story. How about in '07 when he was protested by Muslim-American groups? How about his comments on the facility in NY which generated some press? This stuff is just as controversial and I am surprised that others were not trying harder on those issues. LOL, rcentism.Cptnono (talk) 06:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe you proposed the whole section Cptnono. I just said it was something we could do. However the basic problem is finding many of those older stories online. I remember the story you mention here, but I'll be darned if I know where to find it now. Also a bigger concern with this section, is Beck's tendancy to contradict himself. I think we may end up with a statement he makes one month or year, which he disavows or contradicts at another time. I think it is much easier to take these on a case by case basis, such as with the 10% claim. Where we aren't painting a portrait of his views, but simply reporting a notable dispute that arose out of the statement. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 13:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Article

The article was rife with redundancies, repetitions, POVs, peacocky words, and undue weight. Many items were repeated two and three times. There is much trivia that does not add to the article. It has been remarked by several editors that an edit of this article needs to be accomplished with an impartial eye, and this is what I am attempting to do. Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 06:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The section on religious beliefs is long enough for a separate article. Updating as I go along. DocOfSoc (talk) 07:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Your edits need a little more discernment. In this edit you removed all info on Arguing with Idiots, An Inconvenient Book, and the Christmas Sweater, except for one sentence that lists them off. None of this seemed redundant, repetitious or full of peacocky words.

Also, please at least explain your reasoning behind deleting these two sections:

Although the majority of his revenue results from his radio show and books, his website's 5 million unique visitors per month also provides at least $3 million annually, while his salary at Fox News is estimated at $2 million per year. Beck's online magazine Fusion sells an array of Beck-themed merchandise, while his website offers a web subscription service called "Insider Extreme" where for $75 a year one gets access to behind-the-scenes footage and a fourth hour of his daily radio show.

Mercury Radio Arts' flagship websites was GlennBeck.com, whose subscription-based premium content section, Insider Extreme, in 2010 began to include an hourlong video blog called the Fourth Hour with Stu and Pat (Stu Burguiere, Beck's producer since his days at WFLA in Tampa, and Pat Gray). A few interactive classes make up Beck University, added to the subscription website in July 2010. In August 2010, Beck launched an independent website, The Blaze, whose managing editor was Scott Baker.

--AerobicFox (talk) 08:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Reads like an ad for his books. Too much detail not afforded other authors. A simple listing of the books is usual.

I deleted the above two sections because they read like ads for the Glenn Beck empire. This article simply has way too much undue weight. DocOfSoc (talk) 08

22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The story about his winning a radio contest at 13 is sufficient in one mention. Excess info about his income is unnecessary. Advertising for his sites are not appropriate here. A step by step listing of his career in radio is unnecessary.

Those who work in radio normally make many moves and it is boring. Do you really think his cruelly mocking a woman's miscarriage is necessary info? Who filled his jobs after he moved is totally unnecessary. Who cares whose wives were guest on his show? Again, just a listing of his books would be far more appropriate. I left far more info than I am comfortable with. Other authors just get listings. SEE: Bill O'Reilly's books: [3] If people want to know the details of his books they can go look elsewhere. This is not encyclopedic! DocOfSoc (talk) 08:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

This is not a fan page listing of all the places Mr. Beck can collect more money. We may have a POV issue here, are you a fan? Hope your New Year is happy one. Please look at this objectively. Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 08:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Just looking at this article as an objective editor, it needs significant editing. I don't care what Mr. Beck says or does not say. Chronicling all of it in infinitesimal detail is undue weight, unnecessary and not encyclopedic. As a I mentioned before the section on Ideologies is more than enough for a separate article. The several sections concerning what the near world has said about Beck is simply TMI. It would be a great contribution if you would like to assist in editing the article rather than rv my carefully thought out edits. I hope to see you are up to the challenge. It's a new year and teamwork is the keyword :-) Best wishes. DocOfSoc (talk) 09:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Unlike Arianna Huffington / Huffington Post or Nick Denton / Gawker Media and more like the blp for Andrew Breitbart there are no separate articles for GlennBeck.com or Inside Extreme/Fourth Hour with Stu and Pat, warranting an overview with their brief mention here.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 21:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with some pruning. However, when you are reverted you should follow BRD. There is no reason to revert someone's revert without giving it ample time for discussion on the talk page. Somethings may get bogged down in the process but that is the way it is. Also, UNDUE deals with viewpoints and not details as you are applying it. I get what you are saying with some details being to in depth though.Cptnono (talk) 21:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't actually do reverting per se but pruned from the old version to create a brand-new Glenn Beck#Online publishing and websites subsection.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 21:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for not being clear. My comment was directed at Doc.Cptnono (talk) 21:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, OK Cptnono. In any case, the suggested order is (1) Bold (2) Revert (3) Discuss (although B-D-R would obviously be OK too, I think...). However, if DocOfSoc feels that the restored material in that section are of events/entities that aren't really notable, we do need to discuss the issue. I argue that GlennBeck.com and the live daily podcast warrant inclusion in the encyclopedia by their being mentioned and listed among links to articles that do exist about Beck's online offerings, due to the fact that they have engendered enough news coverage as part of Beck's empire and simply as themselves being media outlets.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 21:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

"However, if DocOfSoc oS feels that restored mentions are of things that are not really notable, we do need to discuss the issue."
You do need to discuss things if people disagree.
The presence of a lot of detail does not mean that something reads like an ad. Most pop culture wikipedia articles like this one get a lot of trivia and extra facts, but this usually is a benefit to the project. Information about his income also doesn't seem irrelevant, but interesting. I like to get a sense on how much these services make for people like Beck and other popular hosts. A brief one sentence description about a book that has it's own article doesn't seem like excess, or an ad, so I would at least tell the reader what the book is on.--AerobicFox (talk) 21:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec)D'oh. Last night's festivities screwing up my typing! BRD is of course correct :) Saw a quick revert he did (I didn't even look at the diff so he might be on the right page) and don't want to see any more edit warring. Overall I am just stoked to see some fresh eyes so no worries at this time at all. Cptnono (talk) 21:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

You got the BRD ordering right, actually. I just meant that whether a revert of longstanding material should be considered itself being B(old) or a R(evert) of existing details, the idea is to D(iscuss) the issues at hand. (Ooph, I'm getting tongue-tied here! IAC, although the important issue is to discuss the material itself on its merits and not so much worry about the niceties of process: the BRD order I think is meant to favort long-standing material being left standing while it's being discussed though unless there are BLP issues involved or the material is insufficiently sourced and is alleged to be false.)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 21:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

LOL. I am getting brain tied then. Time for a mimosa to get my mind right. I see what you are getting at. Basically, if we have to slow down a little bit on a couple edits then we should. If something is pruned then reverted then it needs to be discussed over reverting. In the perfect world, DocofSoc would not be bulldozing at all and everything would be discussed if there is any chance it is contentious. However, I have a feeling that is not his style so we can wing it. As long as we keep cooler then we have been I am down with whatever.Cptnono (talk) 22:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

A description of his subscription services most certainly reads like an ad. This should absolutely not be included. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 22:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Deliciousgrapefruit, you haven't challenged their notability but the NPOV of the text. Do you have any suggested edits top bring it into line? I'll try to address that issue in the meantime.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 22:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the mention of their $$ earnings should be removed? Here is how the blp for Anrew Sullivan addresses a similar issue:

In late 2000, Sullivan began his blog, The Daily Dish. In the wake of September 11, 2001, attacks, it became one of the most popular political blogs on the Internet. By the middle of 2003, it was receiving about 300,000 unique visits per month.

300K is phenomenal for an intellectual blog, BTW. (Beck's site's 5M is due its being more a "political entertainment" venue. Meanwhile, Heather Armstrong's Erma Bombeckian or chick-littish prose garners millions of monthly hits as well.)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 22:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

STOP DELETING MY POSTS. I QUIT. THIS ARTICLE IS EDITED BY BECKHEADS PLAIN AND SIMPLE. WIKIPEDIA SHOULD BE ASHAMED. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 22:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Haven't even seen or heard Beck in over a year, so I don't think I qualify. Besides XXX-heads edit all XXX articles; try working with other users.--AerobicFox (talk) 22:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC) Any and all reference to subscription services should be removed. Are people so blind that they can't see beckheads are freakin editing this page? This article is an F ing ad. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 22:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Not going to take your word for that. YOu are a beckhead. In fact, I think you work for him. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 22:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

That's just a little paranoid. I watch O'reilly with my father because he likes to watch that show, and I try to spend time with him, and I only saw some episodes of Beck around this time last year. Besides, isn't this an ad hominem? --AerobicFox (talk) 22:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

It is an ad hominem. And totally relevant. If you a fan or employee of Beck, that clouds you ability to contribute objectively to the article. While wikipedia editors shouldn't engage in ad hom in articles, when making a determination about an editors ability to contribute, ad homs should be employed. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 22:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure you do. You work for beck and you know it. Why else would you want subscription costs mentioned in a supposedly objective article. This article is a piece of trash and needs to be deleted. Or at least charge beck advertising space for the thing. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 22:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you actually serious? --AerobicFox (talk) 23:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely, and you know I am telling the truth right now. Feign surprise all you want. We know you work for Beck. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 23:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

We are not encouraged to give out our political leanings but I myself believe in doing so. I am not even slightly libertarian. My favorite recent president was Jimmy Carter and I voted for and strongly support Barack Obama (to be truthful, I'd like him to be successfully MORE left wing, but I realize that the democratic process must follow the people's will). As for Beck's website offerings, they are relatively popular/have a high public profile, hence my belief that they are notable, as supported by coverage in wp:RSes in the news media. (I don't subsribe to them myself, nor listen to or watch Beck's show, btw.)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 23:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you serious? Listing the services provided by his website is relevant and not in any way an ad? I don't buy that at all. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 23:15, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Beck University is notable enough to have it's own page. Not getting how it doesn't warrant a mention here. --AerobicFox (talk) 23:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The Stu and Pat podcast does not necessarily include the live participation of Beck, yet is often mentioned in media accounts (Mediaite, Media Matters, etc etc); Fusion magazine is not edited directly by Beck; and Beck U. has engendered a lot of notice in the press. IAC, child articles are indeed to be wp:SUMMARIZED/mentioned in parent articles and until/if Mercury Radio Arts gets its own article, this one has to fill this role, just as is the case for Andrew Breitbart and certain other cases.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 23:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Can mentino he has a university. But you can't mention the cost of his webservices or the price of his tuition. When the article starts to resemble a brochure, that is an indication there is a problem. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 23:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Actual prices are rarely notable. (Mention that a certain retail chain is a discount outlet, but don't list their exact average percentage below the prices of their competitors, for example.)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 23:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Never mentioned bringing up costs. --AerobicFox (talk) 23:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Either way, a listing of various services beck is selling to customers isn't appropriate. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 18:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Per the guidelines, subscription/non-subscription is not the basis for determining whether media programs or offerings are to be given encyclopedic coverage or not, rather it is whether some non-free service or another is notable. The New York Times, the Chicago Trubune, and the Los Angeles Times are not free but are noteworthy--ditto: news weeklies, services such as AOL, cable channels such as HBO and their programs, subscription radio offerings such as the Oprah Channel or the Stern Show--and on and on.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 02:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Entrepreneur before political commentator

In the forbes article Glenn Bekc Inc, he says "I could give a flying crap about the political process" because "We're an entertainment company." I feel like his perspective towards the role of his media holdings is critical is understanding who is as a person. I feel like his quote can be put under "Media career and income" in the paragraph or added to the separate quote box that currently includes the sentence following Beck's own quote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gsbus8 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

He's primarily notable as being a commentator though. Einstein's true passion may have been as a cook, and he may of considered this his most important feature, but he's more notable as a theoretical physicist. --AerobicFox (talk) 23:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure, but its still useful to include how he views himself. It gives context to his unique media strategy and explains many aspects of his commentary, thus adding to the depth of understanding of what he is most notable for. The edit should not be "he is not a commentator," but rather, he views his commentary as part of his entertainment strategy. Just like under personal info for Einstein, you might include he was a cook, or if he viewed his work in physics as part of his humanitarian ideals (purely hypothetical), you would include that to contextualize his work in physics.

Why someone does something is just as important as what they do. Given it's his words, it seems pretty objective and informative. Gsbus8 —Preceding undated comment added 23:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC).

I think this is problematic if you only include his reason for why he does what he does. Then the article becomes a vehicle for self promotion. Only should be included if notable counter examples are given. 173.48.16.187 (talk) 16:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Who else is qualified to comment on his motivations? It's also not self-promotion, given that most of his commentary is done under the presumption that he does care about the political process. Not every statement about self-motivation can have counter examples, and its inclusion is still net positive in terms of broadening the understanding of the subject. Self-promotion would be like "Glenn Beck does this because he wants to change america" not "glenn beck thinks its profitable to say X." It's his opinion, and when you're writing about someone, it's useful to include their opinion, not necessarily every counter example. I understand the concern about self-promotion, but if this particular example does not in anyway promote Glenn Beck in a purely positive light, I think it's quite useful. It's like if someone made a notable report on government policy, and then later said "I only did this because X think tank paid me," that would be useful in discerning the context of the initial report. It's not self-promotion, it's shedding further light on the subjects own intentions. If its obviously a self-promoting statement meant to increase public appeal, I could see your point. But when it's an honest assessment of intentions that doesn't reek of pandering, it seems useful even without counterexamples. --Gsbus8 (talk) 00:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

It's like when the article says he credits god with having saved him from drug abuse. Do we need a counterexample that god didn't save him from drug abuse to include that? No, merely his statement is useful enough in learning more about Beck. The reader can believe his statement or not, but they should know he said it in the first place. That statement about god saving him from drug and alcohol abuse is also 10000x more self-promoting that my suggestion. --Gsbus8 (talk) 00:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

If there was a prominent counter example, yes. For instance, if someone else came forward saying it wasn't god at all, but a secular rehabilitation program he went through (just a made up example here), then that would need to be included. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 12:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Reverts

You need to slow down, Doc. I am finding myself doing too many reverts since you are not using the discussion page. In particular, you just removed info from the lead with an edit summary saying it is repetitive. That is the purpose of the lead. It is supposed to be a standalone overview. So instead of shaping the article as you see fit, try looking at why the info might be in there. An alternative to full on removal of the publishing info might be to reduce its wordiness but some publishing info needs to be in the lead. I have not reverted this yet but might tomorrow. Any suggestions on how to summarize the publishing in the lead instead?

I reverted your deletion of an image that your edit summary saying it was simply moving an image. I agree the images need to be better distributed and might even need to be trimmed but moving them into a stack and then deleting doesn't work well.

I partially reverted your deletion of the rape stuff. It was a legal case that received tons of attention There is a whole other article for it so giving it summary style here is OK. Maybe trim it but not remove it?Cptnono (talk) 08:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, any major adjustments to the layout needs to be taken to the talk page. Your personal preference might not be inline with MoS and could be debatable. Better safe than sorry, so please come to the talk page before doing that stuff again.Cptnono (talk) 08:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I understand, there was just a discussion about making edits and then remarks on talk page. There is a concern that people who are johnny on the spot( and there is nothing wrong with that) will not wait for the discussion after the edits. They had no good answer but it was interesting. The "repetitious edit was the same exact info that is shown later down. I don't remember doing anything to the lead. The images were in an unattractive clump so I was trying to find the best places for them. I will go see your rv's so we can get together on this. I wish we could IM here!DocOfSoc (talk) 08:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Most editors that I know, edit and then go to talk page. I put a lot of thot into editing and hold onto a picture before I replace it, as I did in this case. I may move it again, if it not just right, which I think I did until I was happy with it. Going back to compare your remarks with edits, side by side which I often do. BRB DocOfSoc (talk) 08:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

It looks to me that perhaps we should both slow down! ;-) A couple of your concerns I was in the middle of fixing. I did not touch the lead, the repetitious was from line 57 about his books which is already in the article. The lead is jsut fine and again, I did not touch it. The revert on the rape issue looks fine to me. I had not heard of it. I didn't delete any images. I moved them. The "Glenn Beck on cards "I moved to the main article where I felt it belonged and took away the clumpy problem. Please don't assume what I am doing until I am finished. I think it is looking good so far. So the question is: do you edit and then go to the talk page or go to the talk page and anticipate your edits before actually editing? I think the only concern where we were not in sync, was the rape paragraph. Yes? I need a bit of time to actually get to the talk page after editing. You were too fast for me LOL. I appreciate your concerns and hope I have addressed them properly. Have a good nite. Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 09:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

You are kidding me? I'll go back through and double check my own edits! :) Cptnono (talk) 15:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Nope. Still looks like you said you were moving an image but deleted it. Maybe try the inuse template next time? I don;t see how it would have helped here since your next edit was not to put it back in but you were doing so many edits I assume that you were just juggling stuff around so not a big deal. But publishing is in the lead so my bad there! And yes, some people make changes and then talk but when someone is making contentious changes on an article that has a history of edit warring you are making the problem worse if you do so. So just take it easy a bit. I totally support your fresh eyes trimming but if there is any doubt in your mind you should bring it up here or else trouble is bound to come up.Cptnono (talk) 05:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Beck's dispute with Zakaria needs to be included. This is a major dispute with a major figure and was the product of a highly controversial statement Beck made. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 13:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Not taking sides and not a listener of Beck, but isn't highly controversial statement standard MO for him and most of the "talking heads" out there? What makes this "incident" "article worthy"? Again, I admitt I don't know the specific details about this "dispute" but is this really that big a deal or is it something you are really passionate about including? In cases like this, I would defer to consensus and hope more folks would chime in either way. Anyways, good luck. --Threeafterthree (talk) 14:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Please do not change the scope of talk page discussions and duplicate them. Discussion for this is up above. Thanks.Cptnono (talk) 15:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

This is within the scope of this topic, because it was removed as a product of Docs changes.Once again, Cptnono: you are not the page manager here. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 18:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

This topic is about the speed of edits made to this page. Whether or not to keep certain disputes is being discussed in detail above so please see that discussion for gathering consensus on the matter. Also, please refrain from making comments such as "Once again, Cptnono: you are not the page manager here." and stick to actually discussing the relevant arguments. Failure to comply will result in a pie to the face. --AerobicFox (talk) 19:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry Aerobic, but I can't help but feel that this "project" is being overseen by two problematic editors with questionable objectivity. Doc is doing commendable work, however it is an issue that the only two other people really involved in the rework are AerobicFox and Cptnono. And yes I will continue to defend myself when Cptnono acts like my boss. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 19:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Cptnono was talking to both of you, and I have not taken any part in the rewrite. I'm not even sure if I have made more then 2 or 3 edits to this page in my entire edit history, so your characterization of me leading this rework, while flattering, is misplaced. DocofSoc and Hodgnsecret Garden are doing almost exclusively all of the rewrite. If you didn't always respond aggressively then other editors would be able to work with you better. AerobicFox (talk) 05:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. There is an out of chronological discussion going a few lines up, a discussion about the Muslim thing up above, and another ANI over there. We need to get back on track.Cptnono (talk) 06:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Aerobic Fox, I wasn't talking about edit contributions, I was talking about consensus building. Because Cptnono enforces it very strictly (and I would say he does so inccorrectly based on my reading of the guideline), these discussion threads are very important. If two editors like you and Cptnono are the primary ones involved in the discussion, then you will basically be the shapers of content (no matter how good or bad your assessments). Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 12:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Beating the dead horse with new info Part Two

It is difficult to follow discussions if they are not kept sequential. I am going to move the last part of the discussion down here to continue. I hope that does not discombobulate anyone. DocOfSoc (talk) 06:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

"Glenn Beck, while generally viewed as a conservative (covered in lead), has fluctuated between considering himself a conservative libertarian to simply having libertarian leanings. His claim that he is a true libertarian though has been contested by XXX libertarians while group YYY have maintained there are aspects of libertarian philosophy fundamentally present in his political outlook.

Or something along those lines. --AerobicFox (talk) 06:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind it. I would have gone a different way with it but after reading your I might have been way off. Probably too much for the lead but political views section could work. We would for sure need to redig up the sources to add to the line just to keep everything OK. Anyone else have any thoughts? This would actually clear up something that has come up several times on this talk page.Cptnono (talk) 06:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I've improved the wording, so I hope this new version should be good enough to enter somewhere in the political outlooks. More could be done to make this better, and sourcing would be needed, but I think this may now take away any future arguments concerning his libertarian-ness. -AerobicFox (talk) 06:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I would swear that said his libertarian-ass, sorry, cracked myself up!

AerobicFox that is a great effort to identify someone who cannot decide for himself what he is. He has said he is an entertainer or a clown and could care less about the political process.. Some really tough admins are my page stalkers, and no offense, but I have an idea what they would do to your valiant effort. See above and See ----->

DocOfSoc (talk) 06:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Why part 2? The talk section up above was going fine. I will respond up there since I am not interested in making the talk page ven worse.Cptnono (talk) 07:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

As I said, talk pages need to be sequential or people like me have a difficult time finding, much less following the discussion. Thanks DocOfSoc (talk) 07:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC) OK, I may be wrong on this. Sorry DocOfSoc (talk) 13:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

"Glenn Beck defies labels. He vacillates somewhere between a conservative and a libertarian." all it needs is a sentence or two more. Beck changes from venue to venue from what I can see. Weasely words won't do it. What is a "wall of attribution?" Too tired tonite. Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 07:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC) :"Glenn Beck defies labels." is too much editorializing.

Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user or someone acting at their explicit request.DocOfSoc (talk) 13:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Umm thanks for that. I'm going to go ahead and restrike my own words since I am that user though. --AerobicFox (talk) 20:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm using "some libertarians" because I don't know. I have heard there are sources saying the libertarians but have not bothered going through the archives to find them, this is a skeletal example, the weseal words would be replaced by what the source says. I've replaced some with XXX to clarify.--AerobicFox (talk) 07:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Strike all this, I'm responding up top as well since I don't think splitting this discussion is making it any easier to read. --AerobicFox (talk) 07:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

"Project"

Dear DeliciousGrapefruit, For your own good, please cease and desist attacking the team that is working on this article. I am speaking from past experience. Only with the input of and the cooperative teamwork here can this article be edited. As an experienced editor, I learned something new from the delightful Cptnono just the other day. AerobicFox is there to help. I must admit, I am growing smitten with the wise Hodg. ;-) ; None of which could have been accomplished by the inexperienced me a few years ago. Only by friendly cooperation and patience will you grow as an editor deserving of good faith. You just got here, other editors have much to teach you whether or not they are your cup of tea. Chill Babe, I believe you have much potential. Sincerely, DocOfSoc (talk) 06:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. I simply disagree with you on this point. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 20:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Missing poll

Gallup's most admired man and woman poll lists Glenn Beck as the #4 most admired man by Americans in 2009, and tied for #8 in 2010. If nothing else this should act as a good indicator of the size of his fan base. --AerobicFox (talk) 20:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Another way to read that poll is admiration for him is declining. I don't know if a single poll is of much use here, unless it has been widely commented on. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 21:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I assume this was publicized so grab some sources. In the section with public reception? I doubt DFs analyses received any RS from my quick look but that is something to consider if it is out there. Cptnono (talk) 08:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

With a margin of error of +/- 4%, the polls basically useless I would say. Soxwon (talk) 14:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 65.100.48.233, 6 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Please change:

• Glenn Edward Lee Beck (born February 10, 1964) is an American radio and television host, conservative[5] author, entrepreneur and political commentator, who says "I could give a flying crap about the political process."

To:

• Glenn Edward Lee Beck (born February 10, 1964) is an American radio and television host, conservative[5] author, entrepreneur and political commentator.

Because it reads much better without a largely irrelevant quote in the opening. 65.100.48.233 (talk) 20:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Done I don't think that's appropriate for the first sentence of a biography. -Atmoz (talk) 21:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

webpage

Most of this content should be removed. It is essentially an advertisement of the services one gets when they subscribe. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 20:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Rather than wp:DONTLIKEIT, pls cite guideline.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 21:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

What specific content issue dd you have in mind? Dinkytown talk 21:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Trying to guess, he is probably citing wp:Promotion. However, the guideline's specified ins/outs shd be followed to the letter, rather than willy nilly (as per, say, any editors' personal POVs).

FWIW: From yesterday's NYT:

Former Huffington Post Chief Is Hired to Run Glenn Beck Site, by BILL CARTER January 5, 2011. Glenn Beck, the conservative talk-show host, has hired a onetime chief executive of the left-leaning Huffington Post to lead his new Web site, The Blaze. ...

--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 21:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Hiding simple truths about Jim Wallis and Sojourners

People continue to edit out perfectly reasonable, fair, indisputably true, fully sourced, and uncontroversial facts about Jim Wallis and his organization. Stop this edit war at once. Wallis is a progressive activist (he admits as much) and his Sojourner's organization likewise pushes progressivism. He is a Leftist. That was redacted. Sojourners is progressive. That was redacted. Sojourners is liberal. That was redacted. And all of it even as my edit summaries explicitly tell people it's sourced and to not start an edit war. In fact, the first person who undid one of my edits gave me a vandalism warning and then redacted that warning after discussion on my talk page showed it was a perfectly fine edit. At least he had the intellectual honesty to discuss it instead of just undoing everything I do.

And now someone actually has gone in and removed the sourced fact that Wallis advises Pres. Obama, even though it's stated (with sources) that he is a political and spiritual advisor here. The edit summary says the source didn't say he's an advisor, seemingly arguing it was just a one-time thing, but the source doesn't say his position with the advisory council was temporary at all. In fact, the article was written in 2009 yet in 2010 Wallis continues to be involved, voting at meetings.

Look, I realize many people want (subconsciously or otherwise) to use this as some "example" of how horrible Beck is even in the minds of "Christians," but hiding the fact that those Christians are progressive political activists who advise Obama is to push a POV narrative rather than the facts. To simply give Sojourners the label of "Christian" here is to muddy the waters, an attempt to conflate it with non-partisan Christian organizations, many of whom would not want to be associated with Wallis or his organization. -- Glynth (talk) 01:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

There was no reason to start another discussion since there was one right above. 3 editors support. 1 editor on your talk page looks like he might lean support. And one opposes. Although consensus is not votes, I do not believe his argument trumps and it should be fine to go in. Just to be safe, any other objections?Cptnono (talk) 05:26, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, why are objections not being treated as votes here, but in the 10% page you were treating them as votes? Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 14:41, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a form of synthesis - adding information that was not in the original source in order to discredit the criticism that is cited. If the original source had drawn the connection, that would be fine, but adding it here would make the narrative biased. Also, saying that Wallis is an Obama adviser could imply that he was acting in his capacity as an adviser. In fact being an adviser to a presdient does not necessarily mean sharing their belief system - Paul Krugman was an adviser to the Reagan administration for example. TFD (talk) 19:23, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Noted but the source does so by that logic we are good, right?Cptnono (talk) 02:26, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The source that connects Wallis and Obama does not mention Beck.[4] The source that mentions Wallis and Beck does not mention Obama. In your mind you may make a connection but until someone else does it is original research. You cannot even find right-wing writers that make the same connections that you do. TFD (talk) 06:19, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anybody's making the connections to Synth that you are making either. There is no need for a source to describe Wallis in relation to Beck in order to describe Wallis in Beck's article. If a source called Obama the president, could we not call him Predient Obama in this article without the source also mentioning Beck? Yes. --AerobicFox (talk) 06:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem is these are subjective labels, that (particularly in the context of an article on Glenn Beck) are problematic because they are weighed down by additional pejorative connotations. Aerobic, we don't call Obama a liberal in his article do we? We general stick to less subjective categories like Democrat and Republican. Suggest simply referring to the group as a christian organization. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 14:18, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

It would be adding an implicit ad hominem argument against Wallis: Wallis advises Obama, therefore his commentary on Beck is politically motivated and can be discounted. TFD (talk) 14:51, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed with TFD that these labels are a concern. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 14:58, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

It's only considered an ad hominem if it's irrelevant to the discussion. If we said, Jim Wallis is a liberal, so beware what he has to say on the manufacturing of cotton, that would be an ad hominem. If on the other hand we say, Jim Wallis is a liberal, and is attacking a popular conservative commentator, then it's considered relevant enough to mention. You would think it would be relevant to mention if he were a conservative attacking Glenn Beck, would you not?

Besides, the political affiliation of someone attacking a political figure is always relevant, and portraying that as an ad hominem is loopy at best.
By the way, do you really you believe that liberal is a subjective label for Jim Wallis, and that his criticism was not even partly politically motivated? --AerobicFox (talk) 02:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

It is ad hominem whether or not it is relevant. If it is relevant then you should find no problem in finding a source that says so. Otherwise, it is just synthesis. TFD (talk) 03:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

"The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy, but it is not always fallacious. For in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue."

Whether or not this is relevant should be up to the reader to decide, so if there is any expectation that a reader may find it relevant(which many will) then it should be included. --AerobicFox (talk) 05:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

See WP:SYN: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". In this case you would be combining statements reported to be made by Wallis in one source with biographical information from another in order to detract from the reliablity of Wallis' arguments. If the source had done that, then reporting it would be fine. Otherwise it is POV-pushing. TFD (talk) 06:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Aerobic: Whether or not ad homs are permissible in certain arguments, they have no place in a wikipedia article. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 20:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

There is absolutely zero OR/SYNTH. The source says it.Cptnono (talk) 04:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

"Aerobic: Whether or not ad homs are permissible in certain arguments, they have no place in a wikipedia article." Ad hominems are permissible in all arguments when relevant; it depends on the usage of the word. As being purely an attack on someone's argument purely on their shortcomings and appealing to emotions rather than logic, then yes it is inappropiate. But here all that is being provided is the political alignment of a man making attacks on a political figure, which is not only appropriate for Wikipedia, but also consistently done. When responsibly used ad hominems are not logical fallacies(see ad hominem, because it's generally recognized that people have biases, and not presenting the relevant parts of a speakers background to the reader will mar their understanding of the topic. Should we start citing scientific evidence against Global Warming without mentioning the group producing it is a right-wing think-tank? You would be opposed then to removing political affiliation. You should have no problems then with the same principal being used here. --AerobicFox (talk) 07:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

And ad homs are only relevent in certain arguments. Either way, a wikipedia article isn't an argument, which is my point. You are confusing two issues here: ad homs in arguments, and whether ad homs belong in a wikipedia article. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 13:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC) By your logic aerobic fox we must now peg FOX as a conservative news station and MSNBC as a liberal news stations. We must also label every critic of every person by their political affiliation. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 14:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

We report ad hominen arguments when they have been made in sources. It is not our role to join in the debate and create our own arguement. We would certainly report scientific evidence (i.e., published in scientific peer-reviewed journals) for and against global warming without mentioning the political views of the writers. In fact academic writing does not use ad hominem attacks. TFD (talk) 15:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

For the billionth time please see the definition of ad hominem. Ad hominems are frequently used in encyclopedias and peer reviewed scientific journals, they are used whenever relevant. It's not just an exception to allow for them, it's an obligation to use ad hominems whenever relevant. The argument that ad hominems by default should be removed is ridiculous, please actually take the time to understand what an ad hominem is before making claims like "they don't appear in scientific journals". --AerobicFox (talk) 18:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Aerobic Fox: Encyclopedias and peer reviewed scientific journals do not make ad hom arguments. In a scientific journal, what matters is evidence, not the person presenting it. You may see objections raised in the letters section of a journal that go into ad hom territory,however. JUst because use of ad hom is not always fallacious, doesn't mean encyclopedias make a practice of engaging in ad hom arguments. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 23:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

It is not our role to insert our own arguments into articles, which is original research. If sources make these arguments, then we may mention them. If Wallis's comments should be discounted because he advises Obama, then we need a reliable source that says that. TFD (talk) 01:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Considering you have no part in academia I wouldn't be trying to speak on behalf of them. If the speakers background is important and relevant, then it is not a fallacy to present it. For instance a literary critic might mention the fact that "Because I could not stop for death" has been called one of the greatest poems in the English language by at least one preeminent critic, so at the very least it definitely has some merit. That is an obvious ad hominem, the merit of the preeminent critics' argument isn't even presented, just their status. Similarly deferring to another's argument in an academic field because of their expertise is often done. Many English professors cannot read or understand scansion, so they just wait for someone who's known for reading scansion to come along and refer to it as a certain type of meter, and then everybody just sort of uses what they said it is. It is kind of a joke among some of the lit majors, that nobody really understands it. Ad hominems like this are used with tremendous frequency all around us, in and outside the scholarly field. Besides, calling him a liberal isn't an ad hominem. Saying he's a liberal and therefore he's untrustworthy would be. It's up to the reader to make that call. Just saying he's liberal, isn't even close though to even being an ad hominem.
It would be OR calling him that if we said he's liberal, but according to Cptnono it says so in the source(which I cannot read due to lack of membership to the NY Times), and even if it didn't common sense tells us to put it in anyway because not including a activists political persuasion when making political attacks is omitting information which readers will likely want to read. --AerobicFox (talk) 07:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I don;t know if you need a subscription. Try [5]. It flat out says "liberal". "Progressive" was a problem for one editor and "left wing" was not sourced but "liberal" is not derogatory and is completely sourced. End of argument, right?Cptnono (talk) 09:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Aerobic: I am involved in academia, and what we are doing here is not literary criticism. Literary studies involves making subjective judgments about quality, but the hard sciences, and encyclopedias don't go there. You don't see encyclopedias making ad hom arguments. They can report them, but don't make them.

And finally, Cptnono is not the god of this site. He is just another editor among many. His judgment and his vote don't have more weight than anyone else's Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 13:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

You don't have consensus. It can't go in. Two editors are for, and two are against. So it can't be included. And if anyone does include it, I will delete it on grounds that consensus hasn't been reached.Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 13:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

And if you can't tell, I am being facetious, of course it can go in. It is totally relevant. But just to be clear aerobic fox, we don't make ad hom arguments here. We can present relevant details. Not the same thing. Blocking a relevant detail like this, is abuse and misuse of consensus. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 15:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

If academics use ad hominem arguments all the time and its use here is relevant then please find a source that uses this ad hominem about Wallis. It is not our role to conjure up arguments that no one else has made. TFD (talk) 16:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree it needs to be sourced. For an editor to identify someone as liberal or progressive, is putting their own judgement in there, unless there is some source where the subject self identifies, or he is characterized as such by an objective news source (not an op ed column or cable news channel). But I suspect the subject has self identified as liberal or progressive. Again, my only issue with the term progressive, is Beck's particular use of the term, which I think clouds the waters. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 17:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Again, it does not matter what someone's political viewpoint is, unless a reliable source says it does. We would write for example, that the Director of Homeland Security, who is a liberal, denies that there are FEMA concentration camps. TFD (talk) 19:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Again. RS does. So is it cool to put in?Cptnono (talk) 23:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

As has been explained to you over and over again, you do not have a reliable source for the argument you wish to insert. If you have trouble understanding Wikipedia policy on synthesis, then you might ask other editors there to explain it to you. TFD (talk) 23:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that.Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 22:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

To quote the source of the article:

"This week the remarks prompted outrage from several Christian bloggers. The Rev. Jim Wallis, who leads the liberal Christian antipoverty group Sojourners, in Washington, called on Christians to leave Glenn Beck."

To not address the speaker of an argument(ad hominem) when it is relevant is irresponsible. Academics do use ad hominems, if you think you don't then it is because you do not understand what an ad hominem is. An ad hominem isn't just "The speaker's argument is wrong because the speaker is XXX" it is also "The speaker is an expert on XXX and their insight or opinion into this matter should be valued because they're an expert". Both are ad hominems, you make an ad hominem every time you say to use a reliable source not because of the argument it makes, but because the source is reliable, no matter how ridiculous what they are saying is. A ban of describing a source because describing a source is an "ad hominem" is ridiculous. Why should the reader not be told whether one scientist is an expert on dermatology vs. one on geology, should we start just saying "This scientist believes sedimentary rocks are formed from lava" and neglect to mention that said scientist is a dermatologist? If that would be an ad hominem(and it would be) because being a dermatologist might discredit them then by all means let's make that ad hominem and move on to issues which don't have common sense solutions.--AerobicFox (talk) 02:26, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The original conversation was about calling Wallis an adviser to Obama and several other descriptions were recommended that were not in the source. Yes, the Sojourners is described in the article about this incident as a "liberal Christian antipoverty group" and unless there is some reason to believe that that description is inaccurate it is fine to use. Incidentally, although it is unlikely that a dermatologist would publish a paper in a peer-reviewed geology magazine, scholars would not write papers attacking the writer but the paper itself. You may disagree with Newton's and Einstein's beliefs but that does not discredit their theories. TFD (talk) 04:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

There was a little bit of a disconnect there. Changed with the line mentioned.[6] Good?Cptnono (talk) 04:30, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

No that's fine. TFD (talk) 06:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

"scholars would not write papers attacking the writer but the paper itself."

Ad hominems aren't a black and white, evil thing that is never used by "scholars", they're used responsibly all the time to give additional background and context to a work. A historian employed by a general to write a book on a battle he commanded would have his employment brought up by other scholars reviewing the work who would read said work through that lens expecting the book to be a bit more favorable to the general then it otherwise would be. Ad hominems like these are common and are accepted standard. As for the change I'm fine that. The current wording is the same from this edit by Glynth which was reverted.--AerobicFox (talk) 07:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Aerobic, you keeping arguing about what scholars do and don't do, and no one is really challenging that. In fact, I don't think anyone is terribly interested in discussing scholarship and ad homs, because that isn't what is being debated here. We are just pointing out that determining what details about a person are relevant isn't our job here. Our job is to report what other sources have said. If another source, says someone is liberal and that impacts his assessement of Glenn Beck, we can include that. But we don't draw that connection ourselves. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 13:30, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Well we can respectfully disagree, I believe there was a lot of arguing over whether ad hominems can be used in encyclopedias up above. Our job is to inform the reader, selectively choosing to leave out descriptors like liberal which are in the source doesn't inform anybody. --AerobicFox (talk) 23:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

This discussion comes up all the time at aspartame-related articles. Since most of the studies have been funded by the industry, various citizens groups allege that there is a conspiracy to hide the supposed ill-effects of aspartame. But there is nothing in the scientific literature making this criticism. On the other hand, if an aspartame manufacturer prepared a study that was published outside the academic press, scientists would ignore it. TFD (talk) 23:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes there appears to be great misunderstanding on this discussion page about what an ad hom is, and how academia conducts itself. Full discolure is not the same thing as an ad hom. And academia most certainly doesn't engage in ad hom (at least in the more rigorous disciplines like science and history (in critical studies you will see ad homs, but that is because these departments are little more than vehicles for opinion writing.)173.48.16.187 (talk) 16:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

So... we just decided to remove the entire section on Wallis, or something? In any case, it's gone at the moment. I suppose that's much easier than getting certain people to give up their attempts to hide basic, NPOV and 100% relevant one-word-descriptor facts about people that might undermine their "Christians hate Beck, too!!11" fantasies. -- Glynth (talk) 06:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Abuse of consensus

I added the Beck-Zakaria under notable controversies, because it is a notable controversy that has appeared in major news sources. No objections that were raised were valid. [redacted personal attack].Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 23:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

There is already a discussion so you do not need to start a new one (unless you are opening an RFC). I will not repeat my argument imply because you disagree. I have explained to you on your talk page the problem with your edit and options available to you. Do not edit war or add in an edit without consensus on a BLP.Cptnono (talk) 23:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Cptono, in your reversion and your threat to have me banned, you cited a policy which I did not violate. My contribution is absolutely in keeping with that policy guideline. If you insist on making an issue of it, then you should agree to enter mediation. And you cannot ban someone for an edit war. It isn't vandalism when it is a legimitate dispute. And for the last time, read the consensus guidelines. You are misusing them. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 23:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Not everything that has appeared in major news sources is notable. Where is the lasting significance of this, and will it ever be mentioned again in a newspaper?--AerobicFox (talk) 08:15, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

It will be mentioned, because he is the first major pundit to say he believes the number of muslims who are terrorist is close to 10%. You can bet that will come up again. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 13:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, no doubt, as the Beck-haters have added to their long list on why Beck is an evil SOB. And when it does, he'll be ready with the exact same study he cited before. Y'know, since he waved the study around a bit, the whole "controversy" more or less blew over. Maybe there's a reason for that. And that ties into why it's not notable. -- Glynth (talk) 06:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Beating the dead horse with new info

I was looking for info to add related to his business and finances, and on his bizshark profile he is called a "libertarian political commentator". His libertarian leanings are clearly significant, and should be mentioned. Any ideas? --AerobicFox (talk) 21:53, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The thing is, Beck has a history of being less "isolationist"/"counter foreign adventurisms" than was old school turn-of-the-20th century "paleo," limited-government conservativism or many current strands within US libertarianism, I think (that is, he tends to agree with the sort of "neo" Weekly Standard on some issue more than libertarian Reason magazine?)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 22:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Stupid horse! Labeling him a "libertarian" is probably no good since it has been disputed. Clearly explaining his libertarian ideals would be an easy way to handle it though.Cptnono (talk) 22:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem with his libertarian leanings being mentioned is they are a source of contention among libertarians. A lot of libertarians out there dispute him being labeled as such. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 22:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

A conservative with some libertarian ideals then? --AerobicFox (talk) 22:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

No. He isn't a libertarian. He employs the label. But I don't think he is a libertarian by any measure. He is a conservative, and some conservative principles intersect with libertarians. He is as much of a libertarian as Barrack Obama. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 22:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

He doesn't seem to care about gay marriage, and his reason being that people should be allowed to do what they want if it doesn't hurt others seems fairly libertarian. Considering how much he and his followers believe this it should be covered in some regard. --AerobicFox (talk) 23:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Lots of people don't care about gay marriage. That doesn't make them libertarians. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 23:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

It makes them apolitical. AerobicFox (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that his stance on gay marriage is significant, and should be included. But don't agree he can be labeled a proper libertarian. 173.48.16.187 (talk) 17:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Since he doesn't care about "gay marriage" why should it be included?[7] DocOfSoc (talk) 13:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Guys, I'm not up to date on the current discussion, but unless there's some context I'm missing, then this thread is being handled incorrectly. We should not ever be debating the "actual" meaning and applicability of a label like this. Either he is referred to as a libertarian, and the label is appropriate in the article, or he is not, and it is not. If it is disputed in reliable sources, then we should say that. Our opinions on the matter, and the actual definition of the term, are entirely irrelevant. What do reliable sources say? Also, if he claims to be a libertarian, that has to be included somewhere. Jess_talk|_edits 18:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Tend to agree with Mann-Jess. DocOfSoc (talk) 14

01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The RS should be in the archives. Let me know if you need me to track it down. Basically, Beck has referred to himself as a libertarian then said no he wasn't. Some libertarians have disputed it while others have linked him with it. So any label simply won;t work but explaining the above might be possible if necessary with the sources previously provided.Cptnono (talk) 03:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The source I provided though does call him a libertarian; although I'm completely unsure of who writes the profiles for Bizshark, so I'm unaware if that could be called reliable. --AerobicFox (talk) 06:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

But others do not and even dispute it so it would need to be handled differently then a label ("he is a libertarian"). "Some have said... because... yada yada" or something would be another way.Cptnono (talk) 06:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

How 'bout

"Glenn Beck, while generally viewed as a conservative, has at various times fluxated between considering himself a conservative libertarian to simply having libertarian leanings. The claim that he is a true libertarian though has been contested by some libertarians while others have maintained there are aspects of libertarian philosophy fundamentally present in his political outlook."

Or something along those lines. --AerobicFox (talk) 06:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind it. I would have gone a different way with it but after reading your I might have been way off. Probably too much for the lead but political views section could work. We would for sure need to redig up the sources to add to the line just to keep everything OK. Anyone else have any thoughts? This would actually clear up something that has come up several times on this talk page.Cptnono (talk) 06:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I've improved the wording, so I hope this new version should be good enough to enter somewhere in the political outlooks. More could be done to make this better, and sourcing would be needed, but I think this may now take away any future arguments concerning his libertarian-ness. -AerobicFox (talk) 06:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about Doc's objection in a below section. Although the whom template is a great tool when POV and ambiguity is in question, it is also a problem when trying to not give too much prominence to certain aspects that are so well reported that it would create a wall of attribution. Of course, we could make it a whole subsection with every single story attributed and rebuttals and rebuttals to those but that goes against the recent pruning, doesn't it?Cptnono (talk) 07:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it would. I wish I read your post before posting below. --AerobicFox (talk) 07:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The commenters above that say to just report what's in the sources are right. Political sub-categories are so complicated its often the case that its impossible to categorize some polico as being in one or another of em. Eg at the article Paleolibertarianism it says,

"Paleolibertarianism is a school of thought within American libertarianism formerly associated with Lew Rockwell, the late economist Murray Rothbard, and the Ludwig von Mises Institute. It is based on a combination of radical libertarianism in politics and cultural conservatism in social thought and opposes a libertarianism which advocates "freedom from cultural norms, religion, bourgeois morality, and social authority."

Austrian economics, anti-federalism, opposition to war, Misesian libertarianism, and anarcho-capitalism heavily influenced the movement's attitudes toward ideas on trade, commerce, immigration and the state.

...

Murray Rothbard declared in 1992 that "with Pat Buchanan as our leader, we shall break the clock of social democracy." Three years later, he said Buchanan developed too much faith in economic planning and centralized state power.

Pat Buchanan is, for example, more of an "isolationist" than Beck has ever been, so if even Buchanan isn't necessarily thought a completely bonefide "old school" conservative libertarian....... what chance does Beck have, then, huh?--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 15:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Hodg you are brill! DocOfSoc (talk) 15:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The end of the intro sentence reads funny: "who says "I could give a flying crap about the political process."" Doesn't seem like this sort of thing should be in the first section at all. Remove that part and it reads much better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.100.48.233 (talk) 22:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Source does not clarify what he calls himself, esp. since it starts with "I dunno" leaving that out is a form Of "synthesis." Also there has yet to be a consensus on his "label" mostly because he does not fit into any one category. DocOfSoc (talk) 14:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

It certainly states his own opinion of his own position -- the cavil that "dunno" somehow reduces the value of the statement is withot reasonable foundation. Collect (talk) 15:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)