Talk:Glenn Beck/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

I'd like to know why the "Obama is a racist" controversy was removed from the article

Review the top of this talk page, and the previous page. We reached consensus to include the comment and the ColorofChange boycott, but it has now been removed from the article without being discussed here. What happened? Novalord2 Novalord2 00:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I would like to know why the Acorn I MEANT VAN HJONES SORRY AND MOVE ON stuff wasn't permitted. If they are both out it hurts my feelings alot less.Cptnono (talk) 00:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Go discuss ACORN in the appropriate section of the talk page. Seriously. Novalord2

I was coming here to say something else, but I too find it odd that that section was removed. ACORN and Cptnono's "feelings" have nothing to do with it. I did not participate directly in the discussion, but there was a clear consensus to discuss the comment about Obama and the subsequent boycott. It is probably the single most covered event of Glenn Beck's career, and to not discuss it is quite frankly ludicrous. If no additional consensus developed to take it out (which I doubt) then it should be re-added. I have no idea what's been going on with this article but the editing has been so problematic here that many things have happened that should not have. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I apologize. I meant to say the Van Jones thing (do'h, I heard something about ACORN earlier so my mind was thinking that way)). And "hurt my feelings" is a phrase you, don't look to far into it unless you just wanted to make a snide comment for fun. So seriously, the VAN Jones thing was intertwined with the racist comment and some editors feel it is not worth including. Since that has received coverage (NY Times and Washington Post report them as a related event) then there is no reason not to have it in. I removed it previousley since it made sense to mention something but not another due to RECENTISM and UNDUE. If one is in the other should be. If they are both out it is meets the terms set by the editors arguing to not include Va Jones. Someone reverted but I am sure the edit history will tell you anything you need to know.Cptnono (talk) 01:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec, replying out of sequence) Sarcasm, you may note, does not come off too well in online writing. I had no idea what you were talking about, but when your only justification for removing something relates to your "feelings" there's not much else for me to respond to, is there? Someone asked a serious question and you replied with a sarcastic remark. That's why you were not understood.

So, can you point me to where there was a consensus (on the talk page) to remove the fact that Beck called the president a racist and his show was boycotted as a result? If there was a previous discussion I'd like to read it, and if not I'll just restore the material, because I know for a fact there was a previous consensus to include it. I don't even know what was said about Van Jones, but the "if one then the other, if not one then neither" logic is your view and I don't necessarily share it. If you have an independent case to make that the Obama/Beck/racist/boycott matter (as I said, undoubtedly the most covered aspect of Beck's entire career—do you disagree?) does not belong then make it now. I'm not interested in a justification for its removal relative to other content (Van Jones) since this is a Wikipedia article, not a swap meet. I'm going offline for awhile shortly but I'll check back on this later. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

How is asking if it was a snide comment sarcastic? There was not consensus. There was consensus to not allow inclusion of part of the story and the editors made some strong arguments. Those arguments also pointed to the racist paragraph needed to go. BLP concerns override consensus. I also half did it to rove a point. So I half followed the rules and half broke them. If editors would read the sources and stop only editingto make Beck look like a dick (I agree he is) then there wouldn't be a problem.Cptnono (talk) 01:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there was consensus when the material was added and when it stayed in for quite some time. You also pretty heavily undermine your case when you admit you "half did it to [p]rove a point" (see my comment below on that). The sarcastic comment I was referring to was your "it hurts my feelings alot less" comment. When someone asks a serious question give a serious answer or don't bother replying. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

this is the diff that removed it. I am replacing the removed section, per earlier consensus to include content on this topic in the article. — Mike :  tlk  01:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

How about you check the edit history more Mike. It was reverted within minutes. Also, it was only partially to make a point and partially to follow BLP guidelines.Cptnono (talk) 01:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

That's not something you should have admitted. We do not edit to make a point, and the next time you do so on this article you'll end up blocked. Consider that your one and only warning. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an idiot. Like I said half of the reason was to make a point the rest was because it was needed to comply with the other editor's argument and to make sure there was not a concern giving something weight with only half the story. Don't warn me when you can't even read a whole paragraph.Cptnono (talk) 01:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I've read everything you've written. You can say whatever you like, but I'm telling you if you obviously edit to make a point again you will end up blocked, and I will not hesitate to do it myself. Also telling other editors that they "can't even read a whole paragraph" is not a civil remark and is also therefore a no no and could also result in a block. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

You guys red talk pages like you read the sources.

Even if it was partly to make a point, you should know better. The part of BLP you're citing (please correct me if I misunderstand) is that giving weight to the "Obama is a racist" comment and not to Beck's investigation of ACORN. If this is true, whether or not it violates is completely subjective.

I'm not an idiot. Like I said half of the reason was to make a point the rest was because it was needed to comply with the other editor's argument and to make sure there was not a concern giving something weight with only half the story. Don't warn me when you can't even read a whole paragraph.Cptnono (talk) 01:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:RECENT is an essay, and it's completely subjective, which is why it might be a good idea to discuss a proposed removal of a contentious section instead of unilaterally acting. I know about WP:BOLD, but you had to have known some people would have been irritated if the ad boycott stuff was removed. WP:UNDUE is similarly subjective. For someone who is "tuned in" to the world of pundits (less than 1% of America judging by Beck's ratings) Beck might be notable for a variety of reasons, but the ad boycott made it into mainstream national news, and like it or not, true or not, Beck is notable for stirring up controversies -- the most notable of which (judging by WP:RS coverage) is calling our President a racist.

Regarding the ACORN thing -- I wasn't aware that there were reliable sources reporting on this topic, as it pertains to a biography of Glenn Beck. I would absolutely be behind you if you could demonstrate (within reason) that it belongs in this article, and it has been covered significantly by WP:RS. Surely you understand that adding this information to the article, without doing due diligence is tantamount to reinforcing what may be a political attack. It's important that we make sure this isn't just another "1.7 million people attending the march, according to university of I don't remember's study". — Mike :  tlk  01:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Read the whole discussion. I meant to type Van Joes but was reading about ACORN earlier. That can go in another section.Cptnono (talk) 01:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I seriously am asking anyone to go read the sources provided above from the New York Times and the Washington POst then t come back and say that sources do not relate Van Jones, Color of Change, and the racist thing. As I have said before, two paragraphs will work but I was trying to reduce it to one. And don't quote guidelines and essays against Van Jones inclusion when those apply to the addion of the racist comments. If you don't want to see it you won't but if you attempt to be objective it is pretty clear that RS lump them together.Cptnono (talk) 01:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Cpt, you know my position on Van Jones. I believe that there is notable information in there, but there are a million wrong ways to write it. A lot of WP:RS's are using a logical fallacy to imply cause ("Van Jones resigned BECAUSE of Beck") when there isn't necessarily that link. In the interest of making sure that no POV is under-represented in the article, I'll go up and write a version that addresses my concerns and we can get to work refining it. — Mike :  tlk  01:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

At this point I have no dog in the fight as to whether something about Van Jones ought to be included or not, and have not even looked at what the content is/was (I assume something negative about him). Before the Van Jones situation blew up there was material in the article about the Obama racist comment and the boycott, which was my point. There was consensus for it and that material should stay, whether or not something more specific about Van Jones is discussed. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• It doesn't need to say because. It should say that sources say that Beck was one if the most vocal during it. I honestly don't see the problem.
• Also, editors claim to not have a dog in the fight but don't edit that way (not you particularly, Bigtimepeace. Haven't read your edits) For example, I think Beck is an idiot but I don't exactly hate him. This will come through in my editing and that is OK as long as it is addressed. Other editors intentionally or not have skewed the article.
• Consensus says it should stay and I see BLP violations with it for numerous reasons. I argued against it and it was reverted (and then someone reverted that and then someone reverted that). Fine. So lets fix it. I think the proposal I made several sections above hit all of the topics. Mike mentioned concerns which I understand since squeezing it into 1 paragraph could lead a reader to a conclusion if they refused to read it all or check the sources. I think said reader would more than likely wold have already drawn a conclusion and needs to stop reading Wikipeida articles but that isn't the fault of any editors here.Cptnono (talk) 01:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to ask the moderators here to consider banning Cptnono from this page. It took over a dozen Wikipedia editors, including me, a week of heated discussion and hard work to reach consensus about the inclusion of the "racist" comment. The fact that this drive-by asshole deleted content from this article (for a self serving purpose, too!) is absolutely infuriating. What if nobody noticed that the content had been deleted? He has already been warned several times for being disruptive, and I think it is time for this guy to leave. Novalord2

I wasn't the ony one to delete it.Cptnono (talk) 02:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

No way. He has made (and continues to make) many constructive contributions to this article, and he has a valid point (even if he went about it the wrong way). — Mike :  tlk  02:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Holy shit, I totally thought Bachell and Cptnono were the same person, which is why I posted that. Novalord2

Makes sense with so many comments going on. I still screwed up a little so no worries in letting that be known.Cptnono (talk) 02:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Bachell, I would be behind you on quite a bit more. Also, Cpt's removal of the section was reverted and Soxwon removed it again, implying that there was some sort of consensus to "cut it back and reword". Neither is right, but neither is a big deal either. Everything's fixed now, so let's just move on.— Mike :  tlk  02:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of entire paragraphs with footnotes on Van Jones and ACORN

Can somebody just say the section is incoherent and delete it with footnotes like that? It's made up of section that are already on Van Jones and Hannah Giles that are just fine there. Could it possibly be POV pushing to leave out mention of these certainly notable happenings that even liberal bloggers and mainstream media is attributing largely to the efforts of Glenn Beck? How can you be NPOV if you leave out significant controversies like Van Jones and ACORN? How can you explain there was no mention of either incident yesterday in this article? There seems to be a concerted effort across the WP space to scrub any information or controversy connected to Glenn Beck, or sourced to any other non-mainstream media source. Bachcell (talk) 18:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

See the discussion above on Van Jones. Consensus is that Van Jones does not belong in this article. Please discuss before putting in information which has already been agreed upon through consensus. Bytebear (talk) 18:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

If Beck continues at this rate and gets every Czar and president Obama to resign and shuts down SEIU, can it be included in this article??? Bachcell (talk) 18:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

cur) (prev) 18:33, 16 September 2009 Bytebear (talk | contribs) (27,843 bytes) (Removing the incoherent info as well as the partisan opinion of Media Matters. Both are irrelivant.) (undo)

This is ridiculous. The left is howling over Beck's taking out Van Jones and nearly sinking ACORN, and it's not relevant? Anybody else with me that Bytebear is in the wrong here? This is simple censorship, nothing wrong with these passages, certainly no consensus on censoring any mention of ACORN either. Mark Lloyd has already been censored with a complete block on editing. Bachcell (talk) 18:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

What consensus? Glenn Beck singlehandedly takes down Van Jones, and gets ACORN fired by the Census and HUD, and that's irrelevant?? NPOV says that major controveries by notable sources should be included. Bachcell (talk) 18:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

OK< here's a vote on including or delete Van Jones and ACORN

• INCLUDE Bachcell (talk) 18:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

These things are decided by consensus, not by a vote. Bachcell, you are trying to add this exact same text on two different articles. That in its self is inappropriate, regardless of the content. I have described specific problems with what you're proposing to include here, and instead of addressing these concerns, you went to insert the same objectionable material elsewhere. Please stop your attempts to bypass the editorial process. — Mike :  tlk  18:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Why no inclusion of Van Jones or ACORN??

What are you going to do to me if I just put the ACORN section back in?? Is there ANY way to mention that many, many sources believe that Beck had a lot to with the resignation of Van Jones (as is already mentioned on the Van Jones page?) Why is it not allowed here? Almost none of the substantive content of ANY of Beck's attacks on people or organizations (other czars, corruption, SEIU, the Rathke brothers, etc) is here. Is that becuase those are also being scrubbed as well? Is this "consensus" some kind of wiki-conspiracy or something? When you google Beck and ACORN you'll get a million hits from every liberal and conservative site, but not on the Glenn Beck WP page??? Wow. Hugo Chavez would be proud. Bachcell (talk) 19:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

You will probably be warned or eventually banned for a time for violating the wp:3rr rule. Read wp:blp and wp:notability. Beck may have commented on the issues, but he was hardly single handedly responsible for the events. Bytebear (talk) 19:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Beck is certainly notable, as well as are his enemies at the Huffington Post and ACORN. All this BLP stuff is just a tool of censorship when any politically based media source can be dismissed as unreliable, even for direct, verifiable quotes. Bachcell (talk) 19:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Nice, friendly response. Bachcell (talk) 19:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Let me first say that from the get-go, you have assumed bad faith, complete with terms like "naked censorship" and "Liberals are howling" in your edit summaries. Second, we have already discussed at great length the inclusion of more details about Beck's role in Van Jones' resignation. We decided that it had much more to do with Jones than it did with Beck, and that it wasn't clear that Beck was "responsible" for the resignation. World Net Daily takes credit as well, and many reliable sources indicate that Jones' name on the "9/11 truth" petition was a key reason as well. Finally, you still have yet to address the numerous specific objections I have with your proposed addition (see: Talk:Glenn Beck (TV program), the article you originally attempted to insert this material onto). I suggest you stop being so aggressive with your editing, as you are likely to have people looking for an excuse to report you for WP:3RR or just disruptive editing in general.— Mike :  tlk  19:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Van Jones proposal

Orignal In July 2009, Beck began criticizing Van Jones on his radio and television shows for being a membership of a socialist group and support for a death row prisoner convicted of killing a police officer.[3] Beck called Jones a “communist-anarchist radical”[4] and later made comments that "called President Obama a racist who has a 'deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture.'"[5] This lead Color of Change,[6] an organization Van Jones founded in 2005 and left in 2007, to launch campaign urging advertisers on Beck's Fox News show to pull their ads.[7] Dozens of advertisers issued statements to distance themselves from Beck’s show[8] after about about 145,000 members signed a petition asking Beck's advertisers to stop supporting him.[9] Amid increasing calls from Republicans and other conservative talk show hosts, Jones resigned in September.[10] [11] Duplicated several sources but did not want to have any confusion. Used the Van Jones Wikipeida page as a base. Sources state that Beck was first so I don't mind it getting a little weight that he started it. This also gives us the opportunity to touch on the Obama comments and boycott. Any thoughts on tightening, expanding, editing, or whatever else are appreciated but we should have something on this one way or the other. Since so many days were devoted to this on TV and the boycott was TV I think this would be good in that section instead of independently or in the radio section. oops merge it with the controversy already mentioned. Also, there have been reports that those initial numbers boycotting were inflated so a broad term like "dozens" might be better. Cptnono (talk) 00:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Ammended

In July 2009, Beck began criticizing Van Jones on his radio and television shows for being a member of a socialist group and for showing support for a death row prisoner convicted of killing a police officer.[12] Beck called Jones a “communist-anarchist radical”[13] and later called President Obama "a racist who has a 'deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture.'"[14] This lead Color of Change,[15] to launch a campaign asking companies who advertised on Beck's Fox News show to pull their ads.[16] After over 60 companies issued statements distancing themselves from the commentator[17], at which point about 145,000 people had signed Color of Change's petition.[18] Amid increasing accusation and controversy, originating from Republicans and other conservative talk show hosts, Jones resigned in September.[19] [20]

Do you mind if I edit your proposed addition?— Mike :  tlk  02:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Go for it.Cptnono (talk) 02:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem I have with this kind of information, and detail is that it is not noteworthy, and it is only timely now. In a year it will be some other controversy and last year it was some other controversy. I understand it's hitting the headlines as of late, but so was whatever people didn't like about Beck last year. Does anyone even remember what that was? Bytebear (talk) 02:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference between WP:RECENTISM and unnecessarily limiting content. Enough sources have discussed this so it deserves some mention. I'm not saying it needs a complete article or even a subsection but the lack of any information is a problem.Cptnono (talk) 03:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Bytebear on this, although this is a huge improvement over the previously proposed addition, which likened Jones' resignation to taking a scalp. I have improved (my opinion) the language a bit. One non-copyedit change I made was to remove mention that Jones was involved with Color of Change from 2005-2007. It is misleading to only mention that, because it implies that Beck retaliated against the ad boycott by attacking Jones. I don't care if this is the truth, but we should decide if this is what we want to say or not, and either come out and say it directly or leave no mention or implication. It sounds as if the Jones resignation and the ad boycott are intertwined, meaning it's one long sequence of inter-related events. Is this accurate or not? Once someone helps me by answering that question, I can offer some more useful feedback. — Mike :  tlk  03:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• I hear ya. Unfortunately, this is how the source worded it. On top of that, other sources correlated them. We can say "Newspapers x,y, and z pointed out that..." but that sounds ridiculous.
• Also, I do not like saying 60 said because it has since been reported that Color of Change was releasing false numbers to AP and Reuters. Many advertisers pulled off of Beck but stayed with FOX while others just released statements saying it was bad. I guess we can add that as well but I was trying to minimize the footprint of this paragraph. I can't justify not telling the whole story to do so though.
• Besides that I don't mind the other changes.Cptnono (talk) 04:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Clearly Beck isn't the catalyst for the Jones bruhaha. The copy implies he is, but I think it is more appropriate to say that Beck made noise about the same time everyone else made noise that eventually caused Jones to resign. So, Beck was a voice in a chorus of criticism. He may have been vocal, and certainly the left has been targeting him since his move to FOX, but really, I just find it inappropriate to add so much information on the soup dejour. Next month, Beck will be complaining about some other left wing nutter, and that nutter may very well resign over the allegations, but really, do we need to update this article every time Beck speaks out against a left wing nutter? Bytebear (talk) 04:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The sources credit him as being the first and make special mention of him. Catalyst or not the sources speak of him in that manner. This is definitely noteworthy. If you want to dumb it down slightly that is fine but keep in mind that most of the wording are straight copy pastes from various sources. As I mentioned, I am watching out for WP:RECENTISM and this proposal is broken down from 4 paragraphs it was given in the New York Times and a relativity high amount of google news hits. If he does something in the future of this magnitude I certainly expect it to be included. Giving it a complete subsection with several paragraphs would be inappropriate but taking two controversies (one of which is included already)and merging them into 1 or 2 paragraphs is completely acceptable. Remember that notability does not limit content (wikilinked it for you below). Cptnono (talk) 04:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Other sources [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=109041] say that WND is the first to break the story. So, you have a conundrum. You claim it is noteworthy, but consensus was different just a few days ago. Google hits is not a reliable gauge for notability by the way. I would read through past arguments and see why and how it was agreed that this information is not important to Beck. Bytebear (talk) 04:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

"Beck intensified his assault after a group co-founded by Jones, Color of Change, launched a boycott campaign that has led dozens of advertisers to withdraw from his television show"[21] sums it up perfectly. We can use that line as the transition into the boycott. "[line]. The boycott was due to comment he made yada yada. It was reported that 60+ advertisers were no longer advertising during his show. As blah blah pressure increased Jones resigned. Any thoughts? We could also go for a two paragraph solution where both are separate but the connection in all of the sources should be mentioned. Cptnono (talk) 04:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

You don't see the text "intensified his assault" even a little bit POV? I am not comfortable with an OP-ED piece used as a source for this. You (and the author) are also engaging in WP:SYNTH by concluding that Beck's actions were connected to boycotts. Again, this has been covered in past discussions. Please review them.Bytebear (talk) 04:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Then dumb down the wording. The sources (click on a the NY Times and the NY Daily for a few more) engage in synth. I don't care how it is done but this needs to be shown. Also, consensus (especially when it is falsified by POV pushing) can change. If other sources say Beck didn't start it then you have to gauge which sources are more reliable or simply state that it is reported. My original proposal also does not say he was the first. Also, you again need to go read the guideline regarding notability and content. And although google hits do not determine notability, the amount of google NEWS hits shows that there is significant coverage. Cptnono (talk) 04:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Just food for thought, World Net Daily was "investigating" Jones five months before the first mention on Beck's show. Beck actually picked up on it pretty late in the game — Mike :  tlk  04:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Cpt, bear with me and follow this train of logic. My goal is to establish what is relevant about this event, in the context of a Glenn Beck biography.

• What is important about this must be that Jones resigned. Beck criticizes plenty of people, some on a regular basis, and some much more severely than Jones (i.e., Nancy Pelosi). The fact that this is reported on and those other occurrences aren't means that it's 100% the resignation that has brought this onto our radar.
• Because the resignation is the important thing, and criticism of a liberal, an Obama administration official, an environmentalist, etc... is so commonplace on his show that it is almost trivial (in my opinion) we should drop Beck's specific "name calling", and focus entirely on the fact that Beck, among others, applied political pressure in general to Jones.
• Here's where we have to come to a full stop. We cannot (in my opinion) say that Beck "caused" the resignation, or that he "contributed" to it without directly attributing speculation to its owner. here is the raw text of Jones' resignation letter, which simply mentions a "a vicious smear campaign" and "using lies and distortions to distract and divide". No mention of Beck or any other source, so connecting the preverbal dots is (in my opinion) WP:SYNTH.

So now, we have Beck applying pressure to Jones, and then Jones resigns, not necessarily because of Beck's pressure. We run into the problem of implying cause if we're not careful, which could be seen as WP:NPOV. It could be argued that even giving weight to the event in this article is implying cause. What are your guys' thoughts? — Mike :  tlk  04:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• My proposal does not say that he was the reason. Make it clearer if possible. We also aren't implying anything. We are saying what the sources said. I don't care how it gets fixed but it needs to be in.
• Go ahead and drop the name calling. That to me comes across as trying to save face for Jones but it really isn't necessary to have so go for it. This will also give more pop to the other lines asying it wasn't just him.

Cptnono (talk) 05:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you think that per WP:BLP, we need to include Jones' comments about the "smear campaign"? Just mentioning the resignation in this article means that this comment was directed at Beck, among others. Even changing wording, nothing about this section acknowledges the possibility that Beck's criticisms were in fact a smear campaign, which I believe is a major POV that needs documented.. — Mike :  tlk  05:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

my proposal is to remove it altogether. If we have to whittle it down, or twist it to remove implications, then it loses the notoriety that you are claiming is there. Remove the connections which we cannot justify, then the criticism is just one among many that Beck makes every day. Bytebear (talk) 05:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

This is my preference as well, but I'm going to continue working on the proposed addition in case the consensus goes the other way. — Mike :  tlk  05:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Third

In July 2009, Beck began criticizing Van Jones on his radio and television shows for being a membership of a socialist group and support for a death row prisoner convicted of killing a police officer.[22] [23] Shortly after in response to the Henry Louis Gates controversy, he comments that "called President Obama a racist who has a 'deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture.'"[24] This lead Color of Change, [25] to launch a campaign asking companies who advertised on Beck's Fox News show to pull their ads.[26] After about 145,000 members signed a petition asking Beck's advertisers to stop supporting him,[27]dozens of advertisers issued statements to distance themselves from Beck’s show while some pulled commercials from his time slot all together.[28]. After the call for this boycott, Beck increased his attacks on Jones who had co-founded the group in 2005 and left in 2007. Republicans and other conservative talk show hosts also made accusations of Jones and called for his resignation. Jones resigned in September.[29] [30]

The above goes per the sources but the sentence order implies less. Also, per your arguments, the current paragraph needs to be removed. I will not do so becuase that would be me being trying to prove a point but I believe if oyu look at the above objectively it will meet your criteria. If it does not, I am fairly confident that it will only be you two who disagree with 0 inclusion but we can wait and see if you want.Cptnono (talk) 05:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Way too much WP:SYNTH going on there. You are saying A leads to B leads to C which is not necessarily true. A may have no relation at all to B. Bytebear (talk) 05:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Others did it too addedCptnono (talk)

This might be a step backwards. This is being written as one sequence of events, as if Van Jones had anything to do with the Henry Louis Gates controversy, or a petition from an organization he had not been active in for years. There are two separate topics here, and it should be written as such. Also, you say "Because of [the boycott], Beck increased his attacks on Jones...", which is explicitly saying that the events are related. Also, the major POV that is undocumented and needs to be, is that this was a smear campaign on Beck's part. Simply quoting from Jones' resignation letter will fix WP:BLP as it pertains to Jones because the criticism (being a "communist radical") will be balanced with his response, it will not violate WP:BLP as it pertains to Beck, since the criticism of him will be directly attributed to Jones, and it will represent the missing POV. What do you think? — Mike :  tlk  05:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying it. The source did. Read the source. "Because of [the boycott], Beck increased his attacks on Jones...", is per the source not me. Also, I would be happy to see a two paragraph solution but these are linked in the sources so they should be here. Cptnono (talk) 05:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

But, the source is presenting an opionion, so we would have to present it as such. "So and so believes that Beck increased his attacks on Jones ..." We have no real facts on the matter, and other sources say they are unrelated. Bytebear (talk) 05:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The Washington Post says

Fox News Channel host Glenn Beck began the drive against Jones. Beck's campaign grew more vitriolic after a group Jones founded in 2005, ColorofChange.org, led an advertising boycott against his show to protest Beck's assertion that Obama is a racist.

. "After" not "Because". I don't think it's a good idea to cite HuffPo, since we frequently reject them as not a WP:RS when it comes to criticism of Beck. — Mike :  tlk  05:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Reads: Washington not Huffington. We do not need the Huffington though if you object in this case. Also, AFTER would not hurt my feelings. By using AFTER instead of BECAUSE we put these together in the same way the coverage does but we do not assert or imply that Beck caused the resignation. We do state a fact: Attacks increased after the boycott request. These two instances are completely intertwined. We can pull them apart as long as we mention some sources have tied them together. Using AFTER might be the solution instead.Cptnono (talk) 05:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. I can't believe I put in because when the source clearly said after. Getting it inline with the facts now. Any additional objections.Cptnono (talk) 05:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe Beck and FOX both deny any correlation to any escalation of coverage. And what about the implication that the boycotts occured because of the Van Jones criticisms? Again, way too much speculation for my taste, especially in a BLP article. Bytebear (talk) 05:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

What? The line doesn't say the boycott was due to Jones. If Beck denies it was increased then find a source and we will figure that out. I also care alot moore about third party independent coverage than what FOX says about Beck. Not saying FOX are liars but other sources contradicting what they say probably means something. I have played ball and made the adjustments requested for the most part so go ahead.Cptnono (talk) 06:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Fourthinsh version to keep it close when other editors get on (I hate to be presumptuous but am pretty sure this meets requirements now or can be easily be amended). I wouldn't be against adding "smear campaign" response but I would like to readd the name calling if that were to happen.

In July 2009, Beck began criticizing Van Jones on his radio and television shows for his past membership in a socialist group and support for a death row prisoner convicted of killing a police officer.[31] [32] Shortly after in response to the Henry Louis Gates arrest controversy, Beck made comments that "called President Obama a racist who has a 'deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture.'"[33] This lead Color of Change, [34] to launch a campaign asking companies who advertised on Beck's Fox News show to pull their ads.[35] After about 145,000 members signed a petition asking Beck's advertisers to stop supporting him,[36]dozens of advertisers issued statements to distance themselves from Beck’s show while some pulled commercials from his time slot all together.[37]. After the call for this boycott, Beck increased his attacks on Jones who had co-founded the group in 2005 and left in 2007. Republicans and other conservative talk show hosts also put pressure on Jones to resign and made additional accusations. Jones resigned in September.[38] Cptnono (talk) 06:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I haven't had time to read the discussion above so I'm speaking somewhat ignorant of the debate, but just reading this suggested inclusion - it appears to boarder on WP:SYN. I don't think we should so closely tie the Van Jones material to the Racist comment and imply this causality relationship between Van Jones, CoC, Racist comment, Boycott to Resignation. It tries to tie to many things together. Morphh ^(talk) 17:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, there is no connection other than an implied one as far as can be made. Soxwon (talk) 17:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Read the sources before commenting please.Cptnono (talk) 17:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Go on and read them, do reputable sources tie them together or not?Cptnono (talk) 17:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Mike's Van Jones Proposal

To be placed after the ad boycott section

In July of 2009, Glenn Beck began to devote what would become many episodes on his TV and radio shows, focusing on Obama's Director of White House Council on Environmental Quality, Van Jones. Beck was critical of Jones' involvement in a communist non-governmental group, and his support of a death row inmate who had been convicted of killing a police officer [39](NOTE: we need to say why jones supported the prisoner. It was not because he killed a cop). Among other things, Beck referred to Jones as a "communist-anarchist radical"[40], which Jones later characterized as part of a "vicious smear campaign" and an effort to use "lies and distortions to distract and divide"[41] (NOTE: primary source. Needs to be replaced with a good WP:RS. I will find one). The Washington Post has speculated that Beck's criticisms may in part have been motivated in part by Jones' prior involvement in Color of Change, the organization that had previously convinced advertisers to pull their support from Beck's TV show[42]. In September of 2009, Jones resigned his position in the Obama administration, after a number of his past statements became fodder for conservative critics and Republican officials[43]. Although he stated that he "had been inundated with calls from across the political spectrum, urging him to stay and fight"[44]", President Obama quickly accepted his resignation to avoid the possibility of the controversy derailing the administration's larger mission[45].

Feel free to directly edit, providing rationale below. — Mike :  tlk  02:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• Several episodes could be amended to many. Hate to use either term but the last source I saw was 14 days in a row and I don't know if that is up to date.
• Agreed on why he supported him is important (I assume it wasn't because he thinks killing cops is OK). I don't know why yet from the sources I have read.
• Wasn't "vicious smear campaign" what he said upon resigning about all of the smears (not just Beck's)? Don't mind inclusion but chronologically it might need to go later in the paragraph. There is already a secondary source available in (I'll need to find which one)

Who: that will take a source to be very specific. Cptnono (talk) 02:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Edits

• Several --> Many
• Some --> The Washington Post

• Jones characterized as "smears" --> Jones later characterized as "smears". I would also be fine with "would later characterize as".

I will do some research on why he supported the cop-killer. — Mike :  tlk  02:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• Smear - Washington Post peice states "... mounted a vicious smear campaign against me. They are using lies and distortions to distract and divide." So that is fixed.Cptnono (talk) 02:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

As promised, here is info on the death row inmate Jones showed support for. His name is Mumia Abu-Jamal,

and his other supporters include the NAACP, Rage Against the Machine, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. This is a complicated case, involving the possibility of false testimony, a confession from a mob hit man (saying that it was he, not Abu-Jamal, who killed the officer), a jury receiving improper instructions, a possible breach of the US Constitution and possibly inappropriateness of the death penalty being set as a sentence for this crime. The bottom line is, it is possible for a completely reasonable person to support Abu-Jamal (and by support, I mean commuting his death sentence into a life sentence). Perhaps replacing "death row inmate who killed a cop" with "hotly debated death row inmate, Mumia Abu-Jamal" would be appropriate. Your thoughts?— Mike :  tlk  00:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Hotly debated (or a varience) + wikilink should be fine.Cptnono (talk) 22:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive??

Is trying to add evidence that the US public largely backs Beck, and the Beck had a direct role in thwarting Van Jones and ACORN disruptive? Or is the real disruption that detracts from the useful/uselessness of this article are all the people who have so far still succeeded in scrubbing this information from the article with threats of "you will be blocked if you continue to edit without consensus" or warning that merely posting polls as a suggestion is "disruptive". Why am I being threatened with uncivility just for posting information which now has been proven to be verifiable by both New York Times and Time magazine and freely available and both praised and condemned loudly across mainstream, liberal and conservatibe media? Isn't AOL owned by Time-Warner? Isn't a poll run by an AOL web site, or a Huffington Post editor notable? Isn't a poll a RS for the results of the poll, subject to the fine print, just as a quote from Arianna Huffingtion is an RS for her own opinion that Glenn Beck is vile? Could somebody please explain how deletion of Van Jones and ACORN serves NPOV when NO viewpoints are presented? Bachcell (talk) 15:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

To answer your first question, yes you are being disruptive by adding information from unreliable web polls. And you need to read WP:NPOV and WP:RS. The section above already explains why those sources are not reliable. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The concepts of "backing Beck" and "thwarting Van Jones" are indicative motive to flagrantly push a POV. You come here accusing everyone who disagrees with you of "scrubbing" and then complain when you are accused of being disruptive. Web polls aren't WP:RS, because many of them are worded to encourage an answer one way or another, and unlike a polling organization, there's no guarantee of getting anywhere close to a random sample. We deleted your proposed Van Jones section because it was inappropriately worded, and like your comment, paints Jones' resignation as an accomplishment or something to celebrate. We are actively writing a section based on the same sources, which is properly WP:NPOV, and doesn't violate WP:BLP for any party involved by using language like "thwarting" or "first scalp".

Part of me thinks you're trying to get banned like your friend who previously brought the same ACORN-smearing agenda here, User:ObserverNY. — Mike :  tlk  06:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Time Magazine

OK, can I put this at the end of the lead?

Glenn Beck was featured on the cover of the the Sept 17, 2009 Time magazine where he was noted for his influence on the Van Jones and ACORN controversies.

That will be a start.Bachcell (talk) 15:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The first half, yes. The second half, no. The first half is fact, the second half is assertion. And Stop starting new topics which are still the same as the two previous topics. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Is this any better?

Glenn Beck was featured on the cover of the the Sept 17, 2009 Time magazine where he was noted for his leading criticism of Van Jones and ACORN scandals.

Isn't the second half verified by this? You're telling me that you have absolutely no problem with mentioning Becks's involvement in VJ and ACORN as long it's "properly" done? If that's the case, why hasn't it been done by somebody who does know the WP:CORRECT way to present the information. An impartial observer might think that people are just trying to leave the information out for the same reason it's been kept out of the network evening news. "The ACORN flap came a week after the resignation of Van Jones, a White House environmental official attacked by conservatives, led by Glenn Beck of Fox News Channel...Even before Jones stepped down, Beck had urged supporters on Twitter to "find everything you can" on three other Obama appointees... the Census Bureau dropped ACORN as one of 80,000 national unpaid "partners" helping promote the 2010 census, saying the scandals involving ACORN affiliates meant the group's involvement might "create a negative connotation" and discourage participation in the population count.On Tuesday, House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio wrote to Obama asking him to cut off all federal financing to ACORN and its affiliates. Another Republican, Nebraska Sen. Mike Johanns, wrote Attorney General Eric Holder, requesting a Justice Department investigation of the group." OK, I'd appreciate anybody else editing that line to correct for tone. In the mean time, I'm putting up the undisputed part.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bachcell (talk • contribs)

This is the fifth(!) section that you have started about Van Jones in the last 24hrs, I personally have no problem with correct sourced neutral statements in biographies, but ACORN and Van Jones are not Glenn Beck, and all the statements so far proposed stray from the facts and into POV. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

ACORN and Van Jones are not Glenn Beck, and all the statements so far proposed stray from the facts and into POV.

the resignation of Van Jones, a White House environmental official attacked by conservatives, led by Glenn Beck of Fox News Channel Time Magazine

I read NPOV and it says presenting all sides of a view. Glenn Beck himself is a matter of controversy, especially when he has been officially, verifiably credited (you did read the passage from Time, right?) with having at least a major influence on VJ and AC. My entire point is that it is the exclusion of Becks contribution is pushing a POV, not supported by Time magazine, that there is no notable connection between GB and these events. To be NPOV, you need to a) mention the incident and b) optionally record one or more sides of reaction to the incident. Or maybe I just read the rules wrong, please forgive me if I am just in error. It's entirely unclear from the Talk page whether the consensus is whether there are problems with VJ and AC that can be fixed with editing and appropriate citing, or whether as you, and other editors seem to be asserting, that any mention of the actual personell or policy changes attributed to Beck's influence is itself not allowable. If that is so, please make it clear, since Mike appeared to say he was OK with VJ and AC since Time and NYT acknowledged the connection. If anyone else agrees that AC and VJ cannot be added into the article until a consensus is reached, I'd like to hear about it. In the meantime, it's all over the left, mainstream, and right media, but not here until there is a consensus to move forward. Bachcell (talk) 16:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The Van Jones thing is under contruction. Time asserted the relation and then it got picked up more ([46]) was on yahoo's opening page. This + the other reputable sources that came out before assert the connection. Mentioning those particular subjects in the lead might come across as a big no no to some due to the potential weight issue. I would prefer to get all this stuff in the prose before crossing that bridge. Van jones proposal is in a separate subsection so go check it out.

Getting on the cover of Time is a big deal. Anything in the lead needs to be in the prose if this article is ever going to get to GA so figuring out a way to explain why it is noteworthy is important. Maybe the proposed line after the Van Jones stuff would work instead of it being in the lead.Cptnono (talk) 07:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

"I read NPOV and it says presenting all sides of a view". You are in error. From WP:NPOV

All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.

Glenn Beck does not, in and of himself, represent a significant point of view, and he is certainly not a WP:RS when it comes to information about Van Jones and ACORN. Especially when it comes to the ACORN stuff, the part of WP:NPOV you're neglecting is that the POV needs to be properly published by reliable sources. Furthermore, WP:WEIGHT instructs us to give weight to these points of view according to their prominence in reliable sources. Thus, when you post blogs, links to Beck's own website, web polls, etc... You are still not providing reliable sources. Cptnono presented us with sources like the NY times and The Washington Post, and I was immediately willing to work on the section with him. We are in no way ignoring Beck's POV here, but the idea of him "leading" the criticism of Jones is an opinion, and per WP:RS must be directly attributed to its owner. — Mike :  tlk  14:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

You were immediately ready to work while I was whining like a little girl (no offence if there are young ladies editing here) :) . So back on topic. Cover of Time is a big deal. What is the best way to work it in? We almost need a Summer of controversy subsection with all the stuff going on but since that is overkill a quick mention in reception with why he was on the cover could work.Cptnono (talk) 16:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I would say, to avoid stupid wording and opening up a summer of controversy section, say in one sentence that Time decided to put him on the cover of a September issue. For the Time story its self to be worth reporting on, we need WP:RS's reporting on the story. From what I have seen (read: feel free to link sources to prove me wrong), the cover its self is the notable thing here, so we full stop after one sentence. — Mike :  tlk  00:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

From pg. 3 of the TIME article:[47] "He is having an impact. Along with St. Louis, Mo., blogger Jim Hoft, whose site is called Gateway Pundit, Beck pushed one of Obama's so-called czars, Van Jones, to resign during Labor Day weekend. Jones, whose task was to oversee a green-jobs initiative, turned out to be as enchanted by conspiracies as Beck — he once theorized that "white polluters and the white environmentalists" are "steering poison into the people-of-color's communities" and signed a petition demanding an investigation into whether the Bush Administration had a hand in the 9/11 attacks. On Sept. 14 the Senate overwhelmingly voted to cut off all federal funds to ACORN, and the U.S. Census Bureau severed its ties to the organization. This followed Beck's masterly promotion of a series of videos made by two guerrilla filmmakers who posed as a pimp and prostitute while visiting ACORN offices around the country. The helpful community organizers were taped offering advice on tax evasion and setting up brothels for underage girls."

I propose that we include a sentence which reads as follow supported by the above cite: According to TIME magazine, Beck is "having an impact". His numerous feature segments on Van Jones and ACORN resulted in Jones' resignation from his White House position, the Senate cutting off all federal funds to ACORN and the U.S. Census Bureau severing ties with ACORN. ObserverNY (talk) 20:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Article structure

I don't like that we've created a Controversy section. The reason we created the Reception heading was to avoid these issues with NPOV Article Structure. Fold it in... Move the finance part somewhere else.. get rid of this heading. Morphh ^(talk) 1:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I imagine it will be difficult to keep a Controversy section out of an article dedicated to a man whose primary business is Controversy. 98.212.148.14 (talk) 03:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree, controversy sections are bad form, and that particular change does not seem to have been discussed. I've changed back to the earlier version which retains all of the "controversial" material but without a "controversy" heading. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I made a couple other minor changes - moved the financial success section under Career, and moved the 9/12 Project under political views. The other structure was fine, but this organization seemed to make the most sense to me for the moment. Looking at the financial success section though, I'm not sure it should be it's own section. I would suggest that this be placed directly under the Career heading tied into a summary of the sub-sections. Morphh ^(talk) 13:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

That seems fine—the 912 stuff could probably go either under politics or career and I think it's fine either way. And as you say the career section should have a summary of the sub-sections that follow—again personally I think it's fine for the financial success stuff to go there or have its own section. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Edited Ellison paragraph

I brought this up earlier in a now archived section and it did not get much reply except to say that I should work on improving it which I've now done. The basic problem with the previous version, as I explained in the earlier talk section, was an unsourced claim about Ellison's reaction, which I've changed to a sourced quotation of Ellison's direct response to Beck. I also quote Beck directly about the question (with him admitting it was dumb, which I think makes him look good since he's admitting he made a slip and did not mean it how it sounded) and tidied up the wording a bit. Obviously feel free to play around with it, but please don't revert out of hand as we had unsourced info in there before and now the thing is at least sourced adequately. I think it's neutral and with enough detail but others can disagree of course. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I replaced the Newsmax link with a more neutral AP source, but otherwise, seems fine to me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that, AP is obviously a better source. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be liberal bias, considering how un-"reliable" or missing-in-action the AP has been with respect to Van Jones and ACORN relative to conservative sources? Bachcell (talk) 20:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

No it wouldn't be that. AP is one of the most respected news sources in the world, whose stories are picked up across the planet. NewsMax is a right-wing web site with a reputation for inaccuracy. I would have been fine with the NewsMax article as a source for the fact there were protests since it's an uncontroversial claim, but an AP piece is an obvious improvement.

Conservative sources cover Van Jones and ACORN more than "mainstream" outlets like AP do because it is what their readers are interested in, just as left-wing publications cover things like workers' struggles, anti-war movements, and support for single-payer health care more than "mainstream" outlets do because their readers are interested in those things. If you seriously think citing the Associated Press is an example of "liberal bias" then you would seem to have a rather intense ideological view when it comes to the media, and that's not something that belongs on Wikipedia talk pages. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Declining ad revenue

I don't think we should put this in as yet, but it's something to keep an eye on. In a story that has been covered by Gawker.com and other outlets, ColorofChange claimed a week ago that Beck's ad revenue took a major hit after the boycott started (the Gawker story explains more about the source for that info).

A partisan press release and a verification by Gawker are not sufficient sourcing to add this detail to the article, however I don't doubt that it's true. Presumably Fox will respond to this at some point and there will be some discussion of whether or not the boycott is actually working in a more mainstream media source. Then we can include half a sentence on the effectiveness of the boycott which we already currently mention. So as I said just something to keep an eye on. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I would also add that if that sort of discussion is being considered, then there should also be mention of the FOX Cable News ratings for balance (Beck is #3 with something like 2.2M viewers and blowing away all other cable shows at the 5:00 slot).ObserverNY (talk) 23:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Actually there's nothing wrong with mentioning what you bring up right now. We currently state, "On some days his television program draws upwards of 3 million viewers," but there's nothing wrong with changing that to the average and saying he has the highest rate dcable show in that time slot, assuming that's true and reliably sourced. As far as I'm concerned you could add that right now if you want. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The numbers are so disputed i don't see how it can go in. FOX claims there has not been any loss since advertisers have just switched time slots. Observers have also commented that this could have caused an increase due to the bidding for new slots (I personally doubt it though). Color of Change has been discredited by Beck and FOX for inflating numbers and it wouldn't surprise me if they were using a calculation without firm data. The line would do nothing for the reader since it would basically be "Color of Change says this while FOX and Beck say this, that, and this". Without firm data it is lame.Cptnono (talk) 23:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I added the cable ratings sentence. Make sure it is ok with you guys. Anyone have a cite for that O'Reilly at your Beck and call comment? ObserverNY (talk) 23:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

And I agree with Cptnono about not giving any credence to Color of Change's loss of advertising claims. ObserverNY (talk) 23:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I made a couple of minor adjustments to the new cable ratings sentence and added another source which shows Beck was beating his three competitors combined back in March. Ideally we'd have a better source that says he "consistently beats all three other shows" but I think what we have now is fine—we'll just have to make sure the ratings don't change in the future and maybe update the Media Bistro link from time to time.

And again I'm not suggesting putting anything about how much advertising was lost in at this time—the press release and the Gawker report are not sufficient as sources. But I highly doubt ColorofChange is blatantly lying about this since that would pretty heavily piss off their supporters and cause them to lose enormous credibility. But maybe their data isn't the best, which is certainly possible, though the Gawker story suggests it's pretty believable. The point is we need for this to be picked up by mainstream outlets and would also need to include a reply from Fox if and when that happened. If this matter does not get further attention then we would not put it in, but I just wanted to make people aware that there could be more information cropping up at some point.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

According to FOX Color of Change are liars. People say FOX is biased and unfair but I never heard that they lie (don't know and wouldn't be surprised, though though). We'll have to see what, if any, coverage comes out on this. I wouldn't mind using primary sources in this case typically but it would just be a tit-for-tat paragraph with nothing for the reader.Cptnono (talk) 00:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

No I don't think we should use primary sources—it needs mainstream coverage or we can't put it in. And no offense, but FOX is not a reliable source for anything on Color of Change because they have their own agenda there. Also I must admit that I find the idea of a news network calling another group "liars" (always! they are always liars!) rather funny, but I guess that does happen (certainly on both FOX and MSNBC). Finally while "lie" is always a rather strong word, the evidence that FOX practices questionable journalism on occasion is pretty overwhelming. I would no more take their claims at face value than I would those of Keith Olbermann or Lawrence O'Donnell. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Why is this discussion even here? This is a topic for the Glenn Beck show, not his bio. Bytebear (talk) 00:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Please reread my comment.Cptnono (talk) 00:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Cptnono I did re-read your comment as you suggested but I don't know what you are getting at. Please just state what you mean directly.

And Bytebear while it's obviously (possibly) a topic for the article on his show, it also might well be worth including here. Of course neither you nor I are the arbiter of what goes where which is why I mentioned the issue on the talk page. Currently we discuss the boycott in the article and say "The boycott resulted in advertisers requesting their ads be removed from his programming, to avoid associating their brands with content that could be considered offensive by potential customers." I am simply suggesting that, if the ColorofChange claim (or some other report) and some response by FOX gets covered by mainstream secondary sources, we should consider putting in half a sentence on whether they boycott was effective or not. Why is that so radically out of scope when we already say a boycott happened? As a thought experiment let's assume ColorofChange and Gawker are wrong and in a month a New York Times or Washington Post article comes out which says the boycott had no real effect on ad revenue. I would suggest at that point amending the above sentence to read, "The boycott resulted in advertisers requesting their ads be removed from his programming to avoid associating their brands with content that could be considered offensive by potential customers, however it ultimately had little effect on the show's advertising revenue." Are you saying you would honestly object to those eleven words at the end?

Again, I'm not proposing any change right now, I'm just saying that some data is starting to come about the revenue effect of that boycott and we should watch to see if this is first verified (or contradicted) in other sources and then widely covered, at which point I think it might make sense to slightly lengthen the sentence on the boycott (which, incidentally, needs rewriting, but I'm not going to worry about that now). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I strongly agree with the idea that, since the potential success or failure of the boycott has not been mentioned by reliable sources, there should not be any additions on this. We can and should wait until we receive reliable word. The Squicks (talk) 04:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we're all in agreement then. I just wanted to put this on folks' radar screens as something to watch for. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

This source, The Independent, reports the boycott as being responsible for Beck's show being "deserted by 62 of America's corporate titans, the likes of Tesco, Diageo and Kellogg's UK." Confirmer here. Obviously this implies a revenue loss, but we shouldn't assume one, rather we should stick to reporting the known facts, which are those 62 big advertisers. This is a very significant boycott. --TS 20:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Putting it in terms of the number of advertisers might be a good way to go. However I think the "62 companies" claim is being pulled from the ColorofChange press release, and I can't tell if The Independent or another media outlet has independently confirmed that—i.e. I still don't think the sourcing is quite up to par. I doubt that ColorofChange is lying, but unsurprisingly FoxNews disputes their claims, saying "The Color of Change figures are wildly inaccurate on all fronts -- revenue has not been affected in any way." I agree with you that this is a significant boycott and a big story, so I'm hoping we see a more in-depth examination of this from a neutral outlet in the future since all we have right now are competing claims from ColorofChange and Fox, with the former having been more amplified in the press (and, I think, more likely to be true). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Request Change of 'Political Views

I am a neutral reader of this article. When I reached this sentence: "He also has expressed concerns over the compassion of hospital staff after an outpatient procedure to remove a hemorrhoid went awry.[15] " it was so obviously out of place, it caused me to feel the entire article is amateur. Then there is the line about John McCain. These are just salacious sound bites and really have nothing to do with his overall philosophy of politics. I know its extremely hard to write a neutral article and leave at the door your personal ambitions, but please can you make this article more professional? Glenn Beck says a LOT of salacious sound bites, that is his "thing"...you dont need to cherry pick the juciest ones and put those in his political views paragraph. I want to get past the sound bites and learn about his OVERALL political philosophy. I'm asking that you put your tasty little sound bite morsels in another section and in the "Political Views" section please leave that to statements regarding his philosophy and world view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.97.239 (talk • contribs)

You have my blessing to remove the "hemorroid" and John McCain references. ObserverNY (talk) 20:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I took care of it. The John McCain reference was unimportant and I wouldn't even consider it a political view. The reference to the type of surgery is unimportant to the statement regarding health care. Morphh ^(talk) 20:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The 9/12 Project article

Hi everyone. The 9-12 Project article has been created and I could use some help developing it into a genuine Wikipedia article. Any help anyone can give with RS and reliable criticism to the organization would be beneficial. --Triadian (talk) 00:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Controversy Section - Calling Obama a racist

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

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

glenn beck

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

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

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

That's just the problem, many political figures and commentators (like McCain and Obama, Olbermann) do not have a controversy section, even though many political figures and commentators do have controversy surronding them. If you wish to include a controversy section, fine. But include it for all controversial figures and keep to a standard. Diligence 5960 23:31, 26 August 2009

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

If glen Beck deserves a controversy page then Keith Olberman, Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly and any other political commentator should have this section added. Be consistent whatever you decide, I don't think it should be left or right both sides will have their opinions on contoversial figures. Obama? Bush? Whoever? Just be consistent not one side or the other.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agree, this is obviously noteworthy. Not to have a 'Controversy' section results in an incomplete picture of Mr. Beck. Facts are facts, and Wikipedia is about fact. Jusdafax (talk) 21:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

You don't understand how noteworthiness applies to WP:BLP. The notability of an event is not enough. It must be shown that the person is well know for this particular fact above all others not mentioned in the article. You must prove that Beck's notoriety comes from his opinions of Obama. That is clearly not true. Bytebear (talk) 23:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Stop asserting that people don't understand Wikipedia's policies, please. The main reason I ask this is because I don't think you clearly understand the policy you linked to yourself. If you check [[WP::Blp#Criticism_and_praise]], I think you'll find that this incident falls perfectly under the guidelines. Glenn Beck is a media personality related to political discussion. His political commentary is the only thing that makes him notable, and this instance has generated a particularly large amount of attention to him, much more than other comments he has made, therefore being one of the comments that should be covered in some detail. While the single comment does not merit its own section, there are other controversial comments (discussed elsewhere on the talk page) that are being included with it. That is the way an article about a political commentator should be. Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 23:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Someone should create a Glenn Beck Controversies page, much like there are criticism pages for Fox News and Bill O'Reilly, User:bytebear will disagree of course, but if you look at his posts he is against all criticism of Fox News and Glenn Beck, so it would be a mistake to take his protests in to account, if he had his way there would be no criticism of anyone or anything on the right.

Paglew (talk) 18:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I cannot believe there is no controversy page. The man has said the President of the United States is a racist and has lost several corporate sponsors. He has also "joked" about killing Michael Moore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.41.38.234 (talk) 20:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

When Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, and Rachel Maddow have controvery sections, then Beck will deserve one. As others have stated, people only want this because he's a right wing talking head and they want to drag him through the mud. When these people referred to Americans practicing their 1st Amendment rights as a derogetory sexual term, I didn't notice any calls for controvery sections for them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.175.214.34 (talk) 21:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Matthews has said that he wants to make the Obama administration work, that is quoted on his article as a contraversial comment, no one had anything against including that comment. I see your point, but Beck has made far more contraversial comments than anyone from MSNBC - he's called Obama a racist, promoted the "death panels" myth, he called global warming a scam, talked about poisoning Pelosi, he compared heathcare reform to Nazism, it goes on and on. I don't think anybody would be able to come up with a sizable list of contraversies for Keith Olbermann or the rest of them.Paglew (talk) 02:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Why is the Beck "racist" comment receiving so much airtime when on MSNBC's Keith Olbermann show Jeannine Garafolo (spelling??) called those people protesting and voicing their opinions at the townhall meetings racist?? Where was the uproar from that comment? Why were the sponsors not pulling their ads then?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.244.131.146 (talk) 20:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Because he called the president a racist. That is a noteworthy and controversial statement. Also, the president has made no statement one could interpret as racist against whites. Many of the protesters have held up signs and said things that are clearly racist. Making the MSNBC comments, while inflammatory, grounded in some truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.110.167 (talk) 15:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Calling the president a racist is not a reason to post it on this site. Plenty of people said it about Bush. I haven't seen anyone ask to have that added to thier bio's. There are several organizations that support the current president who also called Bush a racist. Where is the outrage about that? This is not a forum for everyone's point of view. It is an article about Glenn Beck. There is not enough space to put everything that Glenn has said that is "contraversial" nor is there room on this server to place the contraversial comments made by every one with a bio on wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.63.2 (talk) 16:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

We are not talking about organizations, we're talking about public personalities here. The only person who called president Bush a racist that I can remember is Kanye West, and that should be included on his wikipedia entry. A public figure who accuses the president of racism is taking a strong stand, and it deserves mention. It is not a question of whether he is wrong or right about it, it is simply a noteworthy event for someone like Beck to accuse the president of being a racist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.110.167 (talk) 03:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Anytime you're a public figure appearing on a large cable network like FoxNews you should know that WHAT YOU SAY is merely a matter of public record. The FACTS are as follows:

Glenn Beck commented in a FoxNews interview concerning President Obama; "This president has exposed himself as a guy over and over and over again who has a deep-seated hatred for white people ... this guy is, I believe, a racist."

IF Wikipedia is truly to be the online record of facts and events, then these publicly spoken and recorded comments MUST be a part of the permanant record of events.

Jeffrey Owens —Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkSummoner (talk • contribs) 07:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

We're working on it. A lot. ThuranX (talk) 08:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Beck's show is a political opinion and entertainment show. For example Beck showed Rev. Wright making racial references to white people on his show and the controversies doesn't cover that. Becks words are that he believes Obama is a racist, but it doesn't seem like he has any credible proof besides the people Obama appointed as Czars, and that "social justice" means taking jobs and wealth away from white people and giving it to minorities (which Beck claims is communism). Maybe we can create a section known as controversial views that Beck has made and then cite sources that Beck uses to back them up, followed by a rebuttal section in which they are debunked followed by citations. Just keep in mind that he does an opinion and entertainment show, it should not be mistaken for news. Beck calls himself a Rodeo Clown and he has been known to make controversial statements to gain more ratings and viewers. Orion Blastar (talk) 04:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

How come I don't see all of Van Jones' magical comments of controversial nature all over his wiki page, hmmm? I sense people out to get Glenn Beck in this here wiki. 98.115.3.41 (talk) 06:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Just reading these comments in this section reveals how biased most Beck-haters are - and the reason few except the left trust Wikipedia for objective information on current events and politically charged topics. The Beck-haters deny any controversial comments from their favorite commentators, yet want to silence Beck - or at least diminish his point of view as being merely controversial. I'm fine with sticking a "Respectable Controversy" section on Beck's entry, but you lefties better be putting one on every MSNBC commentator's page, along with most of the NBC, CBS, ABC, and CNN on-air personalities, writers, and producers, as well as New York Times, Newsweek ("We Are All Socialists Now"), and Time magazine editors, columnists, and "reporters." In fact, I'd recommend you put a "Respectable Controversy" section on everyone who writes or speaks on current affairs because their comments will almost always raise some controversy with someone. Madjack59 (talk) 16:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC) Madjack

Wikipedia is not a forum for you to debate politics, nor do we offer you a soap box to stand on and harangue others with your views. ThuranX (talk) 17:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

but madjack has a point, "controversy" sections must be equally applied to everyone, because whatever someone says will be controversial to someone, there is not specific limit on how many people it must be controversial to in order to justify a controversy section. here's something, Rush Limbaugh doesn't have a controversy section, despite all of his rants. Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert doesn't have a controversy section, despite the fact that their stuff is very offensive to conservatives. MICHAEL MOORE, has no controversy section, despite saying that the president of the USA ordered the death of 3000 Americans, that the medical industry is run by the Antichrist, claiming that colt, glock, and H&K are deliberately selling guns to teens, calling all economists and financial workers thief and Nazis, among many, many, other things. i believe that a bit more controversial than calling the president a racist because he put a lot of black people in high offices Random219 (talk) 22:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

correction, Michael Moore does have a controversy section now, but it's only about a comment concerning hurricane Gustav, not about any of the aboveRandom219 (talk) 22:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, fine, add a controversies section for everybody. And if anybody knows of a notable controversy, let him add it. For those entries without a controversy added, lose the controversies section. (Rather, never add it to begin with.) But the controversy needs to be "substantial." (For example, if it got the media's attention, then it's substantial.) Many things you list are not controversial, but rather tongue-in-cheek. Like the medical industry being run by AntiChrist. FWIW I'm a liberal, but if a prominent liberal is spouting lies or whatever, I'd like to know. So I'd like their controversy to be reported. Glenn Beck's latest controvery is that Obama's "civilian national security force" is supposed to be some kind of SS-style force within American borders. Here's a YouTube link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeuXmYMk_ds

Taken in context, the civilian force is really a group of professionals that would work beside the American military in dangerous areas. This is the sort of blatant lie that should be cited in the controversies section on Beck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.89.233.40 (talk) 08:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no other reason to look up Glen Beck except to find out about the controversy surrounding him. I am disappointed in this incredibly non-helpful article. Iamvered (talk) 14:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow, people, time to latch on to the obvious. Glenn Beck is a political commentator, and an active one at that. All political commentators deserve Controversy sections. No single commentator comes away without serious disagreement, otherwise they're not doing their job. Olbermann, Beck, Maddow, Savage, Limbaugh, Franken. All of them. If you don't think one of those people is controversial or don't want to be the one to write it, then move on to the next guy (gal) that you think is controversial. If you dig up factual dirt on any of them, good for you, you should be proud of yourself. Just stop being a bunch of partisan babies and start writing. --Caidence (talk) 19:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the liberals don't say nearly as stupid things as Glenn Beck does. Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews are controversial but Maddow... what's she done? Say the truth? <tommy> (talk) 20:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

As someone coming upon this article, and this person, completely cold, I must point out that, even though I caught a vague whiff of controversy when reading the 'reception' section, I absolutely did not realize just how far off balance this man is until I checked this talk page and read these comments about controversy, and then watched the youtube clips where he talks about alleged racism http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MI_0Kt_e3Go and national service http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeuXmYMk_ds (thanks very much for the clips).

During the presidential campaign I watched many of Obama's public speeches and read many articles written about him, and I researched his voting record. Nowhere have I seen the slightest evidence that Obama is racist, in fact particularly with regard to him being mixed race himself, it would be just plain surreal if he were racist. Once the Republicans played the race card in the campaign as they inevitably would given that fiasco of the notorious Reverend Wright, the way Obama finessed the race question by pointing out that his own white grandmother was a white racist but he loved her anyway and could never disown her because she was a part of him was just masterful. However, Beck's claim in the video clip that Obama is racist is vehement, not just an idle musing, and he provides no evidence to back up his claim at all, proving if anything that Beck is merely projecting his own racism onto Obama, which seems to be a first-line tactic of the neocon right these days, accuse your opponent of being and doing all the things that are loathesome in yourself.

Then in Beck's Fox clip about the national service proposal that Obama mentioned, which by the way is a long-standing proposal by Rangel and is linked to reviving the draft, in order to wake up Middle America and the coastal elites to the realities of war as well as a way to get some public work out of American youth while teaching them a civics lesson, there is a long Beck diatribe wind-up followed by a cartoon drawing that references fascism and a two second Obama sound bite taken out of context, cherry-picked to validate Beck's completely erroneous characterization of the national service proposal as an attempt to create a shadow governmental paramilitary force that parallels Hitler's SS.

Face it, people. Beck is a button pusher who courts controversy deliberately to sell his nutty viewpoints to adrenaline junkies. Yes, please include a section on controversy. It needs to leap off the page. He is so far off balance that his right knuckles are dragging on the ground. When I browse through Wikipedia I need to see it at first glance or I will not get an accurate view of this polemic public figure. Not everyone on Fox is so nutty, but this one certainly is. 208.127.241.81 (talk) 10:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

If you want to express your thoughts in a way that is primarily that of improving the article instead of chit chatting your comment will not be removed. At least we are on some sort of neutral track if people from all ends of the spectrum are pissed about the article (ie: a completely disagree with why the IP thinks this article sucks but it still needs improvement).Cptnono (talk) 11:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• IP Comment said: "Face it, people. Beck is a button pusher who courts controversy deliberately to sell his nutty viewpoints to adrenaline junkies." That about summarizes why this article generates so many edits. Mark Levin was going crazy about Beck's claim that McCain would have been a worse president than Obama - Beck is a master drama creator. I'd suggest that the opening of the article state something like: "Glenn Beck is an American radio and television host, political commentator, author and entrepreneur. His radio and TV shows enjoy high ratings, although he has also generated significant controversy." Of course this edit would be immediately reverted because no one can agree on anything about this guy. --Milowent (talk) 14:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Replying to ThuranAx: You're right that many are using Wikipedia to further other means. I, too found myself edited because I wasn't maintaining objectivity. However, including Beck's on-air statements is NO DIFFERENT than quoting Joseph McCarthy, Jimmy Carter or George W. Bush. If you want a controverisal comments section for all political commentators and/or politicians then have at it. There is plenty of bs to go around. In the end, it is Beck's OWN WORDS that are his undoing. He frequently misquotes (i.e. Edward R. Murrow), misinterprets (i.e. United States Constitution Article 1 Section 9) or just plain gets the facts wrong (i.e. President Obama has NEVER worked for ACORN). Beck isn't stupid; he's ignorant, and his ignorance is dangerous because other ignorant people mistake his ignorance for facts.

Jeffrey Owens

TIME magazine cover

My apologies if I missed this in the discussion, but was the TIME magazine cover of Glenn Beck suggested for inclusion? [48] ObserverNY (talk) 23:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Yes, in the subsection called "Time magazine". Why are you linking a supermarket tabloid article on the cover? — Mike :  tlk  23:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Please forgive me, I linked what appeared to be a very clear image of the TIME cover. Above you stated: From what I have seen (read: feel free to link sources to prove me wrong), the cover its self is the notable thing here, so we full stop after one sentence., however, that does not answer my question about including the jpeg of the cover in the article. Would that be acceptable to you? ObserverNY (talk) 03:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Mike, apparently you are not aware that there is an internet meme that Beck is the King or Queen of a micronation- which is supposedly sourced to Time. The Squicks (talk) 23:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course, this is not relevant to the Wikipedia article. But it is... kind of funny 72.47.38.205 (talk) 00:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Procedural question - 1. Does anyone object to inserting the TIME magazine cover picture into the article and does that violate any WP policy? ObserverNY (talk) 13:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

What are the copyright ramifications? Bytebear (talk) 16:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Bytebear - I am a newbie to this, I have attempted to make sure I don't violate any policy here: [49] and have sought to comply with the advice. If I have done something incorrectly, please advise. Thank you. ObserverNY (talk) 16:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I updated the FUR but I think this probably falls under unacceptable. The FairUse lic states "If the image depicts a person or persons on the cover, it is not acceptable to use the image in the article of the person or persons depicted on the cover, unless used to directly illustrate a point about the publication of the image. Use of the image merely to depict a person or persons in the image will be removed." So we would have to "directly illustrate a point about the publication of the image" to make it acceptable. Morphh ^(talk) 16:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

That would mean it's ok to put it in a Time Magaziine section, but not for his main picture. It's not a flattering picture and Beck this morning complained that it was a shot from GQ that wasn't authorized for use in a Time hit piece. BTW, is it STILL missing any mention Van Jones and Acorn controversies covered by Time and NYT? Bachcell (talk) 16:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Bachcell that it is not a "flattering" picture. However, if Beck didn't authorize it for TIME to use, do you have a verifiable source for that and if we include that, would the use of the picture then be considered in compliance with Wiki policy? Thanks. ObserverNY (talk) 17:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Here's a relevant question: of all the individuals who have been featured on the roughly 4500 issues of Time since the magazine started in 1923, how many of them have the cover of the magazine in their wikipedia biography? I think that mentioning it in the lead is already getting close to WP:UNDUE. We don't need an image of the cover. If you choose to add it now, I don't believe it is against wikipedia policy (low res images of magazine covers are permitted -- and allegations of abuse between Beck, GQ and Time are 100% irrelevant unless it is reported on by WP:RS), but I have made a note one month from now to check to see if it's still relevant. I highly suspect it will be forgotten quickly. Remember, this is just a cover of a weekly magazine, not Time's Person of the Year. — Mike :  tlk  04:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Joe Scarborough Statement

I added something relevant to the article which was removed [50]

Morphh made the revert. Here is his reasoning:

Removed insignificant criticism by a single person that was given WP:UNDUE weight and added without discussion and sufficent justification

1. 1 Joe Scarborough is not "insignificant" He is a conservative commentator on MSNBC. He is one of Glenn Beck's contemporaries (relevant definition from Oxford English Dictionary b. Used by a journal or periodical in referring to others published at the same time.) Both Glenn Beck and Joe Scarborough are "published at the same time" "Time" being 2009. "Published" meaning they both have a cable news show. Thus, it is not WP:UNDUE.

1. 2 "added without discussion and sufficent [sic] justification" There is no requirement of "discussion and sufficent [sic] justification" to add something to a Wikipedia article.

Conclusion: I will be reverting this edit.

Reliefappearance (talk) 00:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

This was already discussed in the past and consensus was not to include it. Joe Scarborough is not insignificant, but his criticism of Glenn Beck is with regard to the life of Glenn Beck. Why is Joe's criticism in any way important based on the volume of criticism about Beck? It's not.. doesn't matter if he's a contemporary or not. It's hasn't been sufficiently covered in reliable sources to make it anything but a blip in the news. It's insignificant. Morphh ^(talk) 0:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Where has it been discussed? Not on this page as far as I can see. The comment was from today. Reliefappearance (talk) 00:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

One of his comments was in here in the past... you could start with Archive 2, but essentially it's a one off incident or comment, and we don't detail these and we certainly don't quote them. If it is reported in many reliable sources, than we should consider including it. The requirement for adding criticism and praise in a WP:BLP is higher than normal content. This is not just an article consensus but Wikpedia consensus outlined in policy. It needs to be relevant to his notability. Beck gets criticized all the time by contemporaries, and Beck criticizes them as well. We're not going to add Beck's comments to Joe's article or any other person he criticizes unless it's something notable to their biography (like Van Jones). If Joe spends a week trying to distroy Glenn Beck and it's picked up in the general media and gets sufficent coverage to be part of Beck's notability, then we should include it... but as for now, it's a simple criticim form another person... so what. It's not historically important in any way.. forgotten tomorrow - it's WP:RECENTISM. Morphh ^(talk) 0:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

It's also WP:UNDUE weight. Why should Joe get a quote to attack Glenn Beck in his biography? He shouldn't, not unless it becomes big news. The source is also a blog, which is considered an unreliable source WP:RS. Morphh ^(talk) 0:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

To make my point above, Glenn Beck responded to Joe: Mr. Beck responded to the MSNBC host’s remarks by calling him a “loser” who “couldn’t even be voted dogcatcher now.” So should we include this quote in Joe Scarborough's article? No It's insignificant to Joe's biography and career. Morphh ^(talk) 0:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Morphh here for similar reasons—a one-off quote from Scarborough does not belong in Beck's article. Beyond the Wikipedia policies cited by Morphh (which very much apply) there's another reason—Beck and Scarborough are on competing news networks, both of which make a habit of dissing the other. The innumerable individual examples of that are not special or worthy of inclusion in a biographical article, anymore than a random nasty comment by Derek Jeter about the Boston Red Sox DH is worthy of inclusion in our article on David Ortiz. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Several things. I agree that the statement should not be included in the article. Perhaps it belongs in an article on FOX vs. MSNBC (if there is one), however I disagree with two things. There is no requirement that I read anything about WP:POLICY let alone the entire talk page archives of a page before editing. You could have linked to where this consensus was reached, but I thank both of you for making the case here. Also, I disagree with a video of Joe Scarborough not being an RS. It clearly is. Reliefappearance (talk) 14:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Poniewozik

"Conservative (/paranoid) libertarianism"(?)

(This is gone into, I'm sure, up in the talkpage above somewhere but I'll add this at the bottom of the page anyway): W/re Beck's general stratum of political commentary, James Poniewozik, who blogs about pop culture and society for Time magazine, in a post yesterday (see here) labels Beck some strain of "conservative (and paranoid) libertarianism." ↜Just M E here , now 17:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Glen Beck Fans Controlling Content

It is very upsetting to see that the Glen Beck fans are in charge of the content. All major controversies have been removed. There is little to let the reader know Glen Beck is an extraordinarily controversial figure, and that his often distorts facts to suit the needs of his programing. Wikipedia is meant to be a source of valid information, not a place where the content of pages is simply put to a vote. —Precedingunsigned comment added by 24.147.110.167 (talk) 18:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Tell me about it. ʄ!•¿talk? 18:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Now its even worse. Wikipedia is going down the drain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.110.167 (talk) 03:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep. It's cruft. Iamvered (talk) 14:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed...I followed the advice of previous entries and added a "Controversial Comments" section to the page about Beck's radio show. I quoted Beck verbatim. Instead of asking me to just remove my opening sentence (which was, upon further review, not completely unbiased) user Realkyhick deleted the entire thing. Admittedly, I lost my cool when I did a little checking into his background; called him a 'bible thumping hilljack' (yeah, not my finest hour). It's just upsetting because rather than contacting me to resolve the error, he just deleted the entire section. Beck DID say those things ON HIS OWN SHOW. Again, the facts of the case are not in dispute. Just because they are his opinion does not erase their existence in our consciousness.

Jeffrey Owens

If you check the history you'll notice a comment stating just the oppiste but it wa deemed inappropriate and removed. There is something equally offensive on this talk page from an opponent that was not removed so maybe the sky isn't falling. Follow the guidelines if you wasnt something included. Also, I view this article as being slanted against Beck. There are a few little things and methods for inclusion here but it isn't blatant and it certainly isn't too the point where people need to cry about it.Cptnono (talk) 10:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Jeff, I don't think there is a news person alive that hasn't made a factual error - we're human. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. If an incident becomes a larger news story published in reliable sources (like the Obama is a racist comment), than it should be easy to fairly justify inclusion. Morphh ^(talk) 13:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Mother drowned in a boating accident, was not a suicide

FYI, the article is currently incorrect. See: Zaitchik, Alexander (2009-09-21). "The making of Glenn Beck". Salon. -- 67.98.206.2 (talk) 20:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. We're going to have to a conversation about that article. Alexander Zaitchik is doing what appears to be a major three-part series on Beck for Salon, and while it will undoubtedly be critical it will also likely be one of the better sources out there for biographical details. My understanding is that this is part of (or related to) a larger book project. I'm currently arguing for inclusion of material related to Beck and Cleon Skousen which would be partially sourced to another Salon article and others were not happy with the source, but if this is a multi-part journalistic investigation of Beck's like that results in a full-on Beck biography we are not going to be able to just ignore it. Critical biographies are very much acceptable as sources, so long as their publishers are reputable.

I think we need to hold-off on the boating accident stuff for now, and see what the reaction to this story is. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, BTP, I leave this in your capable hands. But it seems Zaitchik has laid eyes on the original Tacoma newspaper article reporting the event, which occurred when Glenn was 15, not 13 as he told the reporter in the reference we're currently citing. It's an odd thing to lie about, admittedly. Maybe we'll end up needing different articles for Beck as we have for Stephen Colbert? -- 67.98.206.2 (talk) 17:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

In the interview he had with Katie Couric there was a short part near the end of the interview discussing this where Glenn Beck does not deny the fact that his mother commited suicide which would also related to the above mention topic. Though this is still up for debate I thought I would add on it here. Desette (talk) 18:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)Desette

Lack of coverage of link between Glenn Beck and Van Jones ACORN is WP:RS issue

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/18/AR2009091802639.html Wrongly Deaf to Right-Wing Media? By Andrew Alexander Sunday, September 20, 2009 Conservative bloggers and commentators know how to turn up the heat on mainstream media. Glenn Beck did it one day last week on his Fox News program. Theatrically unhinged, he directed viewers to call their local newspaper and demand coverage of ACORN, the national community action group targeted in an embarrassing hidden video sting. "Right now, get off the couch. While I'm talking, you pick up the phone. You call the newspaper," he commanded. If ACORN hasn't been on the front page, or if the paper isn't investigating the group's local activities, "then what the hell are they good for?"

When, oh when, will this story be worthy of coverage of WP, which appears to the last media outlet on the planet to suppress coverage of Beck's influence on VJ and AC??? Bachcell (talk) 20:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

What story? Van Jones' resignation? Because we cover that here where Beck is prominently mentioned. Or this story on ACORN? Because we cover that too, though Beck is not mentioned there. Are you proposing something specific happen on this article? Because this article talk page is here for discussing improvements to the article, not for soapboxing, and without a specific proposal that's what you are doing. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The proposal is for the "consensus" to quit reverting every edit that, like the Time and New York Times pieces do, mention that Beck himself has been named / accused / attacked for being the primary force behind Van Jones resignation and various federal agencies dropping support for ACORN.

Reasons previously given for deletions with minimal comment include "it's incoherent", "a consensus has already been reached", "it can be covered only when it's been mentioned by RS (it's in NY Times, and Time and Washington Post now), "it's already mentioned in other places". Even after one editor approved of its inclusion, at least two other editors have disapproved of adding VJ or AC.

My suggestion is something like this, which you can look up the various justifications for reverting this and similar edits. This incorporates

Special Advisor to president Obama Van Jones resigned in September 2009 after a series of critical attacks by conservatives led by Glenn Beck . The Huffington Post expressed continued support for Jones, singling out the efforts of Glenn Beck to force his resignation Beck has also asked his viewers to help "find everything you can" on other "czars" such as Cass Sunstein, Mark Lloyd and Carol Browner.

The ACORN organization has protested Beck's airing of secretely taped videos at their offices, and prompting viewers to demand coverage of the scandal. ACORN's relationship with the U.S. Census Bureau was terminated soon afterwards. After the negative publicity, the Senate blocked HUD grants to ACORN at least one criminal probe has been launched. "Senate blocks HUD grants to ACORN". Los Angeles Times. 2009-09-15. Retrieved 2009-09-16.</ref> Not only conservative media, but mainstream outlets such as the Washington Post pondered why the mainstream press lagged in coverage of the Van Jones and ACORN scandals.

It's a bit ridiculous when the right says Beck did it, the left is mad as hell that Beck is at fault for what happened to VJ and AC, and even the Washington Post, New York Times and Time magazine think VJ and AC proves he's destroying America, but it's a WP:OFFENSE to say it in this article?? Bachcell (talk) 22:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Repasted from above: From pg. 3 of the TIME article:[110] "He is having an impact. Along with St. Louis, Mo., blogger Jim Hoft, whose site is called Gateway Pundit, Beck pushed one of Obama's so-called czars, Van Jones, to resign during Labor Day weekend. Jones, whose task was to oversee a green-jobs initiative, turned out to be as enchanted by conspiracies as Beck — he once theorized that "white polluters and the white environmentalists" are "steering poison into the people-of-color's communities" and signed a petition demanding an investigation into whether the Bush Administration had a hand in the 9/11 attacks. On Sept. 14 the Senate overwhelmingly voted to cut off all federal funds to ACORN, and the U.S. Census Bureau severed its ties to the organization. This followed Beck's masterly promotion of a series of videos made by two guerrilla filmmakers who posed as a pimp and prostitute while visiting ACORN offices around the country. The helpful community organizers were taped offering advice on tax evasion and setting up brothels for underage girls."

I propose that we include a sentence which reads as follow supported by the above cite: According to TIME magazine, Beck is "having an impact". His numerous feature segments on Van Jones and ACORN resulted in Jones' resignation from his White House position, the Senate cutting off all federal funds to ACORN and the U.S. Census Bureau severing ties with ACORN. ObserverNY (talk) 20:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Also, I got a message on my talk page that the TIME mag jpeg has been tagged for "speedy deletion". I really tried to abide by WIKI policy and get answers to my questions, but to no avail. I don't understand why this jpeg is not allowable. ObserverNY (talk) 22:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I haven't even picked up the Times piece (been on a binge all weekend). Does it actually say those were results of Beck or is it implied? something like that might be good "Beck was featured on the cover of Time magazine. He had been receiving coverage for his commentary having an impact on the Van Jones resignation and the ACCORN scandal(or whatever it is). Time said his numerous feature segments ACORN resulted the Senate cutting off all federal funds to ACORN and the U.S. Census Bureau severing ties with ACORN." We could also separate the ACCORN line out into a short paragraph but I alsways try to consolidate.Cptnono (talk) 22:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, I replied to ObserverNY on that user's talk page re: the image issue, which was tagged for deletion for copyright issues (it's a standard thing and has nothing to do with the politics of this article, and maybe the image can even be saved).

Bachcell's proposed text above seems like a non-starter. It's too long, the writing is not up to snuff, and it goes off-topic in several places.

I think it would probably be okay to mention something about Van Jones and ACORN though. The basic point is that Beck has apparently had some effect in the political arena (so long as reliable sources actually say that). I don't think we can say, as ObserverNY suggests, that "his numerous feature segments on Van Jones and ACORN resulted in Jones' resignation from his White House position, the Senate cutting off all federal funds to ACORN and the U.S. Census Bureau severing ties with ACORN" because that's far too strong a causal statement, and I don't think anyone is suggesting that Beck's TV show "caused" Jones to resign or the Senate to take action on ACORN. Probably a contributing factor, but let's use phrasing more like that and make sure we are drawing it from reliable sources. I would say maybe one sentence on each would be appropriate (assuming lots of sources are talking about Beck in terms of ACORN—I know his impact on the Van Jones situation has been discussed).

Perhaps the place to put this would be in a new section (or subsection) called "political impact" or something to that effect. Such a section might actually be a better home for the Keith Ellison and Obama-as-racist material. In general we would discuss times when Beck and/or his program had a significant impact on some aspect of the national political conversation. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed on a new section. However, If time says Beck impacted or the govt ties being severed was a result of it is good enough. It has been everything but said. We are walking the toeing the line of not using common sense by being overly cautious or letting personal feelings on the subject impact the article. Times is the nail in the coffin. Time says it impacted/resulted as seenin my above italiced text seems OK to me unless it should be expanded to two paragraphs.Cptnono (talk) 22:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

So is someone going to create a new section on the 9/09 Time mag, move the quote from the Commentary section in the box and add the "impact" statement about ACORN and Van Jones? I'd do it but I'm afraid some stranger will come and yell at me. ObserverNY (talk) 23:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

No rush, so let's just wait for a bit more feedback, but just to be clear I'm not saying there should be a new section just on the Time article. I think what we are talking about here is reconfiguring the "Commentary and reception" section and possibly adding a new one on "political impact" or something similar. That's a significant change so we should let the thread run for awhile to see what people think about it. And I don't think anything has been decided about particular wording. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

That's cool. I'm amenable to the "political impact" heading and proceeding slowly. As long as we have reached consensus on the inclusion of Beck's "impact" on Jones and ACORN, I think we've made a big step forward. ObserverNY (talk) 23:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Time should not have its own subsection. "Political impact" which can be expanded is a good idea though.Cptnono (talk) 23:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Can we trim this down a bit... we're giving too much space to this. Perhaps a few sentences on this and a couple on ACORN. I'm not sure Van Jones or Acorn deserve paragraphs of content in a Glenn Beck article. Morphh ^(talk) 0:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I originally attempted a single paragraph for Jones and the racist comment but it was met with resistance. I would be all for squeezing ACORN, Jones, and the racist thing into a paragraph or two but editors are worried that it implies too much or doesn't get all the info in. All three are valuable to any reader studying Beck so 0 information in this particular article is a bigger concern than a few extra lines. If you have any thoughts on how to trim it that would be great. Off the top of my head we can get rid of the new bloated quote on the side and cut out the quotes used in the Jones paragraph.Cptnono (talk) 00:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I would be willing to work on an acorn 2-3 sentences with a responsible editor. Please throw out all "sources" from huffingtonpost, unless you want a bunch of people using the site as a source to call Beck a conspiracy theorist, a racist, satan, etc... Bachcell and ObserverNY need to be less aggressive about pushing for the sections they want in. Discussions are taking place in the appropriate parts of this talk page. — Mike :  tlk  04:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

What are the bullet points? screaming aout x,y, and z, hidden camera, gov't cuts? Cptnono (talk) 23:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

?, not sure what your talking about here. I think it would be too much to merge all three into one paragraph, but I do think we could combined ACORN and Van Jones into one paragraph. I'm not sure I would put this under commentary and reception though... it's not really bout Beck's reception. I would say this should go under his career, maybe TV? The focus of these events are on his show, so most of this should likely go into the Glen Beck Program article. Morphh ^(talk) 0:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Why do editors on this page have such a knack for reading only portions of the talk page? This is a biography of Beck and there should be a political impact section. Michael Jordan has a biography and is also mentioned on the Bulls page. We aren't doing a single paragraph obviously and it looks like Mike North is down with looking into options on how to include the information. A quick summary here and expansion somewhere else is OK but not mentioning it at all is a disservice to the reader and goes against common sense. Some readers will come here for info on Beck and his career while others will go to the independent radio or TV shows. Some will go to both. The mentality of being overly limiting in this article has lead to countless trolls and out side ciritcism for good reason.Cptnono (talk) 00:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I implied that it not be included.. if I did, that's not what I meant. I suggested one paragraph here that discusses Van Jones and Acorn, then putting the additional content into the show article. Morphh ^(talk) 1:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah... It was me misunderstandingn then. 1 paragraph for the two would be fantastic. My only concern is that I already trimmed a couple lines while inculding the Van Jones paragraph from the last proposal by Miike. If there is a way to intertwine ACCORN into that it would be awesome but personally just don't see how. It is for sure worth looking into.Cptnono (talk) 01:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

A reminder, ACORN appears to be an important issue in his career. It is still not in but the tag was removed. I don't think the tag is needed but we should certainly continue to seek inclusion. Anyone have anythoughts on a draft?Cptnono (talk) 22:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Time Magazine quote

Are we not giving a bit too much weight to Time Magazine here... How come they get exclusive top billing? A full quote, blockquoted in a pretty shadow box? Seems way over the top to me. Morphh ^(talk) 20:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the presentation of the block quote is overpowering, but that's a format question. TIME being what it is, that's a very strong way to lead the section on media reception. If anybody can work out how to make it into a side bar on the right, I would be happier with it. --TS 20:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Template:rquote   Will Beback  talk  20:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I moved it to a side quote. I'm still not sure if we should put this in a quote box, but it is better than it was. Morphh ^(talk) 20:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I think that works well on layout.

I also think the quote is good for setting a certain tone. It's easy for me to look at Beck and say "what the fuck?" but this positions him where he belongs--as part of a certain American tradition or strand in which populist commentators express extreme ideas in a way that many viewers, listeners or readers find palatable.

I'm not wedded to it, but I think it's the kind of tone one would look for. --TS 20:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I've been a bit bold and trimmed the quote. I think we should absolutely keep it (it's a good general setup of where he's coming from and his prominence, plus it's in a feature article in a major mainstream publication), but it was a bit long and the last two sentences which I removed are a bit much in my view for an encyclopedia article. If others disagree I'm not going to argue about it, but I think shorter quotes are more effective. Also moving the quotebox to the right is an improvement.

And believe me Tony, it's not just folks on your side of the pond who say "what the fuck?"  :-) --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I think I like your idea of trimming the last bit. I'm sorry if I gave the impression that my "what the fuck" was an expression of national incomprehension; many Americans, I know, find his show extraordinary. --TS 21:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Fine by me, just seemed a bit over the top being quoted on the top like that. Soxwon (talk) 21:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

No worries at all Tony, I was just employing a bit of light humor (I know, I know, humour!) there. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I won't object if it's removed on the grounds that it pays too much attention to one source. This is, I understand, a recent article, and in time its relevance could diminish. But if the block quote is removed there should still be a reasonably prominent reference to the story. It's TIME magazine, which is usually regarded as a big deal. --TS 22:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Tony on this. Personally I think Time is generally full of pabulum, but it's rather influential, and "making the cover of Time magazine" still carries a large amount of weight in the U.S. Whether or not he would admit it, it's undoubtedly a career highlight for Beck (and he has discussed it himself with Bill O'Reilly, generally downplaying it) and I think highlighting an apt quote from that story is quite appropriate. But there doesn't really seem to be a lot of resistance to the quote as it stands now that the presentation is less prominent so I think we're probably okay unless other objections are raised. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

There was a discussion on another Times quote that would fit in the prose. How is that not finished and something this size gets so much play. Is that even the best quote to pull form the article? This article is so broken.Cptnono (talk) 23:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The quote just got longer and worse. I porpose removing it all together and focusing on the prose and we can add cute stuffwhen the actual text is fixed.Cptnono (talk) 00:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Am I the only one who thinks this quote is too long and given too much prominence?Cptnono (talk) 03:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Based on the above discussion I think you're the only one with a major objection, at least that has weighed in here. If we are going to highlight a quote from a news story the Time article is a reasonable one to choose I think. As Tony Sidaway says above the relevance of this story can (indeed probably will) diminish over time so there's a good chance that quote box will be removed at some point, but personally I'm fine with it for now. If you have alternative suggestions as far as a quotation to use maybe just make them here. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I would say delete since an alternative is not neccasary. If I am the only one then that is that.Cptnono (talk) 22:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Religious commentator

Religious commentator?[51] What is that? Is he a preacher now? Father Beck... We need some sourcing on that, and that it's significant enough to put in the first sentence as one of his primary occupations. I've never heard him described as a religious commentator. Morphh ^(talk) 18:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll let Beck speak for himself. [52] Reliefappearance (talk) 18:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Reverted. An individual Mormon's fansite[53] is not even close to a reliable source for a BLP. L0b0t (talk) 18:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Re-added comment and added NYTimes source. Reliefappearance (talk) 18:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, Beck is an RS for himself. That site has videos of him preaching at events. The NYTimes article is op-ed but states clear facts that are not opinion. Easily WP:RS. Reliefappearance (talk) 18:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Your addition appears to be original research and certainly undue weight. Morphh ^(talk) 19:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

No its not. I came across the NYTimes article and felt it warranted inclusion. I knew Beck was a Mormon, but I did not know he goes around the country speaking specifically preaching about it. This warrants inclusion. No idea why it is UNDUE you will have to explain that one. Reliefappearance (talk) 19:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

For one, this is an opinion piece from the NY Times. You're putting it in the first sentence as fact and treating it like it's Beck's primary occupation (in line with TV Host). We have no idea how often he makes such public "preachings". WP:UNDUE states "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article." At this point, this is the opinion of one person, without several reliable third party sources reporting that Beck goes around the country preaching, it should be removed. If we do find additional reliable sources, then I would consider placing it in the "Personal life" section. Morphh ^(talk) 19:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, makes sense. Reliefappearance (talk) 19:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I removed my edit from the article. Clarification: consensus that there should be better sourcing for inclusion but not that current source is not a WP:RS. Consensus that including it in the WP:LEAD gives it WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. Reliefappearance (talk) 19:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I expect this is what you meant but I just wanted to clarify that I only find the NY Times source as reliable and not the fan site. Morphh ^(talk) 20:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I would say that the NYT cite is also not a RS for a BLP, it is an opinion piece that uses as its source the very same fansite (glenbeckmormon.com). L0b0t (talk) 20:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

When Beck's roadshow came through Salt Lake City a couple of years ago, he asked the LDS in the audience to stay after the main show, at which time he went into his conversion. (Here's the YouTube.) However, it might appear Beck doesn't go much out of his way to overtly proselytize non-LDS. However, Time magazine's mention of the subject of religion having been broached by Beck does give weight to there being some mention of this aspect in some fashion in the article, IMO.

A test I like to use is to replace the Mormon religious minority with the Orthodox Jewish one. OK, let's see. Who is a well-known convert to Orthodox Judaism? Kate Capshaw. OK, only as a "What if" scenario, of course, but say that when a one-woman show by Capshaw plays in North Miami Beach and in Brooklyn, New York, she ends her regular performance with an announcement to the audience that anyone who is Jewish is invited to remain for a bit while Capshaw talks about her conversion -- and this aspect of her public body of work becomes noted in Time magazine. Should this be mentioned in her bio on Wikipedia? And my own answer would be, If it is verifiable, why not? ↜Just M E here , now 03:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Time magazine is a much better source for such content. What does Time say about it? Morphh ^(talk) 12:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Wrote what I did prtty late last night and apparently got Time mag confused w/ somewherez else(?) ↜Just M E here , now 15:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

He isn't a religous commentator. The article clearly states that he is a Mormon so adding more just because isn't needed. He talks about it sometimes but putting him at the level of Grahm shows a lack of common sense. For it to be included there really should be a higher percentage of reliable sources labeling him as such. If a higher percentage of the available coverage does go into that detail I'll retract my opposition to its inclusion.Cptnono (talk) 03:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• The editor of the Ogden, Utah, Standard-Examiner's OpEd page recently reviewed (commented/blogged about) the video of Beck's 2007 Salt Lake City Mormon "fireside" (in the LDS vernacular) here. ↜Just M E here , now 17:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

That settles it then, right? A Mormon gets chatty with other Mormons in Utah.Cptnono (talk) 20:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)