Talk:Glenn Beck/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Intro synthesis?

The second sentence of the second paragraph begins "Depending on one's political persuasion...", which implicitly means that one's political views will dictate one's believe as to whether he is "principled and revelatory" or "erroneous and offensive". I know plenty of people on both sides of the political spectrum who believe beck is erroneous and offensive (though I only know one extreme that believes he is "principled and revelatory"); I don't think the sentence in its current form is accurate or correct. Why not drop the leading introduction to that sentence? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, he's a blithering idiot and a disgrace to conservatism. Soxwon (talk) 03:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Speaking as an independent, his views are much more principled than ambiguous political labels allow. He has repeatedly stated he acts on principles and not 'us' vs. 'them'ism, which is what the term 'conservative' implies. He may share certain traits that are correlated with political philosophy x but it simply does not follow he is a political philosophy x'er'. To rely on the political spectrum adherents to judge whether he's 'erroneous and offensive' is to allow your political views to dictate whether you believe he is 'principled or revelatory' -- a contradiction. It's irrelevant if you know 'only one' who believes Glenn Beck is 'principled and revelatory'. That's politics and has no basis in objective reality. So, yes, your post demonstrates political views ultimately dictate whether someone is 'principled and revelatory'. The edit itself was erroneous and offensive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.105.184.93 (talk) 14:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The statement was both correct and incorrect. Political persuasion may effect one's views, but at the same time someone's views may have been effected by something completely different. We should not pretend to know if someone is persuaded by politics or not, especially considering there are no reliable sources to say one way or the other. Akerans (talk) 14:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the author included the major elements of Mr. Beck and his controversy in the Intro, yet narrowed the focus of the article by implying one either agrees with Mr. Beck or disagrees with him based solely on politics. This shows problems with neutrality as it favors those who dismiss his detractors as "unfair" or "liberal" individuals. A neutral argument hears both sides and showing favor, implied or not, to those who dismiss detractors does not present both sides. A neutal statement might be "Mr. Beck presents one side of the political divide in this country." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.6.213.103 (talk) 15:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I note the introduction is changed and the statement "Depending on which end of the political spectrum..." is no longer in the article. This improves its neutrality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.97.13 (talk) 16:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Commentary abt Beck's religion (again)

Perhaps of use is this rant um, analysis about Beck and his Mormon faith by his co-religionist Robert Rees in June's, Salt Lake City-published Sunstone Magazine.

Snips: "I confess that my reaction to Beck may be influenced by the time Cleon Skousen was my teacher and the advisor to the BYU debate team[...]. I also briefly believed in the dark, conspiratorial world he and others painted [and..a]s did many Mormons back then, including Apostle Ezra Taft Benson[...]. ---- Beck seems unaware of or indifferent to the fact that some fellow Saints are liberal/progressives. Further, he seems insensitive to the fact that hundreds of thousands of Latter-day Saints live happily with the full blessings of Church membership in countries with socialist governments. --- [...C]ontrast Beck’s evidently friendly relationship with Romney to his attitude toward fellow Mormon and Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid. [...]" ---- Because of the Church’s past history of racism, its recent involvement in Proposition 8, its connection in the public mind with Mormon fundamentalists [edited: viz., polygamy], and its general conservatism, the moderate-to-liberal populace may see Beck as confirmation of what they are already convinced is Mormonism’s extremism. ---- Glenn Beck poses a challenge for the Church. Because its publishing company has produced a DVD describing Beck’s conversion, and because a significant number of Mormons follow his radio and television shows faithfully and identify closely with his political views, the Church may have difficulty distancing itself from so prominent and visible a figure. Beck is especially popular among Utah Mormons. He has been the speaker at Provo’s Stadium of Fire celebration and its Freedom Festival’s Annual Patriotic Service. He was the keynote speaker at the Mormon-associated George Wythe University gala in Salt Lake City in June 2009, and he will be appearing at his American Revival show in Salt Lake City on 17 July 2010 titled 'The End of America and Looking Back to the Founders as a Plan to Find a Way Out.' ---- [...]I would urge [Beck] to be more temperate in his expressions,[...]more attuned to political and social diversity[,...]more respectful of our leaders[...]in government,[...]to read more broadly[...including] Mormon writers such as Lowell Bennion, Eugene England, Terry Tempest Williams, Claudia Bushman, Levi Peterson, and Margaret Young."--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 19:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Btw, is this info in the article? (From Rees, above):

his website, GlennBeck.com, receives more than a million visitors a month. In a recent Harris Poll, Beck finished second only to Oprah Winfrey as America’s “favorite TV personality.”7 But Beck’s followers may be more politically engaged and influential than Winfrey’s. According to a December 2009 Gallup poll, Beck ranks just below Nelson Mandela and above Pope Benedict as the most admired person in the United States.8 In April 2010, Time listed Beck as one of the 100 “people who most affect our world.”

--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 19:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The Time's top 100 is mentioned but neither are the other two polls.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 03:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The audio of Rees's discussing Beck in an interview with Salt Lake City's NPR affilliate, Radio West, is here. (The interviewer notes that, this fall, religion scholar Rees will teach classes in Mormonism at the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley.) "Money" snips:

"There are (Mormon) people who find [Beck] almost like a populist prophet ready to lead us to the promised land; there are many other [Mormon]s who see him as not reflective of the best of Mormonism. ... I would hope that somebody perhaps including his local leaders might give him some counsel to be a little bit more reflective of the potential negative impact of what he's doing on the [Mormon] Church."---Robert A. Rees

Ironically, Beck's currently assigned presiding authority (Mormons have a lay priesthood) is David L. Buckner, who operates an executive training institute and is an adjunct professor of psychology and education at Columbia University Teachers College...yet who also works as an online-education program consultant for Beck. (See Beck University.)

Btw, note that the list of Mormon writers that Rees recommends above is of Mormons of various stripes of progressivism who are nearly universally are in academia--and of the "left"--whereas Ezra Taft Benson, Cleon Skousen, Orrin Hatch, and Utah's George Wythe University advocated/advocate certain criticisms of progressivism from various standpoints on the "right."--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 20:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

From the Salt Lake Tribune's July 30 piece "Young Progressives Join Mix at Sunstone" [i/e the annual Sunstone Symposium, Aug. 2010, Salt Lake City]:

"Several Glenn Beck critics and defenders will examine the talk-show host and Mormon convert's message and impact on the LDS faithful. 'It's bound to generate discussion,' [symposium chair Mary Ellen] Robertson says, and 'take the pulse' of Sunstoners on the political and religious issues Beck introduces."

--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 23:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

On March 24, 2009, Breitbart.com's Scott Baker made fun of anti-Mormon conspiracy theories about Beck in a bit of parody (it's at about 30:00 minutes in the audio of its webcast, here):

Baker: "I’m gonna show you something, though, that’s very disturbing that I just found and I just decided to make this a thing. This is a picture of Glenn Beck. And he is being welcomed, as you see by the sign, by [Tyler, Texas radio station] KTBB. [...] Now look at this. There are men in red shirts. Now look at the guys’ arm patch. It says B-E-C-K. Do you see what’s going on? He’s enslaving a giant Mormon race of young robots in Glenn Beck uniforms to do his bidding. That’s clearly what’s going on. How are we not frightened by this?"

--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 00:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

This very interesting material about individual Mormon beliefs. I don't see where it connects with the discussion of the article. If there are indications Mr. Beck is influenced by these individuals, then that might be part of the section that covers his beliefs.

Many people change religions out of a search for religious or spiritual meaning in life. The article did well in pointing this out in Mr. Becks life. It suggested he may have been attracted to a world-view that presents in the Mormon faith. I think that is sufficient for an article of this general nature. I don't see that the article misrepresented Mormon beliefs, but my knowledge of this subtopic is limited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.6.213.103 (talk) 15:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

oligarhy redirects to Glenn Beck without reference

The word oligarhy which I see from the googles is a misspelling Glenn Beck made on his on his Fox News show while contemplating a conspiracy theory. Wikipedia redirects oligarhy to this page but there is no reference to it on the page (or seemingly in any part of wikipedia).

The word was used in an online discussion in such a way as to make it obvious it was a reference and I was interested in finding out its origin. I would have liked to have seen some background on this page about it -- in fact, this seems the top of the article references "conspiracy theories" and "incendiary rhetoric" but provides no direct information on these subject, which this editor believes to be notable. Keith Gabryelski (talk) 10:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Try it now. --Threeafterthree (talk) 12:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

That is not sufficient, in my opinion. In fact, I believe it to be worse. oligarhy now redirects to oligarchy with-out explanation as to why. I believe there needs to be some explanation for the redirection because it is not obvious why there is a redirection to a misspelling (and the spelling is not a common misspelling).

I can see three ways to resolve this:

1. create a page for oligarhy

I don't see there being enough meat to the subject to warrant this

1. add an explanation to the Glenn Beck page

This seems to be the most obvious location.

1. add an explanation to the oligarchy page

This seems like a less obvious location —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keithgabryelski (talk • contribs) 13:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

IMO, you can't create a page for Oligarhy. It's just not WP:NOTABLE for a myriad of reasons. You can go over to the talk page for Glenn_Beck_(TV_program) and make a case to include it there, but to include in his biographical article doesn't make any sense especially considering the existence of the aforementioned article. Lastly, this is not the place to discuss inclusion on the Oligarchy article, the place for that is the Oligarchy talk page. Sandeylife (talk) 20:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Or just delete the redirect. Is anyone really using it?Cptnono (talk) 20:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 August 13

Agree with Sandeylife - it lacks notability and to Cptnono comment, I'd just delete it. Morphh ^(talk) 12:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Well Bridgeplayer really really wants to keep it (I think he just doesn't want t lose an argument) over at the deletion discussion so it might be staying.Cptnono (talk) 18:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a discussion that relates to Wikkipedia, but only tangentially to this article. How would and individual direct such concerns/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.97.13 (talk) 16:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Libertarian (again and again and again and again and again)

Beck has apologized for asserting that he was a libertarian. He has made it clear that he has libertarian leanings. However, this is a BLP and there is no reason whatsoever to apply a disputed label in the lead. Remove it as a label and simply clarify it somewhere else in the lead ("libertarian leanings or identifies with libertarian politics or whatever). "Conservative" is not disputed at all (to my knowledge) so that should stay.Cptnono (talk) 00:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

He specifically calls himself a "conservative libertarian." He did so in an interview on "Stossel." PokeHomsar (talk) 03:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

And he has specifically said he isn't a libertarian. Therefore we can't apply it as a label without explanation. Cptnono (talk) 04:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

There's a difference between "libertarian" and "conservative libertarian," something I'd personally call myself. He doesn't call himself a libertarian, he calls himself a conservative libertarian. God, it's like you can't read the "conservative" I put before "libertarian." PokeHomsar (talk) 04:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't be an asshole about it (No reason to be snide is a little less dickey). The words are not wikilinked together and since it can be misread it needs explanation. I'm just saying move it out of the first line so there is an explanation. Since it can cause confusion it needs to be fixed. This is a BLP and needs to be handled with extra care. You also have a different reasoning than other editors so there is obviously some confusion. Cptnono (talk) 05:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm neutral on how this should be phrased, but just for the record, it would be possible to link them as conservative libertarian... Fat&Happy (talk) 05:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

That could work. I still think it reads a little vague but it is a better with the wikilink for what PokeHomsar is saying. Also, we need a source to verify. I did some googling and the one recent thing I saw with Beck and Stossel did not say that. Thanks.Cptnono (talk) 06:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

So to sum up this topic. Glenn Beck has said he is not a libertarian, but has said he is a conservative libertarian. Seems pretty clear then what we should call him then: conservative libertarian.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 06:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Please see my comment right above yours.Cptnono (talk) 06:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Where are the RS's? BigK HeX (talk) 06:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I haven't found any RS's so far that describe his political position, but I have found: An attack site that refers to him as "Mr. Conservative libertarian" a place quoting Jon Stewart's attack on conservative libertarians in response to Beck calling himself one a place calling Beck a cross between conservatives and libertarians(link not allowed on Wikipedia, it as associated-content.com) a place describing Beck as a conservative/libertarian commentator Anyways, Beck he repeatedly stated he is a conservative libertarian, to state otherwise in the article would be misleading.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 06:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

We need the original source. Like the date it aired or anything so we can track it down. Also, it looks like Stewart and you both disagree with conservative libertarian and instead are saying conservative/libertarian. I know that sounds silly to be picky about but it causes confusion. We really need to verify the original source to see which one he was saying. Attack sites don't really help here.Cptnono (talk) 06:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

From what I gather, Stewart's blackboard sketch with the words "Conservative" and "Libertarian" refer to Beck's comment where he says "I am not a journalist. I'm a conservative -- I'm much more libertarian...." You assert that this label has been applied repeatedly, but to have it unsourced at this point would not be within policy. BigK HeX (talk) 06:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if this will help, but Politico staff writer Michael Calderone wrote herehere on August 3, "As a conservative libertarian, Beck routinely warns against government overreach." Beck is quoted here in a February 16, 2009 transcript of an interview by Patricia Sheridan of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette as saying, "I consider myself a libertarian. I'm a conservative, but every day that goes by I'm fighting for individual rights." How about saying something like "Beck has described himself as a conservative and as a libertarian, and has been described by others as a 'conservative libertarian'." (??) Then, of course, there's Jon Stewart's take on it, excerpted here and introduced by Keith Olberman, who describes it as a "tour de force" (or did he mean "farce"?). To go directly to Stewart's mock-Beck analysis of "Conservative Libertarian", skip to about 5m9s into the clip. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

He later apologized for saying he was a libertarian so Sheridan's piece is no good without the explanation (would be too much for the lead?). Your politico one might work. Can you link it though? (bad copy paste). Stewart's doesn't really give us context.Cptnono (talk) 08:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. It's at http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100803/cm_yblog_upshot/becks-holocaust-comments-prompt-fox-news-meeting. I've fixed the bad link above. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

That isn't bad. Anyone else think that is sufficient? I am still concerned that there could be confusion but the correct wikilink might be good enough.Cptnono (talk) 08:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Re Beck's "apology" for calling himself a libertarian, what he said was, "... and by the way, I apologize to all libertarians for calling myself a libertarian. ummm, y'know, I have uhm, I,I,I've always said in the past that I had libertarian leanings [stressed], “I'm a conservative with libertarian leanings [stressed]”. I have to tell you [pause] that those lean—I am al-most [stressed] [short pause] hor-i-zon-tal [stressed] I'm leaning so libertarian right now. I was, I was talking to somebody in my office this morning, and I said, [yelling] “PULL THE TROOPS OUT OF KOREA, PULL THEM OUT OF AFGHANISTAN, GET THEM OUT OF GERMANY, [yelling louder] I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF I WANT THEM ANYWHERE ELSE BUT TEXAS RIGHT NOW.” I am just, (another person says 'Arizona, California') Yeah, I, I, I'm just, I'm just, I, I'm goin' through a change here. Um. because I'm see—the more history that I read, the more I realize how right [stressed] the libertarians have been. ..." (listen http://www.dailypaul.com/node/107935 here). If that's the "apology" spoken of, that's not quite what is brought to mind by "Glenn Beck has apologized for calling himself a libertarian." Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

If you aren't familiar with the situation, it sparked a little bit of outrage that he called himself a libertarian so many were happy when he offered some clarification no matter how colorful it was. He had made some people pissed and offered something to make it better and praised them. There should be a few stories on te internet if you want to look it up. The simple facts are that he has called himself multiple things and has been described as multiple things. There is no reason to apply a disputed label in the first line when it can be easily explained one sentence away. So why are you arguing? Do you need it to say he is a libertarian in the first line? If so, why?Cptnono (talk) 09:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no doubt from any sources that he is conservative so why not say "an American conservative radio and television host, political commentator, author, and entrepreneur" and later say "he has described himself as a x". What is the need to apply a disputed label?Cptnono (talk) 09:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not arguing or, if I am, I'm not pushing a POV. On the talk page of another article far, far away I recently suggested some reading (see here). The reading list I suggested there would apply here as well (you're an experienced editor and are no doubt familiar with all of that -- others may not be). In particular, the second para of WP:LEDE says, in part, "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies." Is this a notable controversy? I dunno, but it certainly seems to be controversial among editors of this article, and some notable persons (e.g. Jon Stewart as mentioned and linked above, there's a snippet of Beck talking about himself and libertarianism in a Katie Courick interview here, etc.) seem to have weighed in on it or probed it. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Cptnono and BigK Hex here. We have plenty of reliable sources that describe him as conservative, so much that policies of WP:UNDUE apply in describing him otherwise. We also have plenty of statements where he has said he has "libertarian leanings" or is "becoming more and more libertarian every day". I agree with Cptnono that the best way to describe this is in a secondary sentence that clarifies his libertarian leanings. Even if we did have the direct source for "Conservative Libertarian" and it was the most accurate and truthful description, I'm not sure it would suffice for the primary description in the lead based its minority prominence in reliable sources. This also, at this point, does not merit rank as a controversy when looking at the whole of Beck's life. Morphh ^(talk) 12:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

If you want to call him a conservative then later say he has libertarian leanings then I suppose that's fine with me. Even though he has stated multiple times that he is a "conservative libertarian" and that that description of him doesn't appear to be at all disputed.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 21:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I followed some of the footnotes to the "Views" section of the article and found Mr. Beck does not draw clear distinctions between Libertarianism and Conservatism. He seems to go back and forth as to whether he is Libertarian or not and does not define what he means by this term.

The list of his beliefs do not illuminate this discussion any further. He believes in what could be described as a Conservative world-view without the nativistic quality so often accompnanying that point of view. In this sense he might agree somewhat with Ron Paul who does not find constitutional authority for the war in Iraq or Afghanistan. Mr. Paul describes his view as a Libertarian point of view.

Yet the Libertarian point of view of Ayn Rand might differ from this constitutional position. In her view the individual is supreme and the exertion of self will paramount. These beliefs contrast with Mr. Paul, and apparently Mr. Becks, position.

All this is great detail for a general article. This artile provides a link to the terms Conservative-Libertarian and Libertarian-Conservative and describes Mr. Becks views in the language he prefers. A bit more detail which describes his beliefs as, in his words, "evolving" might be helpful in showing them in a broader light.

I see no issue of neutrality in this section of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.97.13 (talk) 17:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The Overton Window

This book was a #1 NYT best seller, so why is that not indicated in the article whatsoever? From The Overton Window Wikipedia article:

On its first week on the New York Times Best Seller List, it reached the Number One position.

PokeHomsar (talk) 04:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks like it is already mentioned in the "Works" section. Assuming you have a source, add the NY Times bit to the "Authorship and publishing" section.Cptnono (talk) 04:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

In the interests of balance, why don't we also mention the book's serious critical reception? How about something like the Washington Post review:

"[the] success of Glenn Beck's novel, "The Overton Window," will be measured not by its literary value (none), or its contribution to the thriller genre (small), or the money it rakes in (considerable), but rather by the rebelliousness it incites among anti-government extremists. If the book is found tucked into the ammo boxes of self-proclaimed patriots and recited at "tea party" assemblies, then Beck will have achieved his goal." (Steven Levingston, Glenn Beck's paranoid thriller, "The Overton Window", The Washington Post, June 15, 2010)

//Blaxthos ( t / c ) 10:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and like partisan criticism is a good thing for this article. The WaPo is a known liberal publication. His book got terrible reviews in media, but it sold well. So, what does that mean? One side is wrong in the end. PokeHomsar (talk) 08:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Wait, what's balanced about leveraging actual facts with stated opinion? Blaxthos, that's not balance; that's a violation of NPOV, like every article you put your tentacles on. PokeHomsar (talk) 10:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Opinions about the book are covered in The Overton Window article. Morphh ^(talk) 19:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

1. To Morphh: critical reception and the ranking on a bestseller list are covered in the main article. However, if we're going to go asking why we're not mentioning the rank here (with the clear implication that the book was a hit), we should also mention how it was critically received as well.
2. To Pokehomsar: Is the personal attack really necessary? For one, the fact that you believe that "selling well" means "one side is wrong" only shows how simple you really are -- book sales to rabid fans doesn't mean someone was "wrong" (or right). Mao sold a hell of a lot of Little Red Books... by your logic, he must be really right! For two, I assert that the balance clause of WP:NPOV requires that we include the fact that book was widely panned by critics if we're going out of our way to say that it was a best-seller. Your simpleton statement that "sales = right" only illustrates the fact that you're trying to use it to present a biased perception. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Blax, you make personal attacks all the time. Must I remind you of all the times you've called Beck, Limbaugh, or their fans stupid in the past? I never said "right" but "popular," there's a huge difference. You put words in my mouth, once again, something you've become known for in my encounters with you. "Popular" doesn't mean right, that wasn't what I was getting at. "Wrong" in the sense I meant it was based in simple popularity. One side is wrong in what sells. I guess my terminology comes from the fact that I'm a businessman. I look at things for how much money can be made from them not such terms as "right" and "wrong" as that's very difficult to establish. I was saying how one side hated it (and the book reviews you've quoted were all done by newspapers which largely lean left,) while the other seemed to like it. It's all opinion in the end. I like Beck because he's an asshole when he needs to be instead of all the time like certain left and right wing pundits, like Michael Savage and Ed Schultz. That's why I read his books. He's also engaging and fun to watch, read, and listen to. That's why he's popular. What selected people think of him don't really matter in the long run because they're hen-pecked reviews. He's popular. He makes money for what he does. He's a commentator. Him being "right" is all a matter of opinion. I never argue people are "right" unless they actually are, but that would necessitate a deep discussion into economic policy, which I'm not gonna get into. PokeHomsar (talk) 23:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I would appreciate it if you'd get back to me on some examples of where I've "called Beck, Limbaugh, or their fans stupid." Please respond on my talk page with specific examples (this isn't the forum to do so), or strike your unfounded accusations here. Other than that, I'm not interested in your rationalizations and/or de facto wordsmithing. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Getting off topic Pokehomsar. I see no reason why it's rank and a short blurb from a notable critic or two cannot be included. Having a #1 NYT bestseller is important to one's life and mentioning it is necessary for completeness. Soxwon (talk) 00:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I can see how getting his book on the NYT bestseller list is notable to his biography, but I don't see how someone giving the book a review good or bad is notable to his biography. They're two different things. One is a single person's opinion of the book the other is a statistical fact and achievement. Including the rank is proper. Including someone's opinion on the book is not for this article unless it was part of some overall controversy separate from traditional reviews. Morphh ^(talk) 1:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Blax, 1) You think I'd remember the specific pages, most of which have probably been archived by now? 2) You know you've done it, and your denial is telling because you know I wouldn't be able to find anything from the times I saw it more than half a year ago. And 3) It was either you or Gamaliel that tried to get my account deleted, so pardon my French when I take a slightly negative tone when dealing with you. You were liberal enough to get a mention by a very popular conservative blog, so going after me for bias is a little bit of pot/kettle dialogue.

Soxwon, my point was that the placement was important, not Blaxthos blatant attempt to demonize Glenn Beck whenever he can with opinion whenever any conservative wants to point out a positive fact about him into the article. He somehow thinks a positive fact is balanced out by a negative opinion in his warped sense of NPOV. Coming from one of the guys who's responsible for the John Gibson page on Wikipedia being 75% negative, he's no one to talk about NPOV. PokeHomsar (talk) 02:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Do we have reviews of the other books already mentioned?Cptnono (talk) 07:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe so. I think the only things we state in this article are factual achievements, information about the book, and sometimes Beck's thoughts on the books, not book reviews by others. Book reviews are included on the article about the book. Morphh ^(talk) 13:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Morphh, that's exactly the policy we follow around here. Remind Blax, a more than casual editor than the rest of us. PokeHomsar (talk) 18:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

ACORN

The discussion of the ACORN scandal is a little incomplete at the end. It talks about the scandal and the loss of funding ACORN suffered, but it doesn't mention that they were cleared of all legal wrongdoing. In absence of that followup, the opposite would appear to be true, and a reader would assume ACORN was rightly outed for their illegal conduct.

From the ACORN article: On March 1, 2010, the district attorney for Brooklyn concluded that there was no criminal wrongdoing by the ACORN staff in the Brooklyn ACORN office. An investigation report by California Attorney General Jerry Brown released on April 1, 2010 found the videos from Los Angeles, San Diego, and San Bernardino to be "severely edited" and did not find evidence of criminal conduct on the part of ACORN employees, with the Attorney General stating "things are not always as partisan zealots portray them through highly selective editing of reality."

HonorKnight82 (talk) 06:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, I'm not suggesting that much detail or the opinions of any particular attourney be added to the article; the section in question is fairly small and should stay that way. A simple reference to their having been cleared of criminal conduct would clarify the point just as effectively.

HonorKnight82 (talk) 07:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Move to delete section due to irrelevancy:

I don't understand why there is even a section here. What is notable about him playing the tapes when nearly all conservative commentators played them?

Out of the three refs only two mention him.

CBS News writes:

Conservative talk radio, Fox News personalities like Glenn Beck, and right-leaning Web sites like the Drudge Report and the new Big Government aggressively promoted each video, the leaked of which over a series of days kept ACORN in the headlines.

And in a 4 page long rant/op-ed titled "Mad Man: Is Glenn Beck Bad for America?" a writer for the NY Times mentions the ACORN scandal in connection to Beck once:

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.

Neither really to make a convincing indication of the significance of Acorn to Beck, so their inclusion even in his shows article would be doubtful, but is definitely irrelevant in his bio.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 18:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The ACORN paragraph was added to support a statement about him being popular in 2009 for his controversies. But, that particular statement has since been edited/moved. So, I agree, the ACORN paragraph doesn't belong. Doesn't have enough notability to stand on its own. Akerans (talk) 22:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It is incredibly noteworthy and is discussed in detail in numerous sources. It was also discussed in detail here previously. Full-on removal is not appropriate. However, an additional line clarifying it is a fine idea.Cptnono (talk) 23:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't mean notable as in discussed in detail by numerous sources, rather notable as in "What roll did Glenn Beck play?" His roll in ACORN was showing video footage. I don't think that's historically significant. Akerans (talk) 00:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

But the sources link Beck and his criticism to the organization and its troubles. Weight may be an issue but some mention is more than appropriate as the sources have already done so.Cptnono (talk) 00:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Having read this, I see there's more significance on Beck's part. If Giles interviewed exclusively with Beck, it should be mentioned here as well to demonstrate Beck's importance in ACORN. Akerans (talk) 00:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Well if you'll think it's notable then go ahead and re-add it. Try and make sure you explain though what part he played within the paragraph and why he's notable to it, the previous version didn't really make that clear. Go ahead and restore then if you want something to work from.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 03:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Restoring Honor Rally portion

Resolved

• see Glenn Beck's "Restoring Honor" rally

Doesn't the Restoring Honor rally deserve a separate article, considering the magnitude of the event? Jzxpertguitarist (talk) 21:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

You mean the magnitude of the event that no one can predict?Wikiposter0123 (talk) 22:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The rally is not speculation, it's a scheduled event that numerous media outlets confirm, so I don't think it necessarily conflicts with WP:CRYSTAL. The National Park Service is prepared for as many as 300,000. That's not enough rationale for a new article, but it at least shows the significance of the event. It will definitely need a separate article after it happens; the question is just whether it needs one now. BS24 (talk) 18:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

You're right, but what I meant was that we can't predict how notable it will be yet because we don't know what will happen or how many people will show up. The info on the National Park Service is good, but I think it would be better to hold off until the event has actually taken place before creating it's own article.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 18:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, should wait until tomorrow. I hope theres going to be someone from wiki taking a few photos they will upload. If the turnout is anywhere near what is expected a full article should be justified. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's a good article we could use as a source. It includes this interesting tidbit: At the GW Deli, a popular sandwich shop, an employee said that two rally participants threw sandwiches in his face and refused to pay because they didn't agree with a tax on the food. [1] Reveals a lot about the attitude of some of the demonstrators. Stonemason89 (talk) 16:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually it reveals the attitude on food taxes of those 2 people. Sandeylife (talk) 16:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Glenn Beck himself has cited "God" saying there is many more than 500,000 people in attendance. Sandeylife (talk) 16:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is your source. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/41548.html Sandeylife (talk) 17:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

So he said ""and if that's coming from the media, God only knows." Here was me thinking you meant hed said God told him 500,000 were there. lol BritishWatcher (talk) 17:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality of ADD, Substance abuse

• I question the neutrality of this article. The article mentions Mr. Beck struggling with substance abuse and attention deficit disorder in two places. In each instance it gives the unduely favorable impression Mr. Beck had attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, but no longer has it. This not medically possible.
• The first instance, "Along the way, Beck struggled with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and substance abuse, and went through recovery in the mid 1990s."

Conflates substance abuse with attention deficit disorder which is inaccurate. It also implies Mr. Beck went through recovery from attention deficit disorder when it is usually treated in a maintainence manner through the use of medications.

• The second reference again refers to Mr. Becks substance abuse problem and concludes he was "diagnosed with Attention Deficit Disorder". The article contains no further discussion of the diagnosis "Attention Deficit Disorder", leaving the initial impression in tact.
• Although Wikkipedia provides a link to discussion of this disorder, it omits any discussion in the article proper. This fails to dislodge the initial impression it provides about this disorder, that it is a disorder one can recover from by going to AA. This ommission gives an inaccurate impression of this disorder and is not neutral on the subtopic of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.
• In a broader sense, it also skews the impression one gets about Mr. Beck. It implies he went to AA and stopped drinking and no longer has attention deficit disorder. We can take Mr. Becks statements that he stopped drinking and using drugs through AA. We cannot accept the statement, regardless of who makes it, his attention deficit hyperactivity disorder no longer exists because he went to AA. It just doesn't happen that way.

Actually, it is common for people with attention deficit hyperactivity to "self medicate". While, recovery did not include recovery from attention deficit hyperactivity, it might have included the awareness of what he was doing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rob2234 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC) There is often a co-occurence of attention deficit disorder and families that are addicted to alcohol and or drugs. ADD occurs in families where there is no alcohol or drug addiction, so it is not accurate to say addiction causes ADD. There is significant information showing addiction is far more common in individuals with addicted parents than with individuals who are not addicted. Suggesting one drinks or uses drugs to medicate ADD shows a misunderstanding of the dynamics of these, perhaps, interacting conditions.

The article mentions Mr. Becks mother was alcoholic. It is likely his substance use problem derived from a genetic vulnerability to abuse and addiction. It is unlikely it developed from using alcohol and drugs to "treat" ADD.

• Under idealogical influences, it should be included that Beck believes that he receives messages directly from God. In fact, God is having him author a plan/book at this time. He also recently expressed hope that he would listen to God's message as he was speaking at his rally. The Glenn/God distinction is becoming unclear. I am not sure if I should believe that I am listening to Glenn or God or if Glenn is now actually God? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rob2234 (talk • contribs) 05:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I was unaware Mr. Beck believes he receives messages from God. If this is the case, it should be included in the article to give the reader a broader view of Mr. Beck. That discussion should include whether Mr. Beck is referring to the act of prayer, or if he thinks he is a "special" receiver of God's wishes. That would aid the neutrality of the article.

As to the confusion whether, in Mr. Becks mind, we are listening to him or listening to God, that is a subjective response. Typically subjective responses are difficult to state in a neutral sense. I would disagree with adding a comment on this confusion. Rather, it should be substaniated in terms of Mr. Becks beliefs and left to the reader to interprete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.6.213.103 (talk) 14:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Rob, stop peddling the crap. One, that God thing is total BS. Two, that ADD thing for any rational person with any grammatical sense is not wrong or misleading. PokeHomsar (talk) 15:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

"total BS" is right. Glenn doesn't call himself a special reciever of God's messages. Also: "In each instance it gives the unduely favorable impression Mr. Beck had attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, but no longer has it. This not medically possible." ADD typically goes away later in life. No one thinks he went to AA and got treated for ADD. That makes no sense and the reader understand what is being referred to.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 20:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I've treated individuals with addiction and ADD for twenty years. I have never known ADD to "go away later in life". I am also reasonably familar with the literature on this disorder and know no legitimate researcher or clinician who makes this claim.

This disorder, when serious enough to be brought to a physician or psychiatrist, is often treated with medications. There are some coping skills an individual with this disorder can learn to compensate for its effects. A supportive family environment is helpful. This is a disorder that unfortunately we do not have a cure.

I have no knowledge whether Mr. Beck makes the claim he is a special reciever of messages from God. Those who regularly pray feel they recieve something for their prayers, be it relief from suffering, strength to face trials, or a better understanding of their troubles. I wrote my comment with respect for these individuals.

There are also others with psychiatric conditions who believe they recieve special messages from God. I have a similar experience working with these individuals and responded open to the possibility Mr. Beck experiences messages from God that are different from those who pray.

I have no knowledge regarding Mr. Beck on this subtopic of recieving messages from God. I make no claims about the assertion made by Rob. For Mr. Becks sake I hope the only experience he has with God is like what others experience when they pray. Certainly Rob should present some documentation of his claims or not make them.

I maintain the article does show a favorable bias toward Mr. Beck in the statement I quoted. Many people do not understand ADD. The comments I've recieved on this forum are typical of general misunderstandings about this disorder.

In the context ADD was presented in the article, a clear interpretation that he was somehow "cured" of his ADD by going to AA follows logically, if not accurately. This shows a perhaps unintended favorable bias toward Mr. Beck as it omits the likelihood that he still has ADD if he had it before in his life. I still question the neutrality of the article on these grounds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.6.213.103 (talk) 03:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

In reviewing the article this morning, I see the sentence I quoted is now deleted. This improves the neutrality of the article. I will temporarily suspend this concern about neutrality until I have time to re-read the ammended article closely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.6.213.103 (talk) 12:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I followed the footnotes attached to the statement Mr. Beck has been diagnosed with ADD. I found Mr. Beck is open with having this disorder and was recently taking medication This could have been part of the "recovery" story in this article, yet is ommitted.

Although strictly speaking this is no longer a neutrality issue, this information could give a broader perspective on Mr. Beck and strenghten the article. This information does explain why his presentation is often disorganized and his disorganization is worse when he speaks extemporaneously. Many who have ADD struggle with taking medications as Mr. Beck did and admits to doing. It would be helpful to others who have this disorder if this aspect of his life were presented a bit more in this article.

I now drop my question of neutrality on this issue in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.97.13 (talk) 15:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

LOL -- sponsors

It's obvious enough that someone wishes readers to know who's still sponsoring Beck (so they can write their objections to these companies, well-linked in the article). This is one of the funniest lacks of impartiality I've ever seen on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.78.97.94 (talk) 12:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Does it say anywhere that that's why they're mentioned, or could it be that we're an encyclopedia and that's information relevant to those who wish to know about Glenn Beck? Could it be that you've got a bias against Wikipedia that makes you read in such ideas? Ian.thomson (talk) 14:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

"Beck's controversial views have potentially hurt his earning potential, however; despite millions of viewers, more than 200 companies have joined a boycott of Beck's television program, making it difficult for Fox to sell ads." - I don't see how this statement is being supported by the source. It reads as an opinion piece. I tried other ways of sourcing that "200 companies have joined a boycott" but could find no other sources. I did find a list of 11 companies confirmed to be boycotting Beck, but 11 is not nearly 200. I would ask that this sentence be removed since it is not verifiable. PRONIZ (talk) 16:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It says right in the Washington Post article (the source): "More than 200 companies have joined a boycott of Beck's program, making it difficult for Fox to sell ads. The time has instead been sold to smaller firms offering such products as Kaopectate, Carbonite, 1-800-PetMeds and Goldline International. A handful of advertisers, such as Apple, have abandoned Fox altogether. Network executives say they believe they could charge higher rates if the host were more widely acceptable to advertisers." It's sourced. The Washington Post meets WP:RS, so it's as verified as it needs to be. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The post article doesn't classify itself as an opinion piece. So, we shouldn't conclude they are making up numbers, and that the claim is incorrect. If you can provide a reliable source that contradicts The Washington Post's number, then that would help improve the articles accuracy. Akerans (talk) 17:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "The Washington Post meets WP:RS" means, since WP:RS states "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article is something that must be assessed on a case by case basis." From August 5, 2010 http://www.politico.com/blogs/onmedia/0810/Murdoch_Beck_boycott_didnt_affect_earnings.html Proposed sentence - "Beck's controversial views could potentially hurt his earning potential, however Rupert Murdoch has stated that loosing some advertisers has not affected the total revenues or profits of the Fox Broadcasting Company." PRONIZ (talk) 18:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Beck's earning potential and the earnings of Fox Broadcasting Company are two separate issues. We shouldn't imply that because the Company turned a profit, that Beck's show didn't potentially lose money. Akerans (talk) 19:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The statement said that the boycott of 200 made it difficult for Fox to sell ads. PRONIZ (talk) 19:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, Murdoch didn't say that Fox turned a profit, he said specifically that losing Beck advertisers did not affect the total revenues or profits. PRONIZ (talk) 19:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, 'difficulty selling ads' and 'profits being affected' are two different things. "Profits haven't been affected by not being able to sell adspace to companies like larger companies" doesn't contradict "200 large companies, like Apple, have said they won't buy ads, making it kinda hard to sell adspace." Ian.thomson (talk) 19:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The statement in the article is referring to Fox selling ads on Beck's program, not Fox selling ads on Fox. And Murdoch has responded that the boycott of Beck has not hurt selling ads on Fox. The post and Murdoch are talking about two different things. Akerans (talk) 19:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

They are talking about the same thing. Murdoch was asked about the Beck boycott affecting revenue and he clearly states that it did not change. The statement from the Post implies that Fox is having trouble selling advertising because of the boycott of 200 companies. It is the same issue. PRONIZ (talk) 19:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Difficulty acquiring something, and the end result of the acquisition are the same thing. It is more difficult for me to acquire $20 cash by begging on the street than it is for me to just withdraw it from the bank. At the end of the day, I'd still have $20 cash, but that doesn't change the fact that begging for it would be more difficult for me than just withdrawing it. The end result is the same, but the difficulty in coming to that same end result is different. You're confusing two separate issues. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Clearly, whether something is "more difficult" or not is a matter of opinion. Opinion clearly does not belong on a biography page. This issue results from a direct quote from the Post. This quote needs to be examined, as explained in RS on a case-by-case basis. I searched for a backup quote since 200 seemed to be arbitrary. I could not back it up, in fact, Murdoch is clearly stating that the boycott has not affected revenue or profit. Was it more difficult to sell advertising for fox? -shrug- I don't know -shrug- Neither do you. Depends on perspective.PRONIZ (talk) 19:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Difficulty is a matter of opinion? Are you insane? It's difficult to push over a bus, it's difficult to get from New York to California by walking, it's difficult to get to the moon, those are not opinions, those are facts. It is more difficult to sell ad space if large companies like Apple are going to boycott the network. It's high-school economics, if people don't want to buy something from you, you're gonna have a harder time selling. WP:RS says that news media is generally considered reliable, and you have not found anything that actually contradicts the Washington Post source. It is not biographical information, it is about the actions of companies, which does not go under the biographies of living persons guidelines. Murdoch does not deny that the boycott is happening at all, he actually affirms that it happening. You're just twisting things about to hide the boycott. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Some things are obviously difficult for human beings to do, but difficulty is clearly based on perspective and opinion. Some find algebra difficult, some don't. Here http://gawker.com/5339254/the-glenn-beck-ad-boycott-list is a list of a dozen or so companies boycotting Beck. That is clearly not 200. I don't have any incentive to hide any boycott since I mention it in my edit. The 200 number is clearly arbitrary and does not meet the standard for verifiability as given in RS. PRONIZ (talk) 20:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

You don't have any sources actually countering the figure of 200. The Washington Post has fact checkers, they are considered a reliable source unless and until other reliable sources contradict them (which has not yet occured). The Wash. Post article does meet the standards for verifiability. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Glenn Beck Article Neutrality Questioned

I believe the main Glenn Beck article (EN) is aggressively controlled by impartial, pro-Beck editors. I have posted a new discussion on the Neutrality board.

Jwilbiz (talk) 20:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)Jwilbiz

It would be appreciated if you did not accuse editors of doing anything malicious. And sign your comments with four tildes. How about you propose some specific changes instead of assuming the worst.Cptnono (talk) 04:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Jwilbiz, language like "aggressively controlled" is not helpful. Furthermore, (presently) the article is not a whitewash, and includes both praise and criticism (hopefully) in relation to its coverage in the media per WP:Undue. There is room in the article for both perspectives to be heard and by assuming bad faith you are not helping in that regard - please read WP:AGF. Moreover, without specifics your critique just begins to look like WP:Idontlikeit.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 15:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Jwilbiz, are they impartial, or are they pro-Beck? You contradict yourself. faithless (^speak) 06:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Eesjams, 31 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Line 9 may have a factual error. It states that Beck's first wife was diagnosed with cerebral palsy. Later, the article states that Beck's daughter developed cerebral palsy due to "a series of strokes at birth". Either the mother has been confused with the daughter or both mother and daughter have the condition. Eesjams (talk) 07:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Eesjams (talk) 07:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

If you can find the answer, please say so since the template is not supposed to be used to start discussions but add info after the solution is found. I'll look into it to see if we can find an answer but if you can find verify it would be sweet.Cptnono (talk) 07:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Not done for now: until the answer is found per above message. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 09:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from BrucieA, 31 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Mr. Beck has been described as follows in the "Adulthood" section:

The class was called "Early Christology" and it marked the extent of his secondary eduation.

There are two things here which need to be fixed:

1) "education" is misspelled. 2) It should read "...marked the extent of his post secondary..."

Thanks for your attention to this vital matter!

BrucieA (talk) 14:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done Changed thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 14:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Friend . . . ?

He seems to be friends with Penn Jillette. Maybe someone should put something in there . . . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.125.110 (talk) 18:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there something notable about their friendship? If not, I would leave it out.--Threeafterthree (talk) 03:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Transcript

One is needed or at least pointed to. Could not find one in a quick look and this is a blp.

Glenn Beck's speech at the Restoring Honor rally was permeated with the theme that Americans of all religions should turn to their faith in God, therefore "turning our face back to the values and principles that made us great." Praise was given to President George Washington, President Abraham Lincoln, and Dr. Martin Luther King. There was also generous praise given to Americas's war veterans.

Cptnono (talk) 03:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

A transcript is good for referencing quotes, but there seems to be some analysis there. Akerans (talk) 03:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I sourced the infor in the paragraph.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 07:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Beck took a bath?

The article uses AA cult language when it states "After getting clean" Beck presumable bathes each day, and is therefore as clearn as the rest of us. We should not use AA terminology in an article. "Getting clean" is an idiotic concecpt promoted by 12 step cults. it is also religious in context. first you are a dirty sinner, then you become "clean" after your conversion. Can we instead just say "After he quit abusing alcohol..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 15:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Although, you could have brought this to our attention without attacking AA. Akerans (talk) 16:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 21:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

This article from FoxNews.com states "...until [Glenn Beck] decided to clean up his life 15 years ago..." So I would submit to 99.38.208.30 that this language is not exclusive to AA. I don't suggest the article should be changed back, but the wording previously in the article was most likely not intended to invoke religious meaning. BigNate37_(T) 08:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Newsweek quote under 9/12 Tea party subheading

This is concerning the Newsweek quote concerning Glenn Beck and the Tea Party Movement. I understand that Newsweek is considered by some to be a "reliable source". In fact, I usually would as well. However, just take a look at the quote:

"Tea partiers are driven by the belief that the America that elected Barack Obama isn't their America, and Beck comforts them by telling them they're right: that the America they love, the America they now feel so distant from, the America of faith and the Founders and some sort of idyllic Leave It to Beaver past, is still there, waiting to be awakened from Obama's evil spell. And he flatters them by saying that the coastal elites are too stupid or too lazy to figure out what's really going on; only his loyal viewers are perceptive enough to see the truth and, ultimately, to save the nation."

First of all, this author BEGINS by somehow reporting what is in the minds of members of the tea party. The author states as if he has a perfect knowledge of what drives tea partiers. Then he continues by somehow knowing that their motivation is by flattery? How does the author gain this insight into the minds of Tea Partiers?

Then the author speaks of Tea Partiers wanting to go back to "some sort of idyllic Leave It to Beaver past" and being against people under "Obama's Evil spell". Has any prominent Tea Partier used these phrases?

The Newsweek quote states "he flatters them by saying that the coastal elites are too stupid or too lazy to figure out what's really going on." I would like to know where Glenn Beck said they were stupid/lazy.

Also, just look at the other factual information above and below the Newsweek quote. This quote doesn't fit there. It throws the information under the heading of Glenn Beck and the Tea Party movement out of balance. Each subheading should have balance as well as the overall article. Smpf38 (talk) 03:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Smpf38, I won't get into how balanced the article is, but your arguments are rather weak. First of all, Newsweek is, in fact, a legitimate source, regardless of whether you agree with any opinion stated in a Newsweek article. Secondly, you apparently fail to understand metaphorical writing (commonly used, especially in opinion pieces). Everything in the quotation is not meant to be taken literally. The references to "Leave It to Beaver" and "Obama's Evil spell" do not suggest that any Tea Partier literally used those phrases; the phrases refer to the writer's interpretation of the sentiment expressed by Tea Partiers' points of view. If I yearn for a return to a time in America's past characterized by the values of several decades ago, someone might appropriately describe my sentiments as favoring a "Leave It to Beaver past", and that doesn't mean that I have ever used the phrase "Leave It to Beaver past". Similarly, references to "coastal elites ... too stupid or too lazy" were not meant to literally mean Beck used those specific words; instead it describes the author's interpretation of Beck's points of view. Let me restate that I'm not arguing agreement or disagreement with what the author writes; I'm simply clarifying your literal misinterpretation of what the author wrote. Cresix (talk) 03:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Smpf38, there are several issues of note. (a) You have already gone 4RR with removing the quote and been reverted by 3 separate users, so it is nice to see you using the TP rather than edit warring. (b) You seem to have a misunderstanding of WP:NPOV policy. Wiki policy is in relation to us as editors inserting our own editorial pov, not with regards to referencing the stated pov of reliable sources. In that regard our concern is rather WP:Undue. You have yet to show how this Newsweek quote violates undue, in fact, it is fairly tame with regards to the amount of negative information out there with regards to Beck and the Tea Party. (c) You dissecting the Newsweek author is WP:OR and irrelevant. It doesn't matter what you think of the writing style. (d) You are more than welcome to find a statement by a reliable source which counters this one for inclusion as well, or if you can find a reliable source that calls this specific quote into question then we can discuss the matter under that rationale.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 06:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:NEWSBLOG says, "Where a news organization publishes an opinion piece, the writer should be attributed". the piece wasn't attributed by Newsweek to an individual author. This edit, which added the quoted snippet back in April, said "Newsweek magazine opined". the article now says, "Newsweek magazine opined". The article is reporting the fact that Newsweek offered their opinion as quoted. If there's an issue here (and there may be), it's related to WP:DUE. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I would agree that this poses an issue for UNDUE. Why should the opinion of Andrew Romano of Newsweek, that has all the flaws mentioned by Smpf38, be elevated above a more conservative quote that discusses the event. It violates WP:QUOTE, WP:UNDUE, and WP:BLP. From WP:QUOTE - When not to use quotations: "Where a quotation presents rhetorical language in place of more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias, it can be a backdoor method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia's narrative on the subject, and should be avoided." Since this is an opinion and point of view regarding the event, it must also follow the rules of WP:UNDUE, which it does not since it inserts the opinion of a single person and does so without POV balance or weight basis in other reliable sources. Since it presents an opinion to Glenn Beck, it must also follow WP:BLP - being criticism, it must also be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone, which this fails to do. Morphh ^(talk) 11:27, 07 September 2010 (UTC)

Incendiary

In the lead, the word incendiary is attributed to Beck via critics, but in this Financial Times piece, Beck is described as incendiary: "But on Saturday, exactly 47 years after Mr King gave his legendary 'I have a dream' speech from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington DC, the incendiary Fox News host and the former Alaska governor will host a rally there aimed at 'restoring honour' to America." It appears incendiary is not applied to Beck only by defined critics. -Shootbamboo (talk) 04:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

How do you know it is not an undefined critc? How extensive is a bio on critics to see what their agendas are?

71.117.126.190 (talk) 17:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Frank Saunders

Arguing With Idiots

I find it interesting that the description of the book, "Arguing With Idiots is exactly what the book is talking about (which you really do not describe accurately. Yes, I read the book.) Idiots use words like "diatribe" or resort to name calling and rely on opinionated descriptions. The book is about typical Left vs Right arguments. It shows the logic and illogic of the arguments. This may seem like a "diatribe" to an illogical Leftist because it is written from a Right perspective. It shows how Conservatism is constantly mischaracterized.

Later in your Van Jones section you describe the situation without even using the actual quotes from Van Jones that caused the whole incident. What is that about?

71.117.126.190 (talk) 17:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Frank Saunders

Interesting quote

For editorial consideration:

On the one side are those Americans for whom nothing can be more sacred than honor, patriotism, and God, and who get goose-bumps at the very mention of these words. On the other side are those who instinctively cringe at what they regard as the shameless display of such manipulative emotionalism. Similarly, to his admirers, Glenn Beck has been a voice crying in the wilderness, a prophet who warns us that we have been wandering in darkness too long. To detractors, he is a clown and a buffoon, at best, a dangerous demagogue, at worst.----Lee Harris in the Weekly Standard

----Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 16:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

This quote seems fair and worthy of inclusion in my view.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 21:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Restoring Honor Rally and "hypocrisy"

I am posting this here as well as in the Restoring Honor Rally article because the section is identical in both articles.

The following sentence from this has one big problem, emphasis mine.

Beck received criticism from some civil rights leaders, social justice advocates and media personalities, for both holding the event at the Lincoln Memorial, the location of Martin Luther King Jr.'s historic "I Have A Dream" speech on its 47th anniversary, and for what they contend was the hypocrisy of Beck's theme with regards to his previous behavior.[59][60]

The problem is that there is no "they" for the supposed hypocrisy of Beck. On person called Beck a hypocrite, but for what is not exactly clear. A DC councilman Harry "Tommy" Thomas Jr. says this.

"This has been purposefully done — it is hypocrisy at its highest degree," he argues, calling it "just another tactic of divisive behavior to keep people apart."

The summary claims "previous behavior" without giving any clue as to what this supposed previous behavior is, and the only source which mentioned it isn't clear either. He is calling Beck a hypocrite for trying to be divisive normally, but trying to bring people together here, but that would imply that Beck is always trying to be divisive, which is clearly not the case. Regardless it is the opinion of one, undue weight for summary, and doesn't add any additional information. Additionally, this isn't discussed in the body of the primary article and per WP:SUMMARY does not belong in the summary under that reason alone. That section of the sentence should be removed for those reasons. Arzel (talk) 04:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Arzel, I would strongly disagree. Nearly every civil rights based pre-event criticism towards Beck in the Restoring Honor rally was based on the supposed "hypocrisy" of him holding such an event on MLK's speech day. That was essentially why him holding the event on MLK's speech anniversary was seen as offensive to the various civil rights leaders. Yes Councilman Thomas literally mentions "hypocrisy" by name, but almost all the others clearly imply it with their comments. Rev Veazey claimed that Beck had previously been "trying to divide people" and thus it was a hijacking of MLK's legacy. Civil rights leader Eleanor Holmes Norton stated that Beck's "all white march ... cannot possibly appeal across racial lines because of how he has modeled himself on radio and television" (once again the hypocrisy of his past behavior). Rev Wallis noted that MLK was "clearly a Social Justice Christian" and noted the hypocrisy of Beck having called out such people. While biographer Alexander Zaitchik rejected Beck's embrace of the civil rights mantle, remarking: "This is the guy who has a whole history, going back in Top 40 radio, of using racist jokes, racist humor, making fun of police brutality, and with a very deep hatred for black social justice activists. Beck stood by his claim that Obama is a racist and has frequently referred to the president's initiatives – including health care – as reparations" --- (once again he is pointing to the hypocrisy of Beck's past actions). This seems pretty clear, what part about this is in dispute for you?   Redthoreau -- (talk) 06:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I think what Arzel was trying to get at is the interpretation may be original research. Hypocrisy is a strong word suggesting Beck did something contradictory to his belief. We have to interpret all these statements as intending hypocrisy, which may or may not be accurate. Some statements seem like strawmen, such as, Beck clearly does not believe MLK was a social justice christian - that's the view of Rev Wallis. So how can Beck be a hypocrite for something Rev Wallis believes? Beck states he wasn't even aware of the date's significance until after it was booked. So we have some NPOV issues to work out as well, if we include it. The statement wouldn't be an issue if we had direct secondary sources stating that all these civil rights leaders called Beck a hypocrite. Morphh ^(talk) 12:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

As in other discussions, we should be evaluating this in terms of relevance and sourcing, not trying to evaluate the validity or content of the criticism. If the concern is that only one or some critics have used the word "hypocrite", I think that can be handled with a little bit of wordsmithing... However, I think that is jumping the gun a bit. Here's some additional sourcing:

1. Salt Lake Tribune (Beck’s duplicity)
2. TIME Magazine (Glenn Beck: Telecharlatan)
3. CBS News (Glenn Beck Rally "Blatantly Political," Says Top Democrat)

Those are just the first three results that directly call out Beck as a "hypocrite". If you read the "other 608" articles (according to google), the hypocritical theme runs through nearly all of the critical pieces (of which there are many). We can certainly choose our wording carefully to avoid synthesis, but to pretend that there is little criticism regarding perceived hypocrisy is unacceptable -- there is clearly a volume of criticism, even if they don't all use the same words (and it's not original research to surmise wording that captures the overall theme of all the sources). Besides, if we expand the scope to include Beck's lie about "holding Washington's inaugural address in [his] hands" we'll have more than enough sourcing for his hypocrisy.  :) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't suppose you bothered to read any of these? You might want to retract your first sentence.

1. Letter to the editor, not sure when letters to the editor became reliable sources.
2. Klein didn't call him a hypocrite, although I guess you could alude that he implied it by inserting a scripture quote that had that word. But that is hardly the same thing.
3. Must be in the comment section, because it is not in the text of the article.

Assuming the rest of your 608 links are of similar content I'll thank you for proving my point.  :) Arzel (talk) 20:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Arzel is correct; the first source above is a letter to the editor -- I mistook it as from the editorial board; my apologies. As to the other two... Arzel, you seem focused on the word "hypocrite", instead of the meaning. Would a rose by any other name smell as sweet? From the TIME piece: "The noisy proclamation of religiosity is usually a sign of the exact opposite." From the CBS piece: "Chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, today panned Glenn Beck's "Restoring Honor" rally set for tomorrow and questioned the popular Fox News host's claim that the event is not political." Both of those statements are directly about hypocrisy.... this sounds like an argument of grammatical semantics masking as content -- is there any real doubt as to the thrust of the criticisms? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Arzel, you seem focused on the word "hypocrite", instead of the meaning. And there it is, Original Research. We don't synthesize the meaning of what someone else is trying to say. The sentece without that loaded term is already sufficient. Glenn Beck was criticized for holding the rally on the anniversary and location of MLK's speach. But piling on the additional wording is not only original research, but it doesn't add anything other than to try and load negative terms onto Beck. Furthermore it doesn't even make gramatical sense when tied to the sentence. What is the "Previous behavior"? The sentence doesn't say, the one source isn't clear, and the main article of the text doesn't talk about it at all. Arzel (talk) 23:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Arzel, to use an analogy: Let's say that an imaginary John was criticized for shooting Mark to death, stabbing Doug to death, and running over Bob who died (all on purpose). Then we as editors said "John was criticized for killing people" - that would not be WP:OR even though the word "killing" doesn't appear specifically. In this case "hypocrisy" does appear in the one source and is intimated in nearly every other source. Rather than providing all of the statements about Beck's past behavior, we are simply condensing them to say he was criticized for what they believed was his hypocrisy - note we as editors are not defining him as a hypocrite, only noting that others accused him of being one. I think you are misinterpretating the basis behind WP:OR in this instance. If you are actually insisting that we track down sources that literally use the word "hypocrisy", I'm willing to do that (as they undoubtedly exist) but I don't even think that such a matter should be in dispute.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 03:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Arguing semantics is never a winner in the land of Wikipedia. Let the sources say what the authors want to be said, and should have been said. †TE†Talk 03:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

@Redthoreau. In your hypothetical there is no symantic difference. If you stabbed someone to death you have killed them, you are stating a factual event. Here you editorializing what others are supposdly saying, there opinion. You say that "They" criticized Beck for the hypocrisy of his "Previous Behavior". Nowhere in the article do we talk about what this supposed previous behavior is. How can you make this a summary when you don't even talk about what is being summarized? So...you have to find sources that use the word "hypocrite" or "hypocrisy" that would satisfy the "They" in relation to the previous statement of the sentence (in order to remove the synthesis of material and you have to explain what the "Previous behavior" is in relation to this event within the body of the article all within due weight. Arzel (talk) 14:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I took a shot at rewording this to reduce WP:OR WP:SYN - using the wording from the source which is attributed to the opinion of these leaders. It now reads "Beck received criticism from some civil rights leaders, social justice advocates and media personalities, for holding the event at the Lincoln Memorial, the location of Martin Luther King Jr.'s historic "I Have A Dream" speech on its 47th anniversary, and the event theme, which African American leaders believe was distorting the legacy of the civil rights movement." Morphh ^(talk) 15:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Morphh, that line is suitable.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 19:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Seems a little wordy, but acceptable. Suggest the change be made accordingly to the Rally page as well. Arzel (talk) 02:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Skousen

Per Sarah Posner in the September 21, 2009 The American Prospect: "The conservative movement has long admired Skousen, and he has a long list of Republican and movement insider admirers."

But still, with regard to the word "influential" as a descriptor of Skousen...hmm, I don't know. Sure, influential doesn't necessarily imply that a lot of the public comes to agree with your activism; I think it can also mean someone that has been said to have had a lasting impact on a movement. Yet with regard to Skousen we get such MSM quotes as

this one from the April 17, 2010 NYT: "The books of W. Cleon Skousen, an anti-Communist snubbed by conservatives like William F. Buckley because of his extremism, are now promoted by Glenn Beck (a Tea Party favorite, according to the poll). The National Center for Constitutional Studies, which Mr. Skousen founded, says that it is on track to teach twice as many courses this year as it did last, many of them to Tea Party organizations."

When people keep emphasizing someone's being controversial, that makes a designator of influential more problematic. (Warning. Ramble ahead.) But, during the same era as Buckley and the John Birchers had their falling out on the right, there were lefties such as Bernardine Dohrn, say...or Angela Davis that probably Hubert Humphrey wouldn't have broken political bread with, either. But being controversial doesn't negate the possibility of being influential. Dohrn has had a certain amount of influence over the years, since her guerilla days. And, maybe she is influential, per some sources. Heck, Buckley himself was controversial but, indisputably, influential.

Turning to that occasionally reliable source, Wikipedia, we learn that at the inception of the Reagan Revolution, i.e., at the beginning of the eighties, Skousen became a charter member of the Council for National Policy along with the founder of the Moral Majority, etc.--an organization that the NYT described as a "little-known group of a few hundred of the most powerful conservatives in the country." An interesting side-note is that the MM originally envisioned itself including Mormon Church members within its ranks but insurmountable theological tensions ensued and they thought better of it. [Edited: Oops. I think that was the "CC"--the Christian Coalition--I was thinking of there.])

Wikipedia: "CNP was founded in 1981 by Tim LaHaye, author of the Left Behind series of books. Other early participants included Cleon Skousen, a prominent theologian and law enforcement expert; Paul Weyrich; Phyllis Schlafly; Robert Grant; Howard Phillips, a former Republican affiliated with the Constitution Party; Richard Viguerie, the direct-mail specialist; and Morton Blackwell, a Louisiana and Virginia activist who is considered a specialist on the rules of the Republican Party" (Council for National Policy#Leadership).

Are/were Weyrich, Schlafly, Grant, Phillips, Viguerie, Blackwell, and Skousen influential?

They were on the religious right. Which complicates things more than a little. First, the RR is out on their own in comparison to more secular of conservative political groups. Then Skousen is a member of a religious minority on top of that--and even was a theologian (or whatever the Mormon version of being a theologian is).

August 5, 2007 conversation between Jan Michelson of Iowa radio station WHO 1040 and then Repubican primaries presidential candidate Mitt Romney (in which there is a lot of back and forth discussing Skousen as a conservative American Constitutionalist but later Romney quotes Skousen as an authority on theology when discussing Romney's religious beliefs.

[WHO's Mickelson]:       You and I share a common affection for the late Cleon Skousen.

[Governor Romney]       Emm-hmm.

M       The last I talked to you said he was one of your instructors----

R      Exactly.

M       He was also one of my instructors via a book he wrote on the making of America, which was a wonderful commentary on the U.S. Constitution. It combines Madison’s notes with every codicil in the constitution. It tells you exactly what original intent is.       . . . <They have a discussion about conservative American Constitutionalism> M       ...In another forum, I think it was on Stephanopoulos, about the Second Coming of Christ, and you said it was going to happen in Jerusalem.

R       It is.

M       Your church says it is going to happen in Missouri.

R       No it doesn’t.

M       All right. Is that wrong?

R       Is what wrong? The church says that Christ appears and splits the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem. That’s what the church says. And then over a thousand years of the Millennium that the world is reigned in two places, Jerusalem and Missouri. The Second Coming, the arrival of Jesus Christ, our church says is in Jerusalem.

M       Then Stephanopoulos misquoted your church----

R       <shrugs> That’s fine----

M       Which is not surprising, but I was basing----

R       Cleon Skousen has a book called A Thousand Years [sic], so you can talk about---- Christ appears, throughout the bible Christ appears in Jerusalem, splits the Mount of Olives, to stop the war that is coming to kill all the Jews, our church believes that’s when the coming and glory of Christ appears, * we also believe that over the thousand of years that follow, over the Millennium, he will reign from two places, the law will come from Missouri, and the other will be from Jerusalem, but that’s---- Back to abortion.

M       I have to get back on the air, but before I do, let me say that I take this stuff really seriously.

R       Oh, I don’t though. For me this is all frivolous. Come on, I’m running for President.

Thoughts?--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 18:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 18:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

* Here's a quote from Skousen, from when he was teaching religion at Brigham Young in 1972, the year after Romney graduated from there: "The scriptures say the Savior will appear on the Mount of Olives and that that mount east of Jerusalem will split in two, thereby opening a pass through which the survivors in Jerusalem can flee to safety. (Zech. 14:2–5; Rev. 14:1.) At the same time the gentile armies will be destroyed by the power of God. Only one-sixth will be left. (Ezek. 39:1–8.)"--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 00:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Trivia about house price tag

I have removed this non notable trivia unless there is something more to it. --Threeafterthree (talk) 19:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Numerous sources have reported that he resides in a 4.2 million $ 8,700 sq ft mansion. Whether that is trivia or "notable" (which is certainly debatable) I would say is up to the reader to decide. Sources have apparently felt it "notable" enough to report on (and the fact that he apparently is trying to sell it at a 250 K loss in the current market). There's also issues (not included in the article) about how his desire was to construct an 8 ft wall around his home for security reasons, but the neighborhood told him he couldn't for aesthetic purposes which limit wall height. What gives you the ability to determine "trivial" facts from ordinary ones, especially if they have refs? Lastly, I haven’t reverted your removal of the material, however I think it is important to at least preserve the ref which contains some of this info.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 19:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Post the partisan source/cite here as well as the others mentioning the material above and maybe it can be readded. What do others think? The "fact" alone is trivial unless there is more to the story. Do you see other bios where the person's house value is listed? Is a point trying to be made here? --Threeafterthree (talk) 19:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Now you are even removing the slideshow ref ...

Glenn Beck's House On Market For Almost $4 Million

which contains images of the home that you deem in edit summaries to be a "dump" and "cheap". As for "others" that would be WP:Otherstuffexists although I'm sure some that purchased mansions would have that material included. As for any "point", it stands alone, Beck lives in a 4 mill $ mansion (make of that what you will) - what is the point of trying to remove such a fact that others have obviously reported on?   Redthoreau -- (talk) 20:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Of note, I am not using "mansion" pejoratively (or hyperbolically), however U.S. realtors define a "mansion" as a dwelling over 8,000 square feet - while Beck's home is 8,720 square foot.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 20:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The otherstuff is just used to compare to other well written bios. Who has reported it? The huffington post? They are a partisan blog used for opinion. Again, is there a "reason" for this, ie, Beck has urged folks to live in "cheap" houses or not spend money or what exactly?--Threeafterthree (talk) 20:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The otherstuff is the reason not to include something. Who has reported it? The huffington post? The are a partisan blog used for opinion. --Threeafterthree (talk) 20:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I have commented on the fence lin before. It was useless and only served to emphasize that he is a controversial figure. Wealthy people have security measures in place. Big deal. The price tag on his house is kind of interesting but "mansion" summarizes it just fine though. Selling it at a loss isn't really that noteworthy in the grand scheme of things.Cptnono (talk) 20:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

kind of interesting? Using a source to a real estate definition to call it a mansion? --Threeafterthree (talk) 20:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Other sources that (I quickly found) who have reported on his home ... 1, 2, 3. I am sure there are more. As for The Huffington Post being partisan, I don't think that is in dispute, although I haven't seen them banned as a reliable wiki source (+ their article for this case is written in a neutral tone)?   Redthoreau -- (talk) 20:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, kind of interesting. It isn't amazingly noteworthy but I could see having a single line discussing where he lives being acceptable.Cptnono (talk) 20:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

ah, ok, so you think saying he lives in New Canaanan covers it or would you want to include "mansion" and it's price tag and link to a paritsan blog? --Threeafterthree (talk) 20:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I could see adding "he lives in a mansion/big house in..." but don't think it is completely necessary. Other sources do refer to it as a mansion. I don't know if they need to be based on real estate to make it verifiable. I doubt there is a standard to include the types of homes celebrates and public figures live in on Wikipedia but don't know for sure. I don't understand the debate. He has money and has a nice house like a lot of people with money.Cptnono (talk) 20:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

"is there a "reason" for this, ie, Beck has urged folks to live in cheap houses" 3after3, that is for the reader to decide. Maybe a Beck fan will find inspiration that a middle class son of a baker without a college degree could own his own 4 mill $ mansion (i.e. the "American Dream" Beck often speaks of). Maybe a Beck hater will find him living in a 16 room mansion while purporting to speak for the "little guy" somewhat disingenuous (sort of how the political right [correctly in my view] criticizes Al Gore for living in mansions while asking others to lessen their carbon footprint) - or find that it taints his worldview when he bashes Obama for not granting tax cuts for those in his income bracket? It is not our job to decide how a fact will be interpreted, that varies depending on ones perspective. I believe Beck’s employer would refer to this as "we report, you decide".   Redthoreau -- (talk) 20:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

(e/c, my point exactly)The unspoken debate here is that look, Beck says he is a common man, but he lives high off the hog and is a hypocratic pile of dog poo....look at the posts included with the HP "piece". As far a "standard" for the type of homes people in BLPs live in, thats classic. It would be better to look at the editing pattern of the person(s) who wants to include this "material" and is battling over inclusion. --Threeafterthree (talk) 20:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)ps, its awesome that you use the tag line of the folks you detest so strongly to support your point...--Threeafterthree (talk) 20:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah... I do understand how it could be read like that. I agree that using mansion is not needed then. If there is any question to that there is an attempt to lead the reader or make a point it simply needs to be removed from a BLP. Not saying there shouldn't be controversial info but this was is mundane enough that we can axe it without lessening the reader's understanding of the subject.Cptnono (talk) 20:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

3after3, please read WP:AGF and do not put words in my mouth - I have never stated that I "detest" Beck - moreover, one could just as easily (wrongly) accuse you of censoring facts on those you admire that you think may make them look bad. Please note I included a potential positive evaluation of Beck's "big home" success story as well. More importantly, in this instance (in the end) I did not even restore the word "mansion" or the 4.2 price, I simply asked in the end that the ref for his home be kept. Please stick to the content and not the editor.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 21:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't that line already sourced? I thought it was but could be incorrect. I do see that this new source only verifies half the line.Cptnono (talk) 21:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Redthoreau, please don't tell me, sadly beyond a regular, to read AGF. Also I was refering to your obvious dislike of Fox News, not Beck, when you used the we report, you decide line in your defense. We don't need to introduce a citation from a partisan source for a pretty simple fact about where this individual lives. --Threeafterthree (talk) 22:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

"Partisan source" is not a valid criteria for exclusion (or relevant to the discussion at all) -- the proper evaluation should be based upon the material's weight in reliable sources. I'm not staking out an opinion either way (regarding include/exclude), but please stop trying to inject irrelevancies into the discussion... That sort of nonsense only derails forward momentum in reaching consensus. Thanks! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

3after3, regardless of your longevity as an editor, if I believed you were following the policy, I wouldn't point it out to you. As for Fox News, I have never stated that I "detest" Fox News, in fact I don't even think I have ever even edited the Fox News article (or an article of one of their personalities except this one). Your remarks might have merit if I was leading some "Wiki crusade" against Hannity, O'Reilly, Beck etc - but I am not. As for your editing style, I am usually able to reach some sort of compromise with an array of editors from different political persuasions - your problem is the heavy handedness in which you edit and summarize those edits - which begin to look more like WP:Wikihounding (when the past 2 weeks you have come behind me on an article and tried to remove any of my editions, without adding anything yourself to the article) - last week for instance it was the Restoring Honor rally. Neither of us benefits from a confrontational posture, and I'd love to clear the air here. I don't believe I am being unreasonable, in fact, in nearly every past debate we have had, I am the one who is ultimately usually willing to capitulate in favor of your stance. So please try and meet me in the middle sometimes, or at least not always assume bad faith.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 03:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Is this really encyclopedic? Rich person has a big house... Do we report on the house size and cost of every celebrity? Is his house cost controversial, unique, or otherwise justified as being anything notable? I can't say I've read through the discussion here as it seems pointless - just leaving my initial two cents. Can't believe we're wasting energy even discussing such a trivial matter. Morphh ^(talk) 13:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

While the "encyclopedic" question may have some meat to it, I don't think it's up to Wikipedians to decide if something is "trivial" in a vacuum. We shouldn't be discussing whether we think something is trivial... we should be evaluating both of those concerns against the weightyness of sourcing regarding such. If there is a sufficient number of reliable sources that cover the topic, we should give it mention (with proper weight of course). If there are only one or two sources that deal with the topic, we probably should not mention it. Thus far (save one reference) I've only seen discussion focused around editors' opinions on the matter (which is completely and totally irrelevant). Can we please refocus the discussion on the number and quality of the sources that deal with this topic? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)