Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:34, 9 February 2011

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Glenn Beck article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17Auto-archiving period: 15 days

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Christianity: Latter Day Saints Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement (assessed as Low-importance). United States: Washington This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Washington. It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. Upload Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Arts and Entertainment / Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group. This article is supported by the politics and government work group. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Radio High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Radio, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Radio-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RadioWikipedia:WikiProject RadioTemplate:WikiProject RadioRadio High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. To-do List: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Create: Missing years and articles in radio, National Association of Radio Distress-Signalling and Infocommunications (Hungary) Assess : Unassessed Radio articles; Unknown-importance Radio articles Cleanup : Radio articles needing attention Expand : Midweek Politics Bob Crane Maintain : Portal:Radio Stubs : Expand: Radio stubs Verify : Unreferenced BLPs Other : Collaboration of the Week: Requests for Radio peer review: Rod Serling The Howard Stern Show The History of Rock & Roll American Top 40; The Museum of Curiosity; Scott Mills (radio show)

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Julie Muhlstein (2 October 2009). "Turns out Glenn Beck actually was born in Everett". The Herald (Everett).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Glenn Beck article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17Auto-archiving period: 15 days

Tucson

In light of the recent tragedy, this may need to be addressed.: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/01/14/20110114arizona-shooting-victim-blames-palin-beck-politico.htmlDocOfSoc (talk) 08:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

No more than in the Palin or Politico articles. Let's please not shift the message of this from telling people to pay attention to their friends and families if they are in trouble, and may need psychiatric help, to let's blame it on divisive political figures. --AerobicFox (talk) 23:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

(BLP violations redacted) Fat&Happy (talk) 04:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Does the talk page of a BLP article have to abide by the same BLP standards as the article page does? Lhb1239 (talk) 00:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, I answered my own question with this: . Lhb1239 (talk) 00:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Glad to see no one's come away with the suggestion to lower the political rhetoric. --AerobicFox (talk) 02:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, obviously not. But it's the link above has an interesting follow-up. As Paul Harvey would say, "The rest of the story": "Shooting victim arrested, accused of threat". Fat&Happy (talk) 04:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

It probably should be mentioned that his name came up in the aftermath, along with other conservative leaders. Should be careful though to include the range of view points, and the apparent consensus that this wasn't a product of rhetoric but of a deranged mind. Still the blame game afterwards was significant and some people did blame beck. If one of the victims did as well, that is definitely worthy of mention. 24.61.171.248 (talk) 13:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Problem there is that just about every single commentator was mentioned - so there is not proper weight for Beck in specific. Just because a name is mentioned by someone does not mean the factoid then belongs in a BLP. Collect (talk) 14:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, Beck was singled out by one of the victims and his name and Sarah Palin's seemed to be the most thrown around at the time. Not saying they were in any way responsible for the shootings (in fact I think the instant outcry reflects poorly on the other side),but they were the focus. Like I said, it should be handled judiciously and fairly, but it is significant enough to mention. 24.61.171.248 (talk) 14:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Which means exactly what in a BLP? You mean the people who called Bush a "murderer" should get a big mention in his BLP as proof he has been called a "murderer"? Nah. Collect (talk) 16:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it is fair in the case of George Bush's BLP to mention that such diatribes were being thrown at him (as it is fair to mention some people were calling Barrack Obama a socialist). In the case of Glenn Beck, this was a big controversy, and his name, along with Palin's, was in the lead. 24.61.171.248 (talk) 14:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

In this case, because a number of people were accused of this, and it wasn't solely focused on Beck, those accusations are better described on the article about the Tuscon attacks, rather than Beck's page. Sχeptomaniac 15:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

But Beck was the most cited pundit (while Palin was the most cited Politician). Seems like it should get mention in the bio page. 24.61.171.248 (talk) 15:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

YouTube

youtube.com/watch?v=cQcvbw6ExTQ is a copyright violation. Do not link to it. Plug: WP:VIDEOLINK Cptnono (talk) 22:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

An Examiner.com author defends Beck, arguing that the "You're gonna have to shoot them in the head" remark's full context reveal it to have been "hypothetical in nature, suggesting that the Democrats may have to end up shooting the Яevolutionaries once they can no longer meet their demands." -->Link --Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 11:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Kos just posted this. But, as Patrick Frey argues at Patterico's Pontifications:

the word “you” refers to the leftist politicians in Washington and their pals in the media, and “they” refers to their radical leftist friends — who, Beck warns, actually believe there must be violent revolution . . . and if they don’t get what they want, they may start one.

Beck is warning the comfortable pols that the people who put them in power aren’t going to be satisfied with seeing just a little of their agenda accomplished. They want it all. Because they are revolutionaries at heart — people who have called for violence and never repudiated it. And if they aren’t satisfied, Beck tells the pols, they will come after you. Violently.

You’re going to have to shoot them in the head. But they may shoot you.

you to believe that the “you” is Beck’s audience, whom Beck is inciting to violence. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Anyway, there's interesting back-'n'-forth out there on this stuff, IMO.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 18:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

That's cool and everything, but what do you think from that would be appropriate to the article? It seems like nobody but blogs have picked on on this, one blog distorts, and the other blog counters. I don't think is notable enough per WP:WEIGHT to go anywhere. You can monitor it for something to change and for this to become relevant though, but I don't think anything will come from this IMO. Thanks for posting the info though.AerobicFox (talk) 05:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Examiner.com is not RS. Also, there is a link to YouTube on this talk page. It is as a popup in the address but if it is not from Glenn Beck or Fox it has to go immediately. Those who repeat violations of copyright are subject to blocks.Cptnono (talk) 06:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

W/regard to neo-(&theo-?)con "li-(Beck?)-itarianism"

I'm thinking of sourcing media mentions of Beck's position on the political spectrum and especially his quasi-libertarianism. This<-- blog piece gives interesting background to some theoconservative strains in conservative libertarianism but doesn't mention Beck by name (and is a blog). IAC be right back.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

1.Fall 2008 Beck interview of then Libertarian Party Pres. candidate, Bob Barr:

: Which American president said he believed that "the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism?" C) Ronald Reagan.

 Q (Beck)     Now I have to tell you, not only do I agree with that, I think it goes beyond conservatives. I think the heart of every American is libertarian until they can benefit from the government. You know what I mean? Until -- until everybody is, like, oh...

Barr     It`s very corrupting, the power of government, to bring people in. To bring them back in. It takes a very strong mind to be able to resist that pressure. And most Republicans succumb.

 Q (Beck)     Do you think the problem I is -- with the Republicans, they got tied up into the compassionate conservative thing? But you know, the problem with libertarians is it`s -- you guys -- I mean -- look. You seem like a reasonable guy, Bob. We`ve had several times that we have been able to talk, and I think I agree on many of your points of view, but then the Libertarian Party is so -- divided. I mean, you`ve got people -- the guy who introduced you at the convention was a guy for legalization of pot.

Barr     Yes. It indeed -- some people think, well, that the Libertarian Party, just paint it with one brush stroke. It is -- it is a very diverse party.

 Q (Beck)     I`m talking about $54 trillion in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. One-third of everybody who lives here in Manhattan, one-third, currently living on Medicaid.

Barr     Actually, it`s even worse. If you calculate them all, project them all out, it`s over $100 trillion total. I mean, it is. It`s unimaginable. What you have to do is -- first of all, you have to do what George W. Bush, unfortunately, did not have the guts to do. And that is to do what you say you`re going to do. You have to tackle Social Security. You have to tackle Medicare and Medicaid. What do you is you institute, do everything you can, to immediately institute savings accounts that are credited against Social Security taxes as an initial step. You -- you then -- you take a look at who gets what, when they get it and start calculating it so that everybody, so that you don`t increase it every time there is a cost of living, or a raise in inflationary pressure. It just keeps -- it magnifies itself. But the most important thing is to start getting that money and empowering Americans to get that money into their control, into the free market.

 Q (Beck)     Do you -- do you continue to subsidize things for farmers not to plant things? Do you keep a regulation on sugar, for instance?

Barr     Absolutely not.

 Q (Beck)     OK. I love that answer. How about Bear Stearns? Would you have backed bailing out Bear Stearns?

Barr     Absolutely not.

 Q (Beck)     So how is it that Russia has a flat tax? How is it that the rest of the world is going to a flat tax and we`re not? We`re going the other way?

Barr     Well, for one thing, Steve Forbes wasn`t elected president several years ago.

 Q (Beck)     I want to talk to you a little bit about foreign policy I`m arguing that we`re there now. Finish the job. Stabilize it as much as you can. Help those people stand on their own. Because you cannot pull out and let that be -- nature hates a vaccuum. I was for the Patriot Act because you were the guy who got the sunsets in. I figure, if the sunsets are there, if they have to keep coming back every six months, if there`s a problem, I`m not giving them this power. I`m lending it to them with a certain end date. And I respected you because you put those in there. Now you`re saying, Patriot Act, I shouldn`t have done any of it.

Barr     Well, what happened, Glenn, was In every one of the instances the administration went back on its word. That is why I have been so strong in working to reform the Patriot Act. And I`ve come to the conclusion the best thing to do, Glenn, would be to get rid of it and look at those powers in the light of this year now, this year 2000 -- well, 2009, to see what we actually need. Some provisions in the Patriot Act have worked very well. The other provisions, though, such as the sneak and peak searches, where the government can come into your house and your business and search and seize and never tell you they`d been there. The national security letters and so forth. The government doesn`t need those powers, and they have, in fact, been abused.

 Q (Beck)     Do you stand by the Minutemen, on the border?

Barr     Well, I think -- I think any citizen group that can get down there and prod our government into doing a much better job of protecting the border against illegal immigration has to be commended. And that would include them.

 Q (Beck)     So you -- you would not -- you wouldn`t call them -- I`m trying to remember what this administration has called them. igilantes, thugs, racists?

Barr     No. I`ve worked with them. I`ve had them, you know, when I had a radio show, had them on. These are simply citizens who care about protecting the sovereignty of this country and are willing to take their time and they`re not armed. They don`t arrest. They just monitor, to help protect the border against the tremendous incursion of illegals into this country.

 Q (Beck)     he NAFTA superhighway. Do you believe that`s being built?

Barr     That`s part of it. They`re already moving through eminent domain to start taking land in Texas to do that?

 Q (Beck)     All that`s crazy talk. That`s crazy talk. It`s being built. OK, Bob, I got to ask you a couple things. Libertarians are rights. They are all about rights. They are a small government. Let people manage it themselves. Let people make the decisions. How does -- I mean, I can understand it when it comes to, hey, heroin should be available everywhere. I understand it there. But when you come to something like abortion, a lot of libertarians say, "Excuse me. That should -- that is a right." You are -- I mean, you are one of the strongest guys on abortion out there. Voted yes on banning -- banning family planning on U.S. aid abroad, yes to federal crime harming a fetus while committing other crimes. Congratulations on that. Voted yes on banning partial-birth abortion, again, yes on banning transportation to minors to get an abortion. A lot of libertarians are not happy with you.

Barr     They may not be happy with me, but I`m in good company. There are a lot of pro-life libertarians. And they look at it much the same way, the libertarians, generally, as one of the fundamental tenants, the use of force to take a life should not be countless. I mean, that should be -- if there`s one thing that should be illegal it`s the taking of life by force without justification. And the same applies to the unborn fetus, which is a human being, human life, the same as it does to somebody -- I don`t know how old you are, but I`m 59 years old.

 Q (Beck)     Tell me about -- tell me about the -- the people in Texas, the polygamists. The state seemed to me to clearly overreach. I -- I am not for polygamy. Is polygamy OK? Should we have that as a law, and enforce it? Or not enforce that law?

Barr     I don`t condone it and support it, and I don`t think we ought to move in that direction.

2.Mark Lilla in the NYRB:

Broke is a "sober...libertarian tract here is a call for minimal government, more federalism, a flat tax, balanced budget and term-limit amendments, stemming the growth of Social Security and Medicare payments, and serious cuts in defense spending."

3.Tim Cavanaugh in Reason magazine:

"he News Corp. chairman also gives a pretty good definition of libertarian thinking: 'Don't trust the government, don't trust me, just trust yourself.'

"That's Murdoch's definition of Glenn Beck, and while I don't know how well it describes Beck's position, it's not too bad as a shorthand for libertarianism."--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 22:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

This scholarly paper (you can click to download in pdf) explains Beck's ideology, its sources in Skousen and its influence on the Tea Party. TFD (talk) 23:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

A large number of libertarians strongly oppose labeling beck one. I would suggest including the contentious nature of this. It isn't like the libertarian community is welcoming the guy with open arms. And frankly he is more Birch society than libertarian. 24.61.171.248 (talk) 00:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Ranters on the fringes (and sometimes mainstream ones) always see a conspiracy afoot by their political opponents. (After all, they ARE out to get them, no paranoia necessary.) Then there is the tendency for serious thinkers to want to distance themselves from mere yahoos (on the center-right: Buckely vs. Birchers, probably a lot of Reason magazine writers these days vs. Montanans down at the feed store talking about "them awful gov'ment c'spiracies," etc.--?)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 16:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The controversy surrounding his George Soros series

The episodes that he make about George Soros being a puppeteer toppling regimes and being a collaborator during the Holocause drawn a huge amount of criticism. Many people have noted the similarities between the tactics Beck used and anti-semitism, including the Anti-Defamation League, according to the New Yorker (See here for details:http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2010/11/29/101129taco_talk_hertzberg). Is this worth mentioning? It seems like he crossed a line when he did this.Eclecticperson34 (talk) 19:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Sir Harold Evans' statements regarding Glen Beck on BBC Radio on 29th January 2011

I've just (08:40 GMT 29/1/11) heard Sir Harry Evans http://en.wikipedia.org/Harold_Evans on BBC Radio 4's The Today Programme here in the UK say that Beck should be 'put in a lunatic asylum' and that he heard him very recently say that a political opponent should 'have a gun put to his head'. Does anyone have source for the second accusation? Jerry (talk) The interview with Evans will be available to stream Today's website here later today. http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/default.stm I would also be interested to hear whether, if this is true, Beck's statement would constitute a criminal offence in the USA as it would in the UK: see http://en.wikipedia.org/Encouraging_or_assisting_crime#Encouraging_or_assisting_crime Jerry (talk) 09:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerry cornelius (talk • contribs) 08:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The WMF specifically states that questions about international law are not answerable by WP, and that the only applicable laws are those of Florida and the US. The statement about "gun to the head" must, moreover, be read in context, and it is clear that metaphorical speech in the US is time-honored, and is not looked at as a "hate crime." Even in the UK, metaphors are allowed. Collect (talk) 11:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The gun to the head comment sounds like the comment Beck made about liberals needing to shoot the far left in the head before they shoot them in the head.

'put in a lunatic asylum'

This person needs to learn that using antiquated diction to refer to the mentally ill is repugnant. How is calling someone in lunatic in a psuedo-medical related way worse then calling a black person the N-word. Both are historically disparaging terms for an oppressed group. Please note that I am disgusted by the treatment of the mentally ill, and any users here who refer to Beck or anyone else as mentally ill in a disparaging way will be making it harder to work with me. AerobicFox (talk) 00:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's not make this about us or our views. If Evans' comment is notable it should be included. If not, not.   Will Beback  talk  05:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Sean Wilentz

When quoting Sean Wilentz, perhaps it would be more NPOV if some context is given by pointing out that he's a friend of the Clintons and wrote about George W. Bush with the title "The Worst President in History?" 71.203.125.108 (talk) 15:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. Sean Wilentz is a prominent and respected historian commenting on Beck's accuracy as an historian, not Beck's interpretation of history. Beck gets his facts wrong - that is not a matter of opinion but a matter of fact. TFD (talk) 16:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree, and furthermore Wilentz is given two prominent quotes regarding his opinion of Beck. This article is not Wilentz's view of Glenn Beck. That such a naturally hostile and by all appearances biased historian should be given such prominance gives those sections a decidedly anti-Beck slant to the article. By what reason should Wilentz have his view highlighted...twice? Arzel (talk) 17:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

You should learn to distinguish between facts and opinions. Beck's facts are wrong, while his opinions are merely outside the mainstream. It does not matter what historian comments on Beck's facts, the result will be the same. Beck gets his facts wrong. If you can find an historian who says that Beck gets his facts right, then please do so. By the way, since this is an issue of fact, there is no need to mention Wilentz in line. TFD (talk) 17:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

You might want to AGF. The New Yorker article is commentary, not reporting. We don't report opinion as fact, regardless if you think Beck is wrong. Furthermore, where is the secondary sourcing that would imply that Wilentz opinion is worthy of such prominence? He is given two lengthy quotes which serve only to attack Beck. It is clearly undue weight for this one person's view. Arzel (talk) 20:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

• The New Yorker article is commentary, not reporting.

On what basis are we making that determination?   Will Beback  talk  05:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

No, Beck is ignorant of history and a lot of ignorant people believe what he says. It is not that his opinions are wrong, but that his facts are wrong. But then facts are stupid things. TFD (talk) 00:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

That is a lot of anger, perhaps you should take a little wikibreak. I find it hard to believe you can edit in a neutral tone when you personally attack Beck and pretty much everyone that listens to him. Arzel (talk) 00:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

You might want to read Beck's statements about historical events and compare them with what your high school text book said. His writings present non-factual statements about historical events. One is entitled one's views, but not one's facts. TFD (talk) 01:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I could really care less what Beck says. I don't watch him or listen to him. Regardless, my point was why is this person's opinion given prominence? Your response has been Beck is ignorant, perhaps you could respond to my question and leave the truth at the door. Arzel (talk) 01:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

It is not an opinion but a statement of fact. Beck gets his facts wrong. You don't watch his show? You should and see for yourself. TFD (talk) 01:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I am glad you know the truth. Collect (talk) 01:33, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Since there is an unwillingness to discuss my actual question, I have been bold and removed one of his quotes as undue weight while leaving the summary. No reason for this person to have multiple lengthy quotes in the article relative to any other person. Arzel (talk) 01:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I see Andy reverted without any discussion. However, after examining the article I see that the second quote is an entire lifted paragraph of over 200 words. This is very likely a WP:COPYVIO and should not be included at length under any circumstance. Arzel (talk) 02:33, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I thought that reverting after a contested 'bold' move was entirely normal Misplaced Pages procedure? Whatever....

As for copyvio's, would you accept that a summary of what Wilentz said, with a shorter quote, would get around this? I still think it needs to be included, to explain why Wilentz is saying what he is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

To the initial question, Sean Wilentz is relevant to Beck because many prominent academics have simply ignored him (rather than lending criticism or support). I wish there were more notable scholars addressing the accuracy/inaccuracy of Beck's contentions, so that we could include a range of their conclusions, but for the time being Wilentz is one of the few that have done so in a reliable national publication. Moreover, I don’t believe his short quotation violates WP:COPYVIO, which primarily deals with uncited plagiarism – not attributed and referenced remarks.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 05:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Very few scholars will comment on Dr. Beck's scholarship because he does not publish his theories in peer-reviewed journals or books in the university and academic press. We have the same issue with global warming, the moon landing hoax, etc. Wilentz only commented on Beck because he writes about people like Beck as an object of study rather than as an historian. TFD (talk) 05:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

"Sean Wilentz is a prominent and respected historian commenting on Beck's accuracy as an historian"
Does there need to be an explanation for how this is undue? Perhaps a juxtaposition:
"John Wilmerding is a prominent and respected art historian commenting on Beck's accuracy as an art historian"
Beck is not a historian, and does not claim to be a historian, so should not be adjudged to the standards of a historian. If he was speaking on behalf of the historical community for Beck, then his words would have weight, but since they are his and only representing his views they aren't worth mentioning here.
Besides Wilentz's "prominence" is nothing compared to the likes of someone like Wilmerding, and his opinion alone doesn't mean anything to this article. The weight of a political editorial is not determined solely on someone being an Ivy League professor, and his critique wanders into postmodernist territory in the conjectures he makes without evidence.AerobicFox (talk) 05:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Wilentz is a respected historian and able to comment on the accuracy of Beck's "facts" about history. TFD (talk) 05:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Doing respectable work and being respected are two different things. I have not seen any comment addressing the accuracy of Becks facts, just comments comparing him to a laundry list of shady people.

An obvious indicator of whether a historian should be addressing certain facts that Beck has brought up, is whether or not those facts are even present in this article. In other words:

If Beck's historical views were notable enough to warrant inclusion in this article then critiques of those views would be relevant. Since his views are not mentioned, including criticism on them is clearly an example of undue weight, since you are putting criticism of a subject ahead of the subject itself. Short of an adequate section detailing Beck's views there should be no criticism of them. Even the Flat Earthers and the AIDs denialists have their views explained, so don't even begin thinking of how justifying including criticism of something not even represented in the article.

I understand you are trying to improve the article, but you should reevaluate what you have actually done. Presented a one-sided criticism of the subject without even presenting the subject's defense of itself, this completely violates Misplaced Pages's neutrality policies, and should highlight to you that there are problems with your editing.(I apologize for sounding rude) AerobicFox (talk) 06:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

AerobicFox, Becks views are mentioned though (and should even be expanded upon).  Redthoreau -- (talk) 06:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Beck's views on history are not mentioned, at least not as far as I can see in the section that Wilentz critiques them. What I see is Becks accusations against present day progressives followed by a historian commenting on Beck's version of history, and explaining the reader for the first time how Beck views history. This is probably overlooked due to the fact that those familiar with the subject may just assume that it is covered above, but Beck does not talk about his version of history in that section, so move Wilentz's critique on his history to where Beck does talk about it, or add in Beck's view of history. AerobicFox (talk) 06:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

AerobicFox, although Beck is not a credentialed "historian", he does view himself as an autodidactic one. In fact, I'd say at least half of his programming (which I do watch) deals with his (re)interpretation of history, which he contends has been hidden/bastardized by nefarious "Progressives". For months Beck even dedicated every Friday show entirely to "reclaiming" what he purports to be the historical wisdom of the American founding fathers. Now if Beck frequently critiqued art as well from a historical stand point, as he does ---> here, then perhaps the view of a prominent art historian would also be relevant to the article.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 06:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

But there is no explanation of these views, so what I am left to conclude is that a historian who is active in politics is attacking Beck from a perspective that he has expertise in. Explain the Founding Fridays, and what Beck teaches, and how he researches, and what his critics say. Do not just introduce excerpts from multiple unrelated critics and assemble then into as most of a coherent topic as possible. Either give full coverage to the topic of Beck's historical beliefs and teachings, or don't give any. Only including one critical side is not okay for BLP's.AerobicFox (talk) 06:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

AF, yes there is ... see "4 Political views & 4.1 Countering progressivism" (these sections could even be expanded, especially Political Views). If you believe material on his views is missing, then by all means please add it (with references) at anytime.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 06:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

This is the only historical statement Beck makes in that section:

"According to Beck, the progressive ideas of men such as John Dewey, Herbert Croly, and Walter Lippmann, influenced the Presidencies of Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson; eventually becoming the foundation for President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal."

^^That is actually not that inaccurate.

The article then proceeds with this statement:

Glenn Beck is trying to give viewers a version of American history that is supposedly hidden. Supposedly, all we historians — left, right and center — have been doing for the past 100 years is to keep true American history from you. And that true American history is what Glenn Beck is teaching. It's a version of history that is beyond skewed. But of course, that's what Beck expects us to say. He lives in a kind of Alice in Wonderland world, where if people who actually know the history say what he's teaching is junk, he says, 'That's because you're trying to hide the truth.

I do not see anything that the above statement could possibly be referring to as I see no info on Beck's view of history other then the first statement I gave.AerobicFox (talk) 06:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The theory that progressivism developed into the New Deal is not acceptaed by any serious historians. In fact it developed into modern American conservatism. TFD (talk) 15:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Give me a break. You think all of America is conservative relatively speaking. Arzel (talk) 15:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

No I think that America is liberal. TFD (talk) 16:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

America is liberal compared to the third and second world, but conservative compared to Europe and Canada. The actual population is split between conservative and liberal, so these types of labels are meaningless.AerobicFox (talk) 16:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

"The theory that progressivism developed into the New Deal is not acceptaed by any serious historians. In fact it developed into modern American conservatism."
Please find a source for that as I believe Progressivism developed into Progressivism, and not Conservatism, and has almost always been associated with the left except in odd exceptions like Theodore Roosevelt. Also, the New Deal is often seen as a Progressive legislation, the fact that an infobox in the article New Deal is stating that the article is a part of a series on Progressivism should make that clear.AerobicFox (talk) 16:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, you need a source to say that progressivism developed into liberalism. And yes America is liberal - free speech, no monarchy, crazy extemist religious groups, no laws against pornography, right to bear arms. People who have no class, no breeding, no intelligence and hate the elites are not Tories, sorry. TFD (talk) 01:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

"Actually, you need a source to say that progressivism developed into liberalism."

Is that what you interpreted from my saying "associated with the left"? Their association is already sourced in the article on Progressivism which you should read if you believe it developed into Conservatism. I don't need a source to disprove that Progressivism didn't evolve into conservatism, and I don't know what would even drive such an unexplainable statement.

Liberal and conservative is relative. Relative to Europe we are conservative, relative to China we are liberal. In our country we are not wholly governed by either side, and we enjoy the aspects of both philosophies. This is the same for other countries as well, but perhaps not as much.

I hope I'm not going to continue arguing this unless you can find a statement from an RS contesting the statement Beck made above. You probably just made some sort of ridiculous slip-up with the statement, so unless you defend it I will just assume you were just spacing out, or drunk.AerobicFox (talk) 05:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Progressivism did not develop into liberalism. No serious historian has ever argued that it did. TFD (talk) 05:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

This is exactly what I said:

"has almost always been associated with the left"

Why are you arguing this?

"Progressivism did not develop into liberalism."

"develop into" and "be associated with" are not the same. I hope you understand that what I am arguing is that they are closely aligned on many issues, and typically Progressives are seen as farther left then democrats. Progressivism and Liberalism are two very different philosophies, and Progressivism shouldn't be called the same as Coversatism or Liberalism, so you are incorrect here if you are assuming it must be one or the other.

If you aren't familiar with modern Progressivism then you can go here Progressivism in the United States, and you can see what it is. Until then please stop trying to portray my arguments, I have no concern for "winning" this I just don't like my my words being intentionally or unintentionally misrepresented which you are doing heavily.AerobicFox (talk) 05:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Let me clarity what I wrote. The Progressivism of c. 1900-1920 did not develop into modern liberalism, either the New Deal or the views of people who today describe themselves as progressive. No historians claim that it did, yet the claim is continually made by Beck. TFD (talk) 11:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

"The Progressivism of c. 1900-1920 did not develop into modern liberalism,"

If Beck has argued that then please bring up an RS. I certainly have not argued that and I doubt anybody ever has. I believe Beck has argued that Progressives are hijacking the left, but doesn't believe that Progressivism is the same as Liberalism, and if you do believe this is what he argues then you need a source, and then I will believe you.

"either the New Deal"

The New Deal is often considered a Progressive piece of legislature. The Template:Progressivism even lists it as a Progressive piece of legislation.

"or the views of people who today describe themselves as progressive"

They were strongly influenced by the Progressives before them. I don't get what the point you are trying to make here. Early Progressives evolved into modern progressives, and every historian would agree with this. Modern Progressives didn't just fall from the sky. Progressivism is a movement that has been developing, and evolving since it's inception, and the early Progressives did evolve into the modern Progressives and share many similar fundamental views.AerobicFox (talk) 17:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Section Break

Let's get this back on target. I don't see a need for Wilentz to be given two prominent quotes in this article. He is decidely anti-Beck, and it is undue weight to give one person's point of view in this article, regardless of any other considerations. I removed one quote (leaving the inline text) and it was restored. I removed the second longer quote (leaving the inline text) to try and establish some weight balance (not to mention that I think it is borderline copyright vio). Again it was restored. Collect modified the quote to the specific aspects related to the inline text (which I think is fine, if still a little weighty). However, the end result of this seems to have resulted in the page being locked. My original question has never been answered (why does this person deserve to prominent quotes?) and has degraded into an argument that Beck is wrong about history. So...let's get this back to the primary discussion. Why does Wilentz's opinion deserve such weight? What is the problem with Collect's compromise? Arzel (talk) 05:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I maintain that Beck's views of history should be presented before being criticized. Since they are not presented at all, they should not be criticized at this time per WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. The fact this is even brought up highlights gross flaws with this article with Wiki policy. AerobicFox (talk) 06:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Both locations seem appropriate, but I'm thinking the quoting might be a bit excessive. In both cases, Wilentz's argument seems to be summarized well without any need for quoting. Sχeptomaniac 17:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Beck vs 400 rabbis

I recently added a section to the 'Public disputes' section, as follows:

'In January 2011, in protest at what they saw as inappropriate references to the Holocaust and to Nazis by Beck (and by Roger Ailes of Fox News), four hundred rabbis, including heads of most significant branches of Judaism in the US, signed an open letter, printed in the Wall Street Journal. They complained that Beck and Fox had "...diminish the memory and meaning of the Holocaust when you use it to discredit any individual or organisation you disagree with. That is what Fox News has done in recent weeks." In response, a Fox News Executive suggested to Reuters that the letter was from a "George Soros-backed leftwing political organisation". '

This was removed, with the edit summary "Remove vague non-descript criticism. Undue weight per the career of Beck. Recent event with no real evidence of notability". I'd agree with the 'recent event' bit, but I think the rest is dubious. The point made by the rabbis was anything but 'vague' or 'non-descript' - they were commenting on a very specific aspect of Becks rhetoric. As for whether this is placing 'undue weight' on an event in the context of Becks career, I think that is yet to be seen, and thus isn't a valid argument, per WP:CRYSTALBALL.

Some further sources covering the same issue:

I've reverted the delete, and would like to see what others think of the issue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

"Most significant groups" is a tad arguable - Reform and Conservative are significant, Reconstructionist is not, and no head of any Orthodox rabbinical group signed. The "open letter" was, in fact, a paid advertisement, and should be called such. The official payer was "Jewish Funds for Justice" which has previously called for Beck's firing. Jewish Funds for Justice was founded to affirm the historic commitment of the Jewish people to work for social and economic justice in the United States. and In 25 years, Jews and Jewish institutions will be aligned and in partnership with other communities, together creating a robust, powerful social change movement. make it clear that JFFJ is a political and not a religious organization, and one inclined to overstate its position (vide Mr. Beck accused George Soros of “helping send the Jews to the death camps” while seeming to draw his material straight from the anti-Semitic forgery, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. ) The material in this article would be lacking were it not to include such material about the acctual source involved. I trust you will add it. Collect (talk) 19:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Are the politics of 'Jewish Funds for Justice' discussed in secondary sources, Collect? Using their website to find evidence about this looks like WP:OR to me. Who says they are "a political and not a religious organization"? (I'd have thought that it was entirely possible that they were both, given their name). As for JFJ overstating it's position, again that is opinion. Is it just yours, or have you got a source that states this? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The JFFJ is RS for its own mission statement. The fact that it is primarily political is fairly clear from their mission statement - though only their actual quote would be a claim for the article, and, in fact, ought to be in the article. "Jewish Funds for Justice was founded to affirm the historic commitment of the Jewish people to work for social and economic justice in the United States." is in their own words, and makes no religious claim. It speaks only of "social and economic justice" which I doubt is a reference to following Torah etc. at all and sounds quite like a political statement. Collect (talk) 00:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of what you consider 'fairly clear', you have still included a quote you selected from the JFJs website, and seem to have done this in order to make a point about their motivations for producing the open letter. That is WP:OR. Find other sources that discuss JFJs motivations for the letter, and we'll have better grounds to include this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

If we mention every time that Beck got his facts wrong or offended people then this would be a long article. Much better to find a source that analyzes him and provides proper weight for all his offensive comments. TFD (talk) 00:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I think editors should re-read WP:BLP. WP is not the place to list greviences or attack living people. Arzel (talk) 01:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

TFD, I'd agree entirely with that. This was really why I asked whether any of the sources that discussed the letter have put it into broader context, i.e. have they seen it as just run-of-the-mill criticism of Beck by 'the usual suspects', or has it been seen as more significant. Now that the media in general is commenting on this, I'll have a look through what I find, and we can get a better picture of whether this has lasting significance - it's worth noting that the criticism wasn't just directed at Beck though, but at Fox in general too.

Arzel, I'm confused. Are you saying Beck cannot be criticised for making comments comparing people to Nazis? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

This is not an attack on Beck, merely a statement that is obvious to anyone who completed high school, which includes the study of history, that Beck gets his facts wrong. If you were to use his facts in your examinations then you would fail. BTW Arzel, your user page says you have degrees in Stats and Industrial Engineering. I am sure you would object to people misrepresenting those topics and you should apply the same standards to people misrepresenting historical facts.TFD (talk) 01:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

People misuse polling statistics here all the time. They don't understand random error, they don't understand polling methodology, they don't understand how stratified sampling is done, they don't understand a lot of statistical methodolgy. There are a couple of extrememly poor (or good if you will) examples of misused statistics on the TPM page being used to imply that they are racist. Unfortunately many in the left media also misuse polls, so that crap makes it's way here as well, but then those people know the truth as well. <eyes roll> Arzel (talk) 01:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

@Andy No, I am saying that the attitude here is "Someone bashed Beck!  :) Let's go make sure it is included in his wikipedia article right away!" All I ask is that we look at the historical context. This seems to be just another of the many instances where someone bashed Beck for some supposed wrong that Beck did. If this article included every little biatch like this against Beck it would be nothing a laundry list of crap.

@TFD, you really need to relax. Arzel (talk) 01:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Referring to a group's mission statement as a statement of their mission statement is not OR by any stretch of the imagination. Collect (talk) 01:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

It is when you go look for it to prove a point about their politics. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Arzel, people have a right to believe false information, but please do not complain when reliable sources say that this information is false. TFD (talk) 01:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

There are very few absolutes in life. Try not to confuse these with the interpretation of historical figures by Beck and others. It is likely that neither are completely correct on anything. Granted you will believe those that profess your point of view, that doesn't mean they are 100% correct, while Beck is "ignorant". Arzel (talk) 01:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Postmodernist drivel. Beck is ignorant of historical fact, and there are reliable sources that say so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

You might want to take a break as well. Personally attacking the subject of the article does not lend one to believe that they can edit in a neutral manner. Arzel (talk) 02:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Meanwhile, back in the real world: Deborah Lipstadt, professor of Holocaust studies at Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, has been especially vocal in attacking Beck's tactics. "I haven't heard anything like this on television or radio – and I've been following this kind of stuff. I've been in the sewers of antisemitism and Holocaust denial more often than I've wanted," she said. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I think I hear black helicopters coming. Arzel (talk) 02:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

How can you hear what colour a helicopter is ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you hear that silence? That is a black helicopter coming for you. :) Arzel (talk) 02:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

And when someone tells you that there are no black helicopters, no chemtrails, no ZOG, nor reason to keep wearing a tin foil hat, will you still say, "Well, that's your opinion"? TFD (talk) 02:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe in any of that crap, unlike those that think FNC is out to control the world. Arzel (talk) 02:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Then you agree with criticisms of Beck for inaccuracy and should stop arguing with us. TFD (talk) 03:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

This is turning into an internet forum. Please stay on topic and off the black helicopters. AerobicFox (talk) 03:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The rest of the Jewish Funds for Justice mission statement reads: "From community investing to grantmaking to service learning, each of our approaches is guided by Jewish values and inspired by Jewish tradition. We believe it is our Jewish obligation to partner with those in need no matter their religious or ethnic identity." The suggestion that they are not at least partly motivated by religious dimensions is hard to support when you read the entire mission statement. Perhaps that is why it was reproduced only in part earlier in this discussion.Ninahexan (talk) 03:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

JUst a clarification, the letter was signed by heads of Reform, Conservative and Reconstructionist movment. And a number of prominent orthodox rabbi's signed it as well. BlennGeck (talk) 17:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

As an aside - how "religious" is "reconstructionist Judaism"? It appears to many to be basically non-theistic at best. Collect (talk) 18:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Does it matter? The letter was complaining about Beck's distortion of history, not theology. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Note the "religious dimensions" statement in the prior post - I had thought it reasonable to comment thereon. That is why we use colons :) Collect (talk) 18:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The religiosity of reconstructionists is not relevant. Doubly so, since they are one of many Jewish groups who signed the letter. BlennGeck (talk) 21:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Cymru.lass, 2 February 2011

{{edit protected}} Will someone please remove {{pp-semi-blp|small=yes}} from the article? It's causing it to appear in Category:Misplaced Pages pages with incorrect protection templates --- c y m r u . l a s s 04:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

 Removed — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Conservative Libertarian

I know libertarians don't like to hear it, but Glenn Beck describes himself as a conservative libertarian. I'm changing the lede to reflect what he calls himself, as he's the only one who can express his exact ideology or label. PokeHomsar (talk) 23:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, this article is open only to admins to edit, so please change to reflect what he calls himself. PokeHomsar (talk) 23:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, we'd need a source that verified that, and secondly, I'm not sure that Beck's description of his ideology is necessarily the only valid criteria. Do others describe him as a 'Conservative Libertarian'? Again, we'd need sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

It can say he claims that's what he calls himself, but unless the meaning of the word libertarian has changed, than it should not be used to describe him. Soxwon (talk) 00:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Self-descriptions are not exempt from verifiability and secondary sourcing requirements. That being said, I imagine it's not hard to find both sources to verify it, and sources that criticize Beck's appropriation of the term. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Glenn Beck could be a reliable source for the statement that he considers himself a "libertarian conservative", in the same way that this bloke was a reliable source for the statement that he considered himself "Emperor of these United States" and "Protector of Mexico". A statement about what Beck says is not an assertion that it is true. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Libertarianism is not a philosophy. Glenn Beck is a conservative who believes in maximizing individual freedom. Broadly speaking Libertarians do believe in maximizing individual liberty, but on all other fronts they are definitely very different to Beck which is why he has not stated the he is a libertarian. An accurate descriptor would be that

"Glenn Beck is a conservative who agrees with the libertarian's advocacy of individual liberty"

Or something to clarify that this is the part of Libertarianism that Glenn Beck agrees with, and that the label of libertarian would not otherwise apply to Glenn Beck.AerobicFox (talk) 05:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

If "Libertarianism is not a philosophy" then how can anyone make a statement about what libertarians believe? In any case, it isn't our job to attempt to interpret Beck's political philosophy (if indeed he has one), but to reflect what others say about it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

"Glenn Beck is a conservative who agrees with the libertarian's advocacy of individual liberty...except with regards to abortion, gay rights, and other things he labels 'progressive'." See, I can do original research too! This is why you need reliable sources rather than your opinion. Soxwon (talk) 05:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

If "Libertarianism is not a philosophy" then how can anyone make a statement about what libertarians believe?

Libertarianism is a bunch of different philosophies and outlooks with not much in common other than a belief that people should be able to do what they want, or that government needs to be reduced to its bare minimal form. Please see Libertarianism#Libertarian_philosophies to get a better handle on how you cannot group Libertarianism into a political philosophy.

"Glenn Beck is a conservative who agrees with the libertarian's advocacy of individual liberty...except with regards to abortion"

Libertarianism is not antipro-abortion(editing what should have been clearly seen as a typo). There are two camps within the libertarian community, one that feels that a women should have the right to do with her body, and the other which feels that fetuses have individual rights and that killing them is similar to murdering a born human. There is no qualification to be pro-choice to be a libertarian, and many Libertarians are not pro-choice.

"gay rights"

In response to whether he would be for gay marriage he stated that if it didn't break his leg or pick his pocket he is ok with it.

"See, I can do original research too!"

I see you do not understand Beck, Libertarianism, or Misplaced Pages policy. Please respond next time without the sarcasm as you just made a series of off-topic and incorrect statements.

If nobody has any argument for why the statement of "Glenn Beck is a conservative who agrees with the libertarian principles of increasing individual liberty and minimizing government" then it should go into the article. You may disagree that banning abortion is not supportive of individual rights, but that is only one view, and one which shouldn't be debated over in Misplaced Pages.AerobicFox (talk) 06:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I stated that Glenn Beck was anti-abortion not that libertarianism was anti-abortion, and that his stance on that issue was contrary to libertarianism (pro-choice is a fairly common tenant of libertarianism). You continue to push original research instead of providing citations for the contentious statement you wish to insert. Please provide reliable sources. Soxwon (talk) 06:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Please re-read my comment to understand that having anti-abortion views is not contrary to libertarianism, and try to do so before telling me that you have been misunderstood. Libertarianism is not pro-abortion, it is not anti-abortion.

"I understand policy far better than you it seems, for you continue to push original research instead of providing citations for the contentious statement you wish to insert."

Taking fragments of different sources to portray your own view is OR, like what most of this article(and many articles on Misplaced Pages) have done. If you want to accurately reflect the subject then you need a range of sources which is not present here. Since you have been editing this article I assume that you do not understand this.AerobicFox (talk) 06:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

If you want to accurately reflect the subject then you need a range of sources which is not present here. ...If I don't understand the importance of sourcing to accurately the portray the subject than why would I link to WP:RS? I do indeed understand that you need a variety of sources which is why I'm ASKING YOU TO PROVIDE THEM instead of providing your opinion. Soxwon (talk) 06:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC) :"I do indeed understand that you need a variety of sources which is why I'm ASKING YOU TO PROVIDE THEM instead of providing your opinion"

I have not been editing this article as long as you and followed WP:OR then you would have already provided a range of sources. This article is an example that you and the other editors here have not successfully edited according to WP:OR, and that you are coming from no position to tell others how to. If you have seen Beck describe his views then you understand what I am saying above. If you have not seen Beck describe his views then you should defer to the judgment of editors who have unless you have an RS saying otherwise. I am citing what Beck has said many times to clarify his views, and he is an RS for his views.AerobicFox (talk) 07:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Striking non-productive comment. Let's get back on track. AerobicFox (talk) 07:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Here is a source that I found:Glenn Beck, gay marriage advocate? Washington Post, stating:

"Unlike many religious conservatives, Beck takes a libertarian approach to the gay marriage issue, even breaking with the teaching of his own church:" AerobicFox (talk) 07:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

So I know this is not a reliable source, but I think the below description is accurate.

"So we just assume, when Mr. Beck says "Libertarian" or "libertarian" he simply chooses to ignore that there is an actual political party that lobbies under that title. He's not the only one, right?"-www.examiner.com/libertarian-in-portland/is-glenn-beck-a-libertarian-not-so-fast

There's some analysis over how libertarian he is giving him a D+ equaling libertarian leanings which I think is a fair view. Thoughts?AerobicFox (talk) 08:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm just going to say this: I think that the way it is presented in the article (he describes himself as...) is the best possible way b/c it is indisputable and easily cited. To prove it, as you have noticed, requires shoddy sourcing and is dangerously close to WP:OR. I think that the readers can decide for themselves whether or not the description is true. Soxwon (talk) 18:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree, "he describes himself as" is a good way to put it.AerobicFox (talk) 23:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Fulton J. Sheen

Chris Matthews has compared Beck to Fulton J. Sheen. Hcobb (talk) 01:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

...And? Soxwon (talk) 01:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed; I'm not at all clear on how that is any more relevant than any of the other dozen or so comparisons involving Beck each day... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The comparisons to villainous people should also be removed. Although I will probably here arguments about how not like this they are.AerobicFox (talk) 06:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Egypt

Beck's stance on egypt has attracted a lot of negative feedback from other conservatives and from many liberals. This is probably worth mentioning, since guys like Bill Kristol are turning against him:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/stand-freedom_541404.html?page=1

http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2011/02/05/how-long-glenn-beck-how-long/

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/opinions/view/opinion/Is-Glenn-Beck-Digging-His-Own-Grave-With-Egypt-Commentary-6889BlennGeck (talk) 00:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I think we'll probably do as well to wait until we see what further sources say on this one, though I've got to admire Joe Klien's use of language in his Time blog: "...the paranoid-messianic rodeo clown"! AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

CNN covered this on John King last night (http://johnkingusa.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/04/kagan-on-glenn-beck-panic-mongering/?iref=allsearch), and the Kristol-Beck spat was covered today on CNN just 45 minutes ago. I'd say this is a big story worthy of inclusion. BlennGeck (talk) 20:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

More places covering this:

http://theweek.com/article/index/211897/are-conservatives-turning-on-glenn-beck

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/scott-galupo/2011/02/02/glenn-becks-egypt-protest-theories-show-hes-finally-lost-his-marbles

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-turn/2011/02/fox_like_msnbc_learns_the_hard.html

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0211/Kristol_rebukes_hysterical_Beck_conservatives_on_Egypt.html?showall

http://www.salon.com/news/glenn_beck/?story=/politics/war_room/2011/02/08/beck_kristol_fight

http://www.thejewishweek.com/blogs/political_insider/egypt_miller_israels_fear_arab_democracy_kristol_blasts_beck_and_moreBlennGeck (talk) 21:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Try reading WP:RS especially about using opinion pieces and how valued blogs are as sources. Collect (talk) 21:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I'd call the CNN broadcast a blog - we can probably wait for more mainstream sources though. I'm sure they are coming... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The CNN link above is a video opinion piece - citable at best as opinion and only with a text link. WP:BLP requires better sourcing than using a video as a source when the people involved make it clear they are dealing in opinions only. Collect (talk) 22:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The video link was part of their regular programming. John King was reporting on the dispute and giving analysts an opportunity to voice their opinion. This is blowing up huge. It is a very big deal, and Beck may well get fired over it. And today they mentioned it in their regular newscast on CNN. This is clearly newsworthy. You have Kristol basically attacking BEck as a nut for his comments and people are picking it up. What about the week, that is a legitimate news magazine. BlennGeck (talk) 22:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

And again read about how WP treats video sources in general. WP is NOT "the news." WP is an "encyclopedia." And , amazingly enough, opinions on all WP articles, and especially on BLPs, must be cited as opinions of those opining. Simple. Collect (talk) 22:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I never said they shouldn't be labeled as opinions. But these opinions are being reported on both by CNN and the Week. They are also being addressed in high profile opinion columns in newsweek and elsewhere. What is more Kristol himself penned a column attacking beck. This is a significant development in Beck's career. And to argue otherwise, or to mislabel a CNN report as a video blog (it was aired on CNN, not simply placed on the internet), seems a little bit like you are using wikipedia policy to protect the Beck article from negative stories. BlennGeck (talk) 23:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Kindly read my posts. I said it was a video opinion piece. Which it is. Without a transcript for people to determine precisely what is in it. Next remember that material in a BLP must be reasonably relevant to the BLP. Often opinions of others are of only marginal relevance, and of minimal weight, in the actual BLP. Then recall WP:PIECE - the article must, at some point, be looked at as a whole. When parts get expanded far beyond reason, the article suffers. Lastly, there is significant negative commentary about Beck in this article. How much more ought be added in your opinion? Collect (talk) 23:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Given that Glenn Beck is himself a source for nothing but 'opinion', the opinions of others are clearly worthy of at least discussing with regard to whether they merit inclusion in the article. Particularly when the negative opinions in question seem to be coming from those who have previously supported Beck. And there is no obligation on Misplaced Pages to balance negative and positive opinion in an article - if what was already in the article reflected a balance of the weight of opinion about him, and he now only receives negative comments, the balance must change to reflect it. I'm inclined to wait a day or two more over this, to see how it pans out, but if it does attract further commentary we will have to reassess the article, with the object of at least noting the situation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Alas - your opinion is noted - but not rooted in WP:BLP policy. Sources offering criticism must meet WP:RS and be clearly labe;ed as "opinion." The tendency of making "critisicm" sections in BLPs be the dominant sections is a bit unfortunate every time. And as editors we ought to specifically avoid any "value judgements" about the topic - the task is to write an encyclopedia article, not expound on any of our own beliefs. Collect (talk) 00:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Fine, I agree that opinion should be marked as such - I never suggested otherwise. And as for 'expounding beliefs', you wrote "there is significant negative commentary about Beck in this article. How much more ought be added in your opinion?" This looked to me like a suggestion that we should make value judgements based on our assessment of whether we believed the article was negative or positive overall - not something that WP:BLP requires.

To be clear, I am not suggesting anything needs to be added to the article based on the sources so far presented. I am instead suggesting that if they are part of a wider trend, we will need to report this, rather than dismissing it without proper debate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:NPOV however does require that we make sure that a reasonable balance is attained in any article with proper weight given. Again - read the extensive discussions on various noticeboards about "criticism of" articles and sections. Collect (talk) 00:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

No. WP:NPOV requires we do not select our sources to introduce our own bias, or use them in a way that introduces such bias. If the sources on the whole are negative, then so should the article be. Or are you suggesting that an article on Pol Pot should have equal measures of negative and positive commentary? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. All Misplaced Pages articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Misplaced Pages and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is non-negotiable and all editors and articles must follow it. So "opinions" which represent single people or groups should clearly not be over-weighted in any article, and especially not in a WP:BLP. Collect (talk) 00:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Exactly what I was suggesting. Making "How much more ought be added in your opinion?" an irrelevant comment - our opinions don't matter. If the 'significant views' change, then so should the article. The (admittedly somewhat poorly sourced) references are suggesting that the 'views' of those who have supported Beck in the past are changing. If this is demonstrated in reliable sources, the article will need to be revised to reflect it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Enough Collect, these sources are allowed per WP:BLP: Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Therefore, the politico, CNN, and other such links are valid. Soxwon (talk) 00:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Please stop quoting me the wiki guidelines. Nothing I am suggesting violates NPOV.

First, those aren't poorly sourced. The Week and CNN are reliable sources. The opinion pieces were included to demonstrate that high profile news analysts are discussing the dispute between Kristol and Beck. Second, I never suggested we simply put peoples' opinions out there as fact. I am just suggesting that Kristol's reaction to Beck's theory about Egypt is worthy of inclusion (as is Beck's response). BlennGeck (talk) 00:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

For the last time, the CNN piece appeared on CNN television during John King's show, then they posted that online. The 3 PM newscast on CNN today covered the Kristol-Beck dispute as well. BlennGeck (talk) 00:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

And again - the King segment is "commentary" aka "opinion." A text transcript would be usable RS for the "opinions" stated in it. Collect (talk) 01:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Enough! The WP, Politico, and US News pieces are all useable sources. Is the CNN piece really that important? Soxwon (talk) 03:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

RS isn't everything. Is this worthy of mention or is it recentism? I haven't even looked at the sources but the publishers are typically RS but ow much space (if any) does one flurry of news deserve? Like I said, I haven't even gone through them so maybe it is massively deserving of note but my experience on this article says that most news stories are usually not.Cptnono (talk) 04:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I would say it is newsworthy, CNN has covered it multiple times. Major commentators like Joe Klein have noted both Beck's statements and the spat between Beck and Klein. What is more, Beck has discussed it himself for three days straight on his radio program and his television program. And for the last time, that isn't a video blog, that was John King reporting on the controversy and allowing analysts to weigh in during his normal evening broadcast. And as I said, yesterday during the 3pm hard news, CNN covered the Kristol-Beck dispute. BlennGeck (talk) 14:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Here is the transcript from CNN newsroom yesterday. That is a hard news show, reporting on the dispute between Kristol and Beck: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1102/08/cnr.07.html BlennGeck (talk) 14:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

But now here's another take on Egypt. And this is all about the view from over here and Glenn Beck. Have you heard about this today? Glenn Beck has been doling out an elaborate stream of conspiracy theories. And now a fellow conservative is calling him out for that. And that is news.

Sure reads like commentary from here.

Sarah Palin just gave an interview. She took a dig at the president saying that his 3:00 a.m. phone call came and it went to voice-mail, but -- you know, a little witty line, but it's not clear what her substantive critique really is there. It was Newt Gingrich who has sort of gone the farthest. He told John King that the White House has been amateurish and sent mixed messages. is "hard news" to anyone?

And Doesn't have a clue about those realities. Brooke, I'm sure you're shocked that this too is now being infused with politics. is "hard news"? Sorry, I rather think it is commentary chit-chat at best.

But is "CNN Newsroom" a "hard news" show even according to CNN? Nope. It has "analysis from experts on the issues being covered." Last I looked "analysis" is the same as "commentary." YMMV. Collect (talk) 14:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

"I would say it is newsworthy, CNN has covered it multiple times. "

WP:NOTNEWS This seems like one of a great many spats that Glenn Beck gets in to. For comparison I do not see the Anthony Weiner dispute anywhere in this article; is there some reason you believe this is more notable than that one? In that dispute Beck made an entire website to attack Weiner, and there was far more coverage.AerobicFox (talk) 16:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you serious? I give up. This is most certainly a notable controversy. Enjoy your echo chamber. BlennGeck (talk) 18:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Ancient Babylon? some sort of religious plan?

I'm flummoxed by this addition to the article, which asserts that Beck attributed the US military not targeting archaeological sites in the wars against Iraq to "some sort of religious plan." In apparent support of this assertion, the article cites this HuffPost web page which includes a video clip of Chris Matthews asking, "What In Hell Is This Man Talking About?". Matthews apparently didn't know what Beck was talking about and, apparently, neither did the two guests he had on to comment about it (one said it didn't make sense on any level, the other said that Beck was just trying to hype his ratings). I couldn't figure it out either from the Beck TV snippet included in the Matthews clip.

So, what RS supports the assertion of Beck's attribution to "some sort of religious plan"? What the heck is "some sort of religious plan", anyhow? I listened to the entire 9+ minute Matthews clip (shudder), and I couldn't find the answer to those questions there.

Per WP:BLPREMOVE, I've removed the material. I think it needs to be clearer about what it says, and better supported. If the assertion is supported by an assertion by an opinionator, it ought to be clearly identified inline as an assertion by that particular opinionator. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Beck has said on his show and web site that the Egyptian uprising is likely to lead to a global Islamic caliphate, that the left has lined up with the fundamentalists, and that by supporting a deal with the Moslem Brotherhood we are promoting the result ourselves.

Beck indeed suggested in passing that we avoided bombing "ancient Babylon" for mysterious reasons:

"Two wars in Iraq. We said no bombing there. Ancient Babylon. Ancient Babylon. Why? Because the Bible tells us that that is the seat -- right here -- of power of a global, evil empire." Transcript printed by Slate here. Beck postulates Spain, Italy, France and even England falling (because they all have Muslim populations).

Chris Mathews on Feb. 3 "From crackdown to crack-up....we had the delusional Glenn Beck imagining the creation of a worldwide Islamic caliphate with the help of the two George Bushes."

Beck responding to Chris Mathews on February 5: "“The communist left, the uber socialist left and the Islamic radicals are in bed together, period. Look it up. It’s called Islamic socialism."

Make sense now? Personally, I like the philosophy expressed in WP:Reverting: "revert a good faith edit only after discussing the matter. A reversion can eliminate 'good stuff,' discourage other editors, and spark an edit war. So if you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, then try to improve it, if possible – reword rather than revert." Jonathanwallace (talk) 08:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Presuming all of that to be so (and I have no reason to believe otherwise) I don't think that it is a good idea to expect that readers of the article will have the background to read the section in the light of the information which you have provided here. As I said, I think that the information which I removed needs to be clearer about what it says, and better supported. I took it at face value as presented and as supported, and couldn't figure it out. I don't see how Beck's prognosticating (in the transcript printed by Slate) about how he thinks a caliphate could play out really relates to reasons why Bush 41 & 43 might have avoided bombing in the Ancient Babylon area, or how it suggests that Beck believes that avoidance was "some sort of religious plan". I don't know what Beck has in his mind re Ancient Babylon, and I'm not convinced that Chris Matthews knows any more about that than I do (which, in fact, he said essentially that he does not). I would guess that bombings in an area of great historical and religious importance to virtually every nation in the mid-east (Hmmm... I see that this source says that Muhammad was conceived there) might have been avoided as a tactical compromise in furtherance of long-range strategic interests (i.e., U.S. strategic thinkers might have wanted to avoid giving everyone in the area more reason to be and to remain really angry with the U.S.), but I don't have a supporting source suggesting that that might have been what was in Beck's mind.

Reword? OK. The section is headed "Public disputes". How about something like the following, using sources which you've mentioned above:

Beck has said on his show and web site that the Egyptian uprising is likely to lead to a global Islamic caliphate. MSNBC commentator Chris Matthews responded to this by opining, "From crackdown to crack-up....we had the delusional Glenn Beck imagining the creation of a worldwide Islamic caliphate with the help of the two George Bushes."(support: ) Beck responded to such suggestions that these assertions indicated that he was crazy by saying, "The communist left, the uber socialist left and the Islamic radicals are in bed together, period. Look it up. It’s called Islamic socialism."(support: )

No, I really am not seriously suggesting that go into the article. Perhaps someone else can do a better job of rewording it, though, or perhaps less WP:Recentism would be a good thing.

Also, the WP:Reverting essay makes some good points, but WP:BLPREMOVE is WP:Policy, and it says, "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research) ...". Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Here is the source of what Beck is ranting about: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_9_19/ai_100111687/ Hcobb (talk) 19:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

That was cited in the content I removed. It supports the assertion, "The American military had actually worked with experts from National Geographic to minimize the impact of their operations on the cultural treasures of Iraq." in the removed content by saying, "They even brought in specialists from National Geographic to advise them where to take extra care." I didn't see issues with either that assertion or the supporting source but I did see other issues discussed above. I didn't think the sidebar about National Geographic was meaty enough to remain once the content with which I did have issues was removed.

I'm not trying to support Beck's POV here, I'm saying that I saw a BLP problem and acted on it. The BLP problem could be corrected by rewording the removed content and sourcing it better (though I'm pretty unimpressed with sources which amount to little more than personal attacks against Beck, even if those attacks do come out of the mouths of persons with recognizable names). Re Beck's Caliphate prognstications, he's not the first on this. One other example (not the only one to be found, I'm guessing), Mapping the Global Future, Report of the National Intelligence Council’s 2020 Project, December 2004, ISBN 0-16-073-218-2, says on page 20,

A radical takeover in a Muslim country in the Middle East could spur the spread of terrorism in the region and give confidence to others that a new Caliphate is not just a dream.

That report contains an illustrative fictional scanario, "A new Caliphate" with details pretty far removed from Becks prognostications spoken of above but still backing up the point that some serious thinkers have considered it worthwhile not to dismiss such thoughts out of hand. Chris Matthews might disagree, though, perhaps on the grounds that anyone not dismissing such thoughts with derision is a muddlehead. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Christianity articles
• Low-importance Christianity articles
• B-Class Latter Day Saint movement articles
• Low-importance Latter Day Saint movement articles
• WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement articles
• WikiProject Christianity articles
• Unassessed United States articles
• Unknown-importance United States articles
• Unassessed United States articles of Unknown-importance
• Unassessed Washington articles
• Unknown-importance Washington articles
• WikiProject Washington articles
• Washington articles with to-do lists
• WikiProject United States articles
• Misplaced Pages requested images of LDS church people
• B-Class biography articles
• B-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Unknown-importance biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Arts and entertainment work group articles
• B-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• Unknown-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class Radio articles
• High-importance Radio articles
• WikiProject Radio articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press