Misplaced Pages

• 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

• Neutral point of view
• No original research
• Verifiability

• Julie Muhlstein (2 October 2009). "Turns out Glenn Beck actually was born in Everett". The Herald (Everett).

• 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

• Neutral point of view
• No original research
• Verifiability

1) Do not attack other editors by assuming they are doing something like that. 2) Controversy'section are frowned upon so the info needs to be neutral with a neutral section header. 3)start your comments at the bottom of pages not the top. Cptnono (talk) 20:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. But I've been reading this article for some time. The bias is clear. Hide behind whatever pretend-editorial rules you want to. I've worked in an editorial office. Omitting major controversial statements by a figure, and instead pushing them into a category called 'disputes' implies both sides are equally valid. That isn't neutrality, that is the golden mean fallacy. Neutral would be describing objectively how controversial the statements were, how true they were, and how they were received. Do not take that tone with me as though you were a real editor. I maintain there are serious problems with this article and it is obvious they stem from the bias of the editors involved. I suppose you will just have me banned though to shut me up, instead of addressing the problems I've addressed.

Serpent Mound needs inclusion (it is a known hoax, he tried to present as legit. on Television). Melt-down needs inclusion (it went viral and was mentioned on a number of news sources). His use of bad logic and penchant for conspiracy theories need mention. His logic is flawed in many instances (that is fact, not opinion), and he uses it to promote convoluted conspiracy theories.

Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 20:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

You need to stop making those accusations. You need to provide sources.Cptnono (talk) 21:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Misplaced Pages, where amateurs beat up professionals. Nothing about the crazy rules stops us from reporting Beck's less glorious moments, so start with getting links to reliable sources. Dylan Flaherty 21:59, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

1) I haven't even edited the actual article, I am just raising legitimate concerns on the discussion page. I have noticed when I viewed it as a reader, that there are major omissions in terms of controversies, and that the article appears structured to help keep these controversies from ever being on the page. The serpent mound controversy is well known, and it is a proven hoax. It should be on there. He made factually inacurate statements about the mounds on his program. This is not opinion, it is scientific fact. The Serpent Mound tablets are hoaxes, and he put them up on his program as legitimate. I can tell you as a former history journal editor, his statements were incorrect. But I guess until fox news or CNN covers that fact, you won't allow his factually innacurate statements to be labeled as such, because that would be "POV". I guess if someone claims that the sun revolves around the earth and no major news outlet comments, we can't point out falsity of the statement?

Here are some links to the issue: http://dancingfromgenesis.wordpress.com/2010/08/18/glenn-beck-show-081810-phoenicians-hebrew-block-style-writing-lost-civilizations-archaeology-archaic-epigraphy-serpent-mound-ohio-great-pyramid-giza-slope-angles-navition-astronomy-censored-native-a/

http://savageminds.org/2010/08/20/glenn-beck-archaeologist/

Conspiracy theories:

http://www.pfaw.org/press-releases/2010/12/the-violent-consequences-of-glenn-beck-s-dangerous-rhetoric

http://blogs.jta.org/telegraph/article/2010/11/15/2741750/glenn-beck-and-the-limits-of-soros-bashing

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/glenn-beck/transcript/george-soros-warns-fox-news-dictatorship

http://www.opednews.com/Diary/Glen-Beck-s-Guy-W-Cleon-by-Steve-Klingaman-101209-910.html

I already posted a direct link to the CNN coverage of his Muslims are 10% terrorist statement and it is a matter of public record since he said it on film and on the air for his radio program. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 14:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

But to the topic of this discussion thread. Here are links regarding his statement that 10% of muslims are terrorists. Would anyone deny this statement is controversial, and would anyone deny it is unsupported by available evidence?

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/fareed-zakaria-calls-out-glenn-becks-math-skills-on-muslim-terrorist-claim/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/06/glenn-beck-ten-percent-muslims-terrorists_n_792726.html

http://www.newser.com/story/107016/glenn-beck-estimates-10-of-muslims-are-terrorists.html

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201012060007

http://www.wisepolitics.com/glenn-beck-10-muslim-are-terrorists-2655.html

http://www.urbanliteraturemagazine.com/glenn-beck-10-muslim-in-the-world-are-terrorists/2391/

Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 15:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Blah blah blah. You took such a good step in attempting to find sources. But we all know the Earth revolves around Mars. Also, double check what "reliable source" is just because a couple seem off. And if you really really ant something to change in the article, start providing some drafts. Cptnono (talk) 15:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not your pupil, Cptono. I am making valid suggestions. The guy said 10% of muslims are terrorist in his opinion. That is a fact. It was noted on a major program on CNN, and has been the subject of discussion on many of the internet news sites I posted. Plus, it is a factually incorrect statement. A visibly racist statement, and clearly a controversial statement. Further he made historical claims about the serpent mounds that are objectively false. There is no debate any longer on the serpent mounds. You can choose to attack me and ignore these suggestions. Or you can absorb my criticisms to help improve the article. The choice is yours. But don't attack me, when I make a valid observation about the quality of the article on its discussion page (isn't that what the discussion page is all about). Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 16:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

What you need as a first step for inclusion in the article are reliable secondary sources which discuss this statement by Beck. Blogs, etc. are generally not acceptable, especially for controversial claims about living people. If such sources are found, the incident/dispute would then be weighed by the editors on this page to determine if it's significant enough for inclusion, and then it would have be worded in a neutral fashion. Kelly 16:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

And this is the problem with the "Dispute" category. Unless he enters into a public dispute with another major figure, anything extremely unusual, bizarre, incorrect or dangerous he says can't be included in the article...it has to be part of a dispute.

GPS on CNN isn't a reliable source? Or if he says something (as he did about the serpent mounds) that are factually incorrect (and blatant attempt to legitimize the mormon view of history) we can't point that out. He held up a hoax as evidence. It is a noted hoax. Only bloggers picked up on it. It is still demonstrably false. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 22:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Generally speaking, things that only bloggers pick up on aren't considered notable enough for inclusion in Misplaced Pages. Kelly 22:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

SO you don't think its significant that he argued the ancient Hebrews traveled to the Americas and he used the Serpent Mound tablets, a confirmed hoax as evidence? Either way, the 10% of muslims are terrorist thing was picked up by CNN and other news sources, not just bloggers. I agree, we can't call something a controversy if it isn't noted as such by a reliable source, but surely we point out when someone makes a major claim based on something factually incorrect. And surely if it is lighting up the blogosphere, that is worthy of mention. It just seems to me, like there are people here, using policy and their status as veteran editors, to insulate keep out negative facts about Beck's life. Again, I point to the golden mean fallacy. This is a clear case of it. We shouldn't skew articles on controversial figures by turning editing into a consensus building exercise. If we did, how would articles on Pol Pot, or Stalin look? Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 23:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not interested in contributing to this article by the way. I don't want to get wrapped up in one that clearly has been a focal point for partisan disputes. I just wanted to bring problems with the article to users attention. And I thought the statement that he believed 10% of Muslims are terrorist worthy of inclusion. People can heed my advice or not. Have no interest in wrangling with usersDeliciousgrapefruit (talk) 23:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Grapefruit, my take on this is that articles shouldn't be packed full of dirt and shouldn't be dirt-free: they should just report the reality, which tends to be mixed. The issue, as you may have noticed, is that public figures with a fan base can wind up with their articles defended against all possibly negative additions, in direct contradiction to Misplaced Pages rules about neutrality, reliability and ownership.

What makes this more difficult for outsiders is that the rules are strange and, quite frankly, hostile towards expert knowledge. Because we can't tell whether you have a PhD or you're 12, we treat both types of editors the same way, leading to absurd results.

Raising an issue and dropping a few links is very unlikely to have any net effect on an article. You have to stick around and work to have them integrated. Dylan Flaherty 02:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, we should omit all mention of this because he actually said it was over 5%, not 10%? Dylan Flaherty 06:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

This discussion opened with a suggestion about adding content pointing up "Beck recently claimed he believes the number of muslims who are terrorists is close to 10%". FWICS, that point came from media hype over a passing comment which was taken out of context while Beck was talking about something else. Listening to Beck's actual audio, I see that it was a portion of an offhand remark. It seems to me that anyone listening to the actual audio (via, for example, that link I gave to the Huffington Post article) would have a very difficult time coming to the conclusion from what Beck actually said that he believes the number of muslims who are terrorists is close to 10%, or 5%. In fact, he went on to say, "... let's take you at your one percent ..." and went on to develop the point he was trying to make using that figure. In doing that, he said, "... You don't think one percent, half a percent here in the United States of radicals, of people who want to violently overthrow the government, is a problem?" He was talking about the problem, and about under-reportage of the problem. He wasn't talking about the percent of muslims who are terrorists. No, I don't think this belongs in the article. I don't think that it "was newsworthy enough to be discussed on Fareed Zakaria's GPS" (as is claimed above), I think that Fareed Zakaria's discussion of it is what made this small tidbit of a snippet taken out of context newsworthy. I can't really argue that trumpeting it here would be giving it undue weight because WP:DUE measures weight by prominence, and this analysis and reportage of this tidbit of a snippet lifted out of context has certainly been given a lot of prominence. I do, however, believe that the prominence which it has been given is unwarranted and presents a highly distorted picture. The picture presented is one which sources with POVs differing from Beck's paint of Beck's views and beliefs, not Beck's picture of Beck's views and beliefs. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't your analysis/opinion of the what/why constitute original research? Shouldn't we simply stick to what is published about this incident in reliable sources (both supportive and critical)? I take your point, and I'm not saying that this has enough weight to be included at all (my opinion is still being formulated), but I don't think that an editor's analysis should be a consideration when discussing if this should be mentioned in the article. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 13:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The quote wasn't taken out of context. GPS played the whole thing, and his statement was essentially that he thought the number of muslim terrorists was close to 10%. Not only is the statement very unusual, and an example of text book racism, it made it onto reliable sources like GPS. Why shouldn't it be included. Again, it seems to be, that there are people rushing to prevent any legit. negative coverage of beck on this article because they support him.

Listening to the audio, he clearly asserted he personally thinks the number is closer to 10%. He agreed to use the 1% number as a point of disucussion (a rhetorical concession). That doesn't eliminate the fact that he stated very clearly he thought the number was close to 10%. He may well have been talking about another issue when it came up, that doesn't change the meaning of the originally statement he made.

Just because a statement is wedged in between other points, and just because someone says I think the number is x, but lets take your number of Y, that doesn't remove the fact that they still said they think the number is X. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 13:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

He never said the number was "close to 10%" he said it was closer to 10% than it was to 1%, not that it matters. As stated above, the actual number has little to do with what he was saying. That a bunch of hyperpartisan websites like MMfA and HuffPo are making hay out of this is no suprise at all. Also, in response to an earlier statement, this is not racist. Islam is not a race. I must say I find absolutely amazing how quickly a minor statement is taken out of context and then republished into supposedly MSM souces like CNN. Especially compared to some of the other things that Beck dislikers get so riled up about. Arzel (talk) 14:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

No, he didn't say closer to %10 than 1%. He said closer to 10%, which means he thinks it is in the vicinity of 10%. If he thought it was 5% he would have said he thinks it is closer to 5%. If he thought it was 8% he would have said closer to 8%. The man specically chose the number 10% as an example, and since he was talking about Islamic Terrorism, it was absolutely related to the topic (not that it matters, if someone is talking about cherries and makes a side comment that he thinks the number of black people who are in gangs is close to 10%, that is still newsworthy). You are right, racism isn't the correct term. It is text book prejudice, possibly bigotry, and absolutely islamophobic. Clearly, the beck fans are coming out in numbers to keep this off the article. Which just reinforces my initial point. The man said it. They are trying to parse the meaning as much as possible. I give up.

This was not a minor statement. This was a significant statement about a religion, and it was noted on major news channels. You can disagree with the meaning of what he said, or dispute what his intentions were. You can't dispute that he said it, and that it was mentioned and challenged by CNN. If he said this about any other group, it would be in the article.

Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 16:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

If you ask me, I wouldn't trust CNN that much on something like that. Of course they would say stuff like that about a rival. − Jhenderson

So now we can't use CNN as a reliable source? Should we only use FOX? This is just more evidence that my original claim about the article being bias, because of beck fans, is true. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 16:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

And they didn't need to say anything about him. He said it himself. He claimed the number of muslims who are terrorists is close to 10%. That is a significant statement. Put the full original quote in (I don't care) "I think the number is closer to 10%". People who want to know about Beck's position on Islam and Muslims, deserve to know about that statement. If you exclude it, you are painting an incomplete picture of the man's attitude and beliefs about the faith. Which is relevant because he talks frequently about religion and faith. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 16:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

No CNN is reliable. It's just that them claiming this, is a opinion. I don't see a big deal of this, really. People seem to take things personally that Muslims are considered terrorists. Even Muslims wouldn't take that personal, to some it's a compliment because they were raised that that's a good thing. Anyways if Glenn Beck said this himself, then I would say it could be reliable. But it's got to be his exact words. − Jhenderson 16:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

No it wasn't just an opinion. Their interpretation of his words was much more accurate than yours. We can include what he said exactly, which was "I think the number is closer to 10%". That doesn't mean he thinks it is between 1-10%. it means he thinks it is in the 10% range. People can quibble over the specifics, claim it was taken out of context, and try to parse as much as they want. He said it. It was reported on a commentary program on CNN and elsewhere.

Why would you think muslims wouldn't take offense at that? I am sure some wouldn't, but my hunch is most would. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 16:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Because I kind of know a lot about Islam and what they believe. You read the book Qur'an and it will teach you that people that don't believe in their belief should die. Now I didn't mean all, I even used the word SOME in my comment. The only reason why they wouldn't is because in their mind (the radical ones), they wouldn't use the term, terrorist. Now to get out of this subject becuase Misplaced Pages is not a forum. If you have a source saying that he said it, then it's a definite maybe. I wouldn't revert you. And I never had an interpretation of anything related to CNN's interpretations. ;) − Jhenderson 16:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

My area of expertise is Islamic Terrorism. I know Arabic. You're analysis is off, and belongs under the article on what Muslims believe not what Glenn Beck believes. There are also passages in the Old Testament, which encourage killing of non believers. And likewise there are passages in the New/Old Testaments and Koran, instructing people not to kill. Yes there are Muslims who believe killing in the name of the faith is justified, and there are those who don't. And I am open to discussing the topic broadly under Islam or Terrorism. But no one, would support the claim that 10% of Muslims are actually terrorists.

Why should I get out. I have numerous sources saying he said it, and you are quibbling over what it means exactly. Trying to massage it into a harmless phrase, not deserving of any attention. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 17:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Why are you arguing with people about this. I am not even trying to disagree with you and I did not mention anything to do with the Old Testament. I know the Bible as well but I never talked about that once. I am not biased on any station or any religion, If Fox News explained their own belief on someone who works on CNN, I wouldn't consider it a reliable source either. Yes my statement was off concerning that the main reason why I explained it is because worrying about what he said about Muslims is my opinion is not important enough for Misplaced Pages. Some Muslims are terrorists and some aren't, everyone knows that. Durr! As of how many Muslims are believed to be terrorists, who cares. That's debatable and shouldn't be so controversial. − Jhenderson 18:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am arguing because you were debating with me about the the beck quote. YOu went on to assert that you believe the Koran does in fact teach people to kill infidels and you were using it to somehow support beck's position. I mentioned the old testament to demonstrate that violent passages are in most holy books. Doesn't mean they are the core of the religion.

Actually the raw math just doesn't support Beck's claim. And it is worthy of inclusion because it came up on GPS as a major issue, and because it is a very controversial statement. It also is an important part of beck's world view. If he believes the number is in the 10% range, that's important enough to include. I don't see why you are putting up such a fight over it. He said it. That is a fact. It came up on a major CNN commentary show. That is a fact. And this also caused a stir in other places like the Huffington Post. Fact. This is the typical ploy used by partisans to keep wikipedia from including negative facts about their heroes. Misplaced Pages isn't a political platform. It is a reference source for people who want info. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 18:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

There's no good reason for arguing, at all. And I am not supporting Beck's claim, I am just thinking it's ridiculous to be controversial and important. And I said something that the Qur'an says, big whoop. I am not saying it's good or bad for I don't despise any belief. I am just trying to be neutral and you take everything I say with a grain of salt. Sounds like someone needs a hug. − Jhenderson

Sounds like you are trying to have it both ways: arguing while claiming you aren't. The statement was notable. It was clearly offensive to Muslims. You tried to suggest it wasn't. You tried to downplay the statement. Then you brought up the koran to make your point. Sounds like you are claiming neutrality to keep something negative (and 100% relevant) off the beck page. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 19:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

And what you seem to be arguing is that Muslims should take Beck's claim that about 10% of them are terrorists because "People seem to take things personally that Muslims are considered terrorists. Even Muslims wouldn't take that personal, to some it's a compliment because they were raised that that's a good thing" In your own words. I am not really interested in arguing the finer points of Islam. But I do know a lot about the faith and its holy texts. However, what is relevant here, is that most people would agree, Muslims wouldn't take that as a compliment. Most would be offended. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 19:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I am the one who said that you could put it on there if there is a source of him stating it. So why are you arguing at me. And quit bringing up the Koran like it's your mom. That was stupid of me. I am sorry I brought it up. Will you please stay cool. − Jhenderson 19:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I have already said, I am not going to edit this page. It is the target of too many edit wars, and the product of too much ideological feuding. I am just pointing out some flaws, and things that should be added. I've provided links. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 19:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I am being cool. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 19:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Well I am not sure of how to word it or where you put it and you're right, an edit war might happen. That's why you might want to take it to an administrator if you want it on there. ;)− Jhenderson 20:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Instead I've done this: http://wikipediawatch.wordpress.com/2010/12/13/glenn-beck-page/ Expect future articles on problems with wikipedia articles. Contributors are welcome to send me blog entries. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 20:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I was asked to take a look at this by Jhenderson777 as he thought it might need admin intervention. I don't see anything for an admin to do. Deliciousgrapefruit, leaping straight to the "Beck supporters control his page" meme was quick by any standards. Stay calm, and stick to using reliable sources. Not random blogs, but actual sources with a reputation for fact checking. The reason we don't like mud being flung around willy-nilly and every little controversy going in is not because we're all Beck fans (we're not), it's because we have rules like our biographies of living people policy and our neutrality policy, which includes a note that we must give due weight to issues affecting the subjects of articles. You've not shown so far that the "Serpent mound tablets" thing has any coverage in reliable sources, so there's no way that's going to be included. As for the "10%" thing, propose some balanced wording that takes in the context of what he actually said, and we might be able to have a reasoned debate. Fences&Windows 23:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes, another reason to be careful about news spats like this: recentism. We do not want to end up writing about everything that in currently in the news, drowning out all the actual important things in our articles. In a little while we'll have some perspective to judge whether Beck's comments deserve inclusion and in what manner, once they've been analysed in a somewhat calmer fashion than the current blogosphere response. Fences&Windows 23:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Agree re WP:Recentism. Incidentally, I've stumbled across some comments by Beck about all the hullabaloo over this at . It's not entirely clear to me there, but he seems to say that he based the "closer to 10%" comment on a poll he had seen, apparently a poll by worldpublicopinion.org. I grubbed around a bit on their website and couldn't find a poll asking what percent of muslims are terrorists. I did come up with info on some possibly related polling results from February 2009 at which reported the results of polling on (for example) the percentage of populations in muslim countries who approved of attacks on civilians in the U.S. as, overall, over 8% approval (the range in the table I looked at there was from 4% to 24%. In the article I linked re Beck's comments, there's some confusion over the range which seems to settle down at 10% to 39% -- I'm unable to relate those range figures to the range figures of 4% to 24% which I see in the table which I looked at in the article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I did present real sources. See my blog for further criticism. Contributors welcome :)Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 23:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Approving of violence isn't the same as committing violence. And there are a number of significant problems with that study, plus studies which reached entirely different conclusions. This is a subject I know a great deal about, and there are misconceptions about it both on the far left and the far right. But honestly it looks to me like the editors here are trying to justify Beck's statement and give it legitimacy, which only amplifies the relevance of my initial points: editor bias is a problem in the Beck Article. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 00:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Consensus appears to be to not include. Anyone mind if we close this discussion out or is it still needed?Cptnono (talk) 00:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Raising issues with a wikipage, and reporting editors that attack you on that page, is wikihounding? Okay. See where this is going. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 00:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Cptono: Your last comment is a perfect example of why consensus is a bad way to build articles. The majority of editors here appear to be sympathetic to beck. I post something that qualifies as a significant statement by Beck, and consensus is to ignore. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 00:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

No, there's on wikihounding. I don't know where Jhenderson777 got that impression from. I don't think starting your blog is going to help you, but hey. I see no rush to close this - we can continue with reasoned debate with reference to sources, no? I've not said I oppose all mention of the 10% remark, just that it needs to comply with our policies if it does go in and I'm not sure if it does fit yet. "Qualifies as a significant statement" according to whom? Btw, Deliciousgrapefruit, you do realise that mostly Misplaced Pages is accused of having a massive liberal-left bias, and that I myself identify as a socialist gasp on my userpage? Fences&Windows 00:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

When the discussion turns into sayibng it isn;t included because others are biased it has run its course. But if you want it open then I see no

According to Fareed Zakaria, who is one of the top Muslim commentators on CNN and a well regarded Islamic Scholar. I think his opinion on this is worth something.Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 00:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I realize wikipedia is thought of as liberal. I personally am not liberal, and I am not a conservative. I believe that the structure of wikipedia, lends itself to having seriously diluted content due to leftwing and rightwing partisans duking it out. I have no major issue with Fox News or other conservative sources of information. I do have an issue with not reporting prejudicial statements made by a major news commentator on his biography page. Hey, I think the in this case, there is too much of a rightwing editorial precense. But looking at the wikipedia terrorism articles, the left wing editors are really hindering any meaningful progress on articles. Again, truth and accuracy should be the guiding principles, not consensus. Until truth and accuracy are what shape wikipedia entries, it won't ever be a truly reliable source for anything. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 00:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Zero chance of that receiving any traction. Anyways, take to the Village Pump since this is not the right place to discuss changing something like that.Cptnono (talk) 00:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I was going to say Wikihounding doesn't fully define what's going on. Except for the discussion page portion of it. But you don't seem to be very civil when it comes to discussion some times. And this discussion is getting quite unconstructive. It's getting to be more of a forum where we can debate, and I am partly to blame for it. − Jhenderson 00:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

(PLease don't delete my comments)Perhaps the village pump is the place to discuss Consensus,but the 10% comment certainly should be discussed here. I have laid out clearly why it needs inclusion. I provided reliable sources. Noted it was commented on by a highly regarded commentator (who is also a Muslim). Why shouldn't it be included? Deliciousgrapefruit (talk)

I am trying to be very civil. I just disagree with you on this point, and am advocating for the 10% comment to be included. Again, why shouldn't it be included?Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 01:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so let's get back to the article. I think it's clear that Beck suggested some unrealistically high percentage of Muslims are terrorists and that this gaffe was picked up on by various reliable sources. What's stopping us from including it? Dylan Flaherty 01:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

1) There has still not been a proposal. 2)I am in agreement with Jhenderson and Arzel's reasoning so it looks like there is not consensus to include it.Cptnono (talk) 01:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

1) We don't need a specific proposal in order to determine whether the topic is to be included.

2) I am in agreement with Deliciousgrapefruit and Blaxthos's reasoning, so it looks like there is a consensus to include it. Hmm, wait, that looks just like your statement. Maybe it's premature to declare a consensus. Instead, you should be speaking of concrete reasons. Dylan Flaherty 01:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)