Talk:Glenn Beck/Archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17

FreedomWorks chairman Dick Armey revealed that the Tea Party group paid Glenn Beck about $1 million to say "nice things"

fix infobox


1) I apologise for using the wrong temple. When i tried { { edit request|infobox} } it didnt work. What is the correct template to edit request? Thanks. : it would be { { request edit } } without the extra spaces see below --nonsense ferret 12:43, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
2) Beck has 4 kids total. His first 2 kids are with ex wife/first wife. Please correct and put 2 kids under first wife in infobox, adn 2 kids under this 2nd/current wife. Thank You. 108.56.237.111 (talk) 22:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

checking sources and will make change if ok --nonsense ferret 02:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
For the record, you can just use {{edit requested}} and add an explanation of what you want edited afterwards. {{request edit}} or {{edit request}} is for edits when you have a conflict of interest and therefore want a second pair of eyes to look over your proposed edit. Neither template takes parameters. Huon (talk) 02:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Glenn Beck insulting wrestling fans, calls the stupid

His latest insults might be worth to mention? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.245.201.239 (talk) 11:57, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

While WWE seems to be making a big stink about it, I doubt it is a notable controversy that will go down as encyclopedic. I think we should wait and see how long these two throw potshots at each other before we make that decision.LordMaldad2000 (talk) 06:42, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Boston Marathon Conspiracy Theory

Beck has been doubling down on his crazy Saudi conspiracy theory for the Boston Marathon bombing. Is it worth mentioning?KaturianKKaturian 18:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd say no - WP:NOTNEWS. It is nothing notable with regard to his biography. At least not yet. Morphh (talk) 19:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
I guess I agree. I thought this might rise to the level of his Norway remarks, but in spite of his best efforts, everyone seems to be simply ignoring him this time.KaturianKKaturian 12:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

"A conspiracy to label me a conspiracy theorist."

I'm not sure where a good spot for this is located, but it needs to go in:

This goes toward showing his recognition of his reputation. The subject is notable enough for its own section, likely a subsection in the "Public reception" area. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

For the Illuminati, I've added it. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:15, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

His High IQ

This article needs some mention of his extraordinarily high IQ. 70.109.149.174 (talk) 16:00, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

See Talk:Glenn Beck/Archive 15#High IQ?. We would need a reliable source for a start. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:08, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Gay Marriage

It's important to be clear that Beck's support for gay marriage is not that he thinks it's 'right' or even 'a good thing' - it's simply that "The question is not whether gay people should be married or not, the question is why is the government involved in our marriage?" I can find zero evidence that he's EVER argued other than on 'states vs gov' grounds. Therefore this is not evidence of being "Long socially moderate / classically libertarian with concern LGBT rights," - a claim which is unsupported by references and is unlikely to be true. Heenan73 (talk) 15:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

"Anti-vaccination activists"?

Beck is categorized as an anti-vaccination activist, but there's nothing in the article itself that mentions this. One of two things needs to happen: 1. The claim should be reliably sourced and at least offhandedly mentioned in the article, or 2. The category should be removed. Dozzzzzzzzzing off (talk) 19:48, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Philanthropy?

Does "Mercury One" qualify as a philanthropic entity? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:6007:97:C2E:35DC:A834:F08B (talk) 05:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Missing Book

The following book is missing from the Literature section:

Control: Exposing the Truth About Guns (Co-authered with Kevin Balfe and Hannah Beck) Pocket Books ISBN: 978-1-4767-3987-8 70.36.159.122 (talk) 01:58, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Just added it now, Thanks. -Shalom11111 (talk) 13:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Glenn Beck's 50th Birthday

This article should be updated to include mention of Beck's age change from 49 to 50.--71.79.43.204 (talk) 00:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Why? How is Glenn Beck's birthday any more significant than anyone else's? AndyTheGrump (talk)

Glenn Beck discusses the future of citizen privacy

Headline: Glenn Beck Has a Fascinating Talk With the Google Guys: ‘Do You… Even Believe in the Constitution?’ [1] — FYI, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:28, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Headline: What Two Google Execs Said About Glenn Beck That May ‘Drive the Left Out of Their Mind’

“He is the success story from traditional media,” Schmidt said. “And people are going to be studying what Glenn did for years, and trying to replicate it. To have a model where you have Internet and cable companies working together — it’s extraordinary.” — FYI, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


Display of Beck's net worth

What is the need to have Glenn Beck's annual income and net worth displayed in the infobox? Other wealthy political commentators like Michael Moore and Bill Maher don't have their net worth or annual income shown. B575 (talk) 05:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

There is no source for the net worth which should probably also be addressed. Flat Out let's discuss it 05:20, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
$32 million was profit of Glen Beck Inc., not salary, and net worth $65 million for 2011 is unsourced. Remove both.--Polmandc (talk) 06:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you B575 (talk) 18:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Cmt - Per wp:OTHERSTUFF, whether or not other entrepreneurs' net worth has made it into their blps' infoboxes yet is beside the point.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 22:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Per wp:DONTLIKEIT, please provide a rationale for deletion of sourced material. Btw, Beck is not just a commentator, he's also a businessman (it's well known Beck aspires to emulate Walt Disney--who himself was more than a cartoonist).--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 22:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't appear to having any basis toward his notability. Not needed at all. Needs to be removed. So let me be the fourth to express the need for removal as opposed to the one person who wishes to keep it. JOJ Hutton 23:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Talk pages are for argumentation related to guidelines, yes. And w rgd wp:N, Forbes plus innumerable add'ly available MSM cites, if desired rgding subject-entrepreneur's net worth do certainly pass WP's notability guidelines for article content. <sighs> A talk pg thread DOESN'T distill, solely, to an up-down vote tally. Bbut, even if it DID...you unfortunately have counted alleged !votes which refer to the former year's figure being unsupported by its reference which isn't the case w rgd the current year's figure which you just "voted" (um, such as it was...) to remove.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:53, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Actually talk pages are ...to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Not for argumentation related to guidelines as you put it. The discussion progressed and several editors disagreed with you. Your Straw man argument that threads are not an up and down vote doesn't hold water. Thats usually the last gasp argument from someone who has already lost the argument, but doesn't quite know it yet. As far as notability is concerned, I am not understanding your logic or argument. Could you restate in plain English and mot in "texting"?--JOJ Hutton 21:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Political views

The sentence and criticized Russian anti-gay laws as hetero-fascism in section Political views is false.
Let's check with Glenn Beck's official site - http://www.glennbeck.com/2014/01/06/media-shocked-to-learn-glenn-is-willing-to-stand-with-glaad/
It was that snowball of events that prompted Glenn to go on CNN and say:
GLENN: Do you know what happened last week in Russia? One of their biggest stars on television said that homosexuals should be put into the ovens alive. I didn’t think you could make the Holocaust worse but he’s like ‘Why the gas chamber? That seems a little too humane. Let’s put them alive in the ovens.’ I said on the air this week, I will stand with GLAAD. I will stand with anybody who will stand up and say that’s crazy. That’s dangerous. That’s hetero-fascism. That’s what that is. And we’re talking about Duck Dynasty. Really? Really?”
So the sentence is grossly misleading.- Aleksandr Izrail Lazarevich (talk) 03:35, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Slander? Balanced? Lack of Facts?

I'm new to this page, does anyone else have the sense that this page is unbalanced and slanderous? There is an enormous amount of space given to quotes of counter-attacks by progressives on Beck. That can probably not be avoided on Wikipedia, but it seems to do more to prove Beck's points right than anything else. Has there been any serious discussion about balance here? Gschadow (talk) 00:48, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh yes and there is also a lack of facts. For instance, no clear history and timeline about the meltdown at his last days on the Fox Network which I came here to check out. That is quite suspect. Gschadow (talk) 00:49, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Beck w rgd tenure at FNC

During an interview on Tuesday with Megyn Kelly of Fox News, Beck reflected on his time at Fox this way: “I remember it as an awful lot of fun, and that I made an awful lot of mistakes, and I wish I could go back and be more uniting in my language. Because I think I played a role unfortunately in helping tear the country apart. And it’s not who we are. I didn’t realize how really fragile the people were. I thought we were kind of a little more in it together. And now I look back and I realize if we could have talked about the uniting principles a little more, instead of just the problems, I think I would look back on it a little more fondly. But that’s only my role.”

--From here (NYT)]--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 23:09, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

& Beck's mea culpa debunked/at least doubted @ [http://theweek.com/article/index/255467/time-to-forgive-glenn-beck

This Week].--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Considering all he has accomplished since leaving FNC, you could say the 'divorce' was mutually appreciated; Beck had thought of it for more than a year. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:19, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Grayson Bruce and Bronies

So this has been removed by Daniel on claims that it's been removed by several editors when its only been removed twice. The first time by Dougweller just saying that it needed more sources that weren't from Beck's personal site, and so I added more sources and left it at that, and Dougweller didn't respond to anything, so I assumed all was well. That was a month ago. Daniel took those sources and edits away and said, "seriously? How is this a major event in Beck's biography worthy of an entire section?" So I was asked to bring this to the talk page. I don't see why this wouldn't belong on the page . . . I mean if you're going to give theGlennBeckRapedAndMurderedAYoungGirlIn1990.com satirical website story an entire section, I don't see why a story where he not only showed support for bronies and Grayson Bruce, a 9 year old who was bullied for liking My Little Pony, but also asked his fans to tweet and share pictures of them with My Little Pony toys and stuffed dolls, caught a lot of media outlets off guard with this action and brought the kid onto his show. Was the problem that it was in a "Section" and not a "subsection"? You'll have to forgive me, I'm fairly new to Wikipedia. The entire Glenn Beck page, as pointed out by Gschadow that the page gives a lot of page space to progressives responding to Glenn's beliefs and points. The page comes across as biased against Beck and slanderous. Marshan3q (talk) 14:09, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

If you feel that there is undue weight to something like "GlennBeckRapedAndMurderedAYoungGirlIn1990.com" and "progressive" responses to Beck's positions then the proper action would be to shorten, condense or remove them. Adding fluff like this brony business in an attempt to balance these sections out is not the proper way to write an encyclopedia article. The fact is, Beck's support for this child is not a major factor in his public image or biographical history. --Daniel(talk)
Dude.... all I want to know is where in the article it can be included. A subsection, maybe? It wasn't "fluff" in an attempt to balance anything. It was a story that gained media attention. Marshan3q (talk) 01:09, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Dudicle.... Beck gets media attention of this kind (internet news blogs) for virtually every topic he covers. Do you, in all serious, think that this would merit a mention in a concise biography of this person? Unless you can provide a real indication that this is a major event in Beck's life then you'll have to drop it. Keep in mind that your comparison to the Beck v. Eiland-Hall case is complete nonsense. Comparing a couple of tweets from Beck to a major WIPO free speech case, in which he was the plaintiff and which was commented on by legal scholars around the world, is simply shocking. --Daniel(talk) 05:17, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

A couple tweets? This was a feature on his nationally broadcasted network, and specifically on his three hour radio show and hour long evening show, for most of the week! He asked his staff to go out and buy My Little Pony toys and place them on their desks for a week in an act of respect... then he went on the radio and said what he considered "a man" to be. I'm not saying it deserves an entire section of its own, I agree with you there, but for you to remove the entire thing, and then claim it was only "a couple tweets" makes no sense. Marshan3q (talk)

Beck talks about something on every one of his shows. Should each topic he has ever discussed be covered? --Daniel(talk) 23:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Marshan3q. Glenn Beck standing up for a kid when nobody else would is worth mentioning. I doubt Glenn Beck would consider this event a minor event in his life that did not build his character (especially since his critics were calling him a Brony). Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 09:29, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
The fact that he was one of the only media personalities to stand up for the kid and make several blog posts and such about it... and the fact that it gained attention and praise from the Bronies makes it an interesting story, I agree. Marshan3q (talk) 27 June 2014

Breitbart: Beck & company's charity toward Cent. Amer. undocumented minors linked to preceding mea culpa?...

All this could be a sign in Beck’s case that he is committing to something he promised earlier this year: In January, he told Fox News host Megyn Kelly that he fears he played a role in helping to “tear the country apart” with his rhetoric, and that he planned to change.

--Read more: Breitbart

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 22:53, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

how much might Beck have to pay in the defamation lawsuit?

This is not a forum use the refdesk instead
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

how much might Beck have to pay in the defamation lawsuit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.45.34.191 (talk) 09:15, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Professor Pestritto's book linked to Amazon.com on Glenn Beck's Website

There was one more source of verifiability that I could have put but it did not seem very appropriate. On the RHS of the GlennBeck.com page for "American Progressivism", there is a link to Amazon.com that goes to Ronald J. Pestritto's 2008 book "American Progressivism: A Reader". I won't link directly to it here either but I wanted it noted. Progressingamerica (talk) 00:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Duplicate articles - The Blaze and TheBlaze?

Am I missing something, or are the two articles The Blaze (magazine) and TheBlaze (magazine) both about the same magazine? Is there any reason that they should not be merged? Anyone with insights on this, please let me know. I am posting this question on the talk pages of both articles, as well as on the talk page for Glenn Beck. Thanks KConWiki (talk) 14:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure if you redirected the smaller article into the larger one, you most likely wouldn't get too much opposition to it. JOJ Hutton 14:33, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Glenn Beck. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2015

Suggested deletion: “During his tenure at B104, Beck was arrested and jailed for speeding in his DeLorean.” This is not factually correct. Thank you. Libertylady82 (talk) 16:57, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Not done: This source indicates that this event occurred. Does a reliable source indicate that this Salon report is false? Thanks, /wia🎄/tlk 03:44, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Glenn Beck. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:46, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Parents' marriage

There is a conspicuous gap in the "Early life" section between his living with his "parents" in Mount Vernon and then moving to Sumner with his "mother". Did his parents divorce, or separate, or did his dad die, or what? --Haruo (talk) 19:04, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Beck's parents did divorce and his mother also committed suicide when he was 13 years old [2]. Meatsgains (talk) 15:02, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2016


There's a typo (the word "llater" needs to be changed to "later")

Propane13 (talk) 15:58, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done - thanks for catching the typo. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Glenn Beck. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:13, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Glenn Beck. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Political Affiliation

The article claims Beck was a Republican prior to 2014, and cites a Washington Times article as support he left the Republican Party. However, looking at his voter registration from when he previously lived in Connecticut to as far back as 2006, it shows he was registered as "Unaffiliated." Supporting the conservative policies of the Republican Party, which he states in the article were betrayed, is different from actually being a member. DanaWright (talk) 10:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

As the website is a "privately owned genealogy website" it does not qualify as WP:RS.04:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Universal Life Church

May I publicly question whether Glenn Beck having filled out a form online once to get a joke ordination from an internet church is Notable? And if so, does it belong under Religious Views and not, say, Stage Shows or Satire, Spoof or Parody? Because it's in there, and that's neither Notable nor NPOV, just a little jab. --Mrcolj (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

While comical, I don't know if it would be significant enough to include. I'm curious to see what others have to say because my decision could easily be swayed. Meatsgains (talk) 23:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
To clarify, I agree with you 100%. I think it should be removed. --Mrcolj (talk) 23:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Okay, one week of discussion, now editing.--Mrcolj (talk) 17:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

'Family values' but/and also 'libertarian'?

I was a little confused by this:

"...Beck is a genuinely principled conservative, and his commitments to both family values and libertarianism made Trump—multiply-married, genital-grabbing, pro-choice in some interviews—insupportable...." -- Virginia Heffernan, Politico, March 30, 2017

But I haven't really been following perceptions/labeling of Beck's politics these days. Beck's are "'family values' but/and also 'libertarian'"?--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:56, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I made this edit to the lede here: diff.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 23:20, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2017

2601:680:C280:6BA0:196A:AB37:552A:6FD (talk) 00:23, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Delete the completely unsourced and, as far as I have researched, false notion that Glenn Beck is now a "regular CNN contributor". Or, if this is correct, a source MUST be provided.

Done I haven't found anything to back this up either so am removing it. Also would need to be reworded if sources were found to provide timeframe context Cannolis (talk) 01:52, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Lead sentence

The lead sentence currently reads:

Glenn Lee Beck (born February 10, 1964) is an American television and radio host, conservative political commentator, author, television network producer,[5] filmmaker, entrepreneur, rancher [15], and CEO, owner and founder of Mercury Radio Arts, the parent company of his television and radio network TheBlaze.

This is the most ridiculously overwrought lead sentence I've seen on Wikipedia. I'm going to editit it to follow the MOS policies, WP:LEADSENTENCE and WP:BLPLEAD. I invite other editors to suggest changes. LK (talk) 06:07, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Glenn Beck. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Glenn Beck. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:43, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Reliability of TheBlaze

Editors here are invited to participate in WP:RSN#TheBlaze. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:55, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Curious omission

Rather curious that the political views section does not mention his vehement opposition to Trump during the election and for a while after. His current support is a pretty radical change of heart. This does not seem to be a trivial detail to me.

-- MC 141.131.2.3 (talk) 20:12, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2019

64.251.73.166 (talk) 01:28, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: copy of entire article removed. Only changes were replacing sources in the lede with citation needed tags.

 Not done: Why would we replaced sources from Forbes and the St Petersburg Times with citation needed tags? NiciVampireHeart 01:40, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Article needs to be re-written

This article is in dire need of trimming, merging of paragraphs and sub-sections, and a general clean-up of language. Bizarrely enough, this main's promotion of conspiracy theories, falsehoods and incendiary rhetoric has been whitewashed into "disputes" that he has with others and "criticisms" that others levy against him. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:31, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2019

Removal of the political bias "During Barack Obama's presidency, Beck promoted numerous falsehoods and conspiracy theories about Obama, his administration, George Soros, and others." as this is a biased opinion, and doesn't have any place on websites pertaining to be fact. Factsofreality (talk) 01:48, 21 November 2019 (UTC) — Factsofreality (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

 Not done. This is well supported by the body of the article. See MOS:LEAD. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:19, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
No, this actually isn't Deacon. This is nothing but a smear. Also, why is this on the very top of the page if it isn't a smear? I'll tell you why. It's to make sure it's the first thing people see when they look at his page. froggy26rk (talk) 08:50, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Glenn Beck promoted conspiracy theories

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result is yes by clear consensus. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 17:39, 2 March 2020 (UTC) (non-admin closure)


Should the lead note that during the presidency of Barack Obama, Glenn Beck promoted conspiracy theories about Barack Obama, the Obama administration, George Soros and others? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Survey

  • Yes. His Howard Beales-style conspiracy theorizing during the Obama years is his main claim to notability (both today and for the long-term). A substantial part of the body is devoted to these conspiracy theories, which includes claims that Obama was building FEMA concentration camps to put opponents in, that Obama was planning to fake a terrorist attack to boost the administration's popularity, that Obama was the "puppet" of George Soros, and that Obama administration officials supported forced abortions and putting sterilization in the drinking water. He frequently likened Obama and his administration to Adolf Hitler and the Third Reich. That's just the tip of the iceberg[3]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Obviously. This is one of the more notable things about him, distinguishing him from normal (at the time) conservative commentators. Guy (help!) 10:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Of Course it is doubtful he would have ever reached our version of notability without the conspiracy theorizing. That's what initially "earned" him the greatest amount of coverage in neutral stories. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:47, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes. His theories/fantasies are a major component of his rise to notability - it would be like writing an article about Alex Jones and not mentioning InfoWars... Shearonink (talk) 17:08, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes per WP:DUE. I believe the lead section as it stands could use an expansion; in that regard, including the heavily-documented, well-sourced Obama stuff would be a good start in facilitating that. KyleJoantalk 11:00, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes. It's the sort of thing that requires heavy sourcing, but we clearly have the necessary sourcing here, which establishes that this is a major part of what makes him notable. --Aquillion (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, but . . . it should also say that he has calmed down since.[4] Adoring nanny (talk) 02:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Duh probably the most famous reason for why Glenn Beck is known. The question here is why is there an RFC about it? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:20, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, this is a highly notable aspect of his life and career, as reflected by the reliable sources cited. Neutralitytalk 23:19, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  • NO - the specific Obama line fails guidance of WP:LEAD as just not a big part of the article or his bio, runs counter to WP:BLP tone of keep it modest wrt accusations, and really a vague generic slam like this just sounds like an editorializing display of bias. Have the existing lead that starts with mention of conspiracy theories, then specifics of Obama and others are for body content. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:44, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, Lead follows body, and it follows it proportionally, it really is that simple. It is a single not overlong sentence that's fine as far as proportionality goes. To the extent there are concerns in that direction, once this has a solid well written 3-4 paragraph lead it won't be an issue. The topic is discussed in detail in the body, you want to trim the sentence for now, and summarize using a few less words, that's fine we can wordsmith it. But our guidelines are clear in this case, and no policy based reason for ignoring them has been provided. WP:BLP requires good sourcing, which we have, a dispassionate tone, which the sentence satisfies, the body is just documenting what a multitude of reliable published sources say WP:BLPPUBLIC, which the sentence in the lead summarizes. 74.73.230.72 (talk) 15:13, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, although I don't particularly agree with the current sentence formation. It seems to imply as if his conspiracy theories were limited to the Obama administration. This is clearly not the case for example [5]. We could write a general sentence that he has promoted many conspiracy theories, particularly about the Obama administration.--DreamLinker (talk) 10:17, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • No because that's not the purpose of the lede and per Markbassett. It is, however, worthy of noting within one or more sections of the article, as I assume it probably is. I would support the reduction and phrasing in the lede that editor DreamLinker has proposed, as I don't think the "conspiracy theories" were limited to the Obama administration. He used to be on HLN (TV network) for many years, including before 2008, as I recall. Doug Mehus T·C 18:26, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak No The purpose of a lead is to give a broad overview of the topic. Is this bit of information one of the most important things to know about Glen Beck? To me, I think its important that it be covered in the article, but not mentioned in the lead. He is notable for his conservatism and his political commentary yes. But if we add this to him, do we open this article, and every conservative commentator article up to adding it? And does the focus on this in the lead drift toward WP:NPOV? I'm just not sure this is a great idea. But..... I'm sticking with weak no because it is how many people know his name.Nightenbelle (talk) 20:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
    Nightenbelle, yes, because it's a concrete example of the conspiracy theories he has promoted, as support for the characterisation as a conspiracy theorist. Othewrwise people will read that he's a conspiracy theorist, realise they never heard him ranting about gay frogs, and wonder WTF we are talking about. Guy (help!) 22:30, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Hyperbole much? Sorry my opinion remains unchanged. I think its giving undue weight to those particular comments.Nightenbelle (talk) 14:28, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

Why is this RFC here? This seems like a pure waste of time, since no one is disputing that this should be in the lead. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:33, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

A RfC was needed because Malerooster contested the addition of the content to the lead on the talk page[6] and twice removed it from the article itself.[7][8] That is why we are all having to waste our time putting together a RfC and participating in the RfC. It's also an excellent example of why it's so incredibly frustrating to edit in American politics. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 05:33, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
It's fine, an RfC allows us to close off a circular discussion in a way that effectively forestalls repetition. Guy (help!) 09:17, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Editor keeps removing content from lede

An editor keeps edit-warring out content that IS SOURCED ON THE BODY of the article from the lede while complaining that it's unsourced. WP:LEDE is very clear that the lede does not need citations if they are in the body. It's already been pointed out to this editor that the content is sourced in the body, yet the editor persists in edit-warring the content out. This is particularly irksome given the systemic problems that riddle this Wikipedia article (see the talk page section above). It starts to make sense why this article is in such poor shape when editors so brazenly whitewash perfectly fine content out of the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:17, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, it is very clear, unfortunately you seem to be in error. To quote: "Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads." There is no exception, as you seem to imply. To continue: "Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations." It sounds like it might deserve a citation. Sourcing on the body is not a policy given the link you posted, the only remotely related sentence is the one regarding the desire to balance "the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material". Since the lede must comply with verifiability of living persons, it sounds justified. Thekappen (talk) 00:35, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
There is nothing in the slightest that is controversial about linking Glenn Beck to the promotion of conspiracy theories except to those who have a dysfunctional relationship with facts and reality. Citations are not needed in the lede if they are already in the body - adding them to the lede, when they are already all over the body, would make them "redundant". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:50, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
I think you're showing your bias towards a Conservative pundit and trying to discredit him. You guys do this with Mark Levin all the time on here. It's quite ridiculous if you ask me. froggy26rk (talk) 08:57, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Froggy26rk, he's a conservative pundit? I know him mainly as a promoter of conspiracy theories and falsehoods. Guy (help!) 20:17, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
I know who the heck Glenn Beck is. I listen to him every morning. If you're gonna be biased towards Conservatives, then you shouldn't be editing pages about them. There's no accuracy when you're lying. froggy26rk (talk) 04:15, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Froggy26rk, the fact that you listen to him every morning says a lot. I don't. I don't listen to any talk radio opinion hosts. I stick to reality-based mainstream journalism. And mainstream is not the opposite of conservative.

[The rest of the media ecosystem] imposes higher reputational costs on sites and authors who propagate rumor and provides avenues for relatively rapid fact checking, criticism of false claims, and rapid dissemination of and coalescence around corrected narratives. The insular right wing of the media ecosystem creates positive feedbacks for bias-confirming statements as a central feature of its normal operation. The rest of the media ecosystem comprises sites diverse enough in their political orientation, organizational culture, business model, and reputational needs to create impedance in the network. This system resists and corrects falsehood as its normal operation, even though, like all systems, it also occasionally fails, sometimes spectacularly.

— Benkler, Yochai. Network Propaganda (p. 74). Oxford University Press.
There are many sources documenting the same problem. Guy (help!) 09:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Maybe try a RFC, until then no clear consensus for this newly added paragraph. --Malerooster (talk) 17:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
I commented at BLP/N, but I strongly suggest expanding the body line where you have like a dozen references about Beck supporting conspiracies theories but with no specific examples; this makes the statement look like a handwave, though I'm going to agree with Snoogans here that the statement is likely fine otherwise. Expand the body line out a bit to include up to 3-4 specific consp. theories Beck promoted, spread the references out, and then you have something that makes the lede line better supported. Whether its UNDUE or not, different question but filling the body better will help. --Masem (t) 01:22, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Its lead, not lede, different things. Maybe start a RFC to see if there is consensus that this material is lead worthy. --Malerooster (talk) 16:34, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
@Malerooster: are you saying that WP:LEDE is wrong? Also see Lead paragraph. It's a journalism term that we use at times here. Doug Weller talk 17:08, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi Doug, no, that redirect to WP:LEAD is good MOS. But, the lead is not a news-style lead or "lede", they are stylistically or jargonally(not a word) different.--Malerooster (talk) 21:57, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
I realise this is off-topic, but you brought it up. The MOS says "It is a news-style lead or "lede" paragraph." Doug Weller talk 15:57, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
It says "It is not a news-style lead or "lede" paragraph." --Malerooster (talk) 16:38, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Masem, that makes good sense. Guy (help!) 09:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2020

The heading under Google search for this page quotes a disparaging quote about the subject of this page displayed as factual data rather than a random quote taken from the middle of the piece. 165.225.35.3 (talk) 01:00, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: We have no control over Google results. JTP (talk • contribs) 02:50, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Accusation of suggesting assassination

The section "Trump comments and 2016 Sirius XM Suspension" (last subsection of Political Views) includes this line: "During an interview with author Brad Thor about a hypothetical situation where Trump was abusing his power as president and Congress was unable to stop him, Thor asked 'what patriot will step up and [assassinate him] if, if, he oversteps his mandate as president?'" I was intrigued by assassinate appearing in brackets and wanted to know what word it was replacing. That's a big word to fill in if it doesn't appear in a quote. I found the original audio of the interview (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoKLsBeL1Ik) and it turns out the word assassination is never used. I think it's a reasonable inference; I can't think of anything else Thor could have meant by that, and it's certain that many, many sources interpreted it as a reference to assassination. However, does it introduce a level of bias to set those bracketed words into the quote, when neither speaker ever used the term? To me the brackets suggest that the words appeared elsewhere in the interview and are being substituted in for pronouns in a later sentence. I'm thinking that it might be better to give the original, unedited quote and state that numerous sources interpreted it as a comment about assassination (easily citable from google results). I'd also include a description of Beck's response to Thor - the article as it stands mentions Beck's "remarks" but then only refers to what Thor said in the interview and not Beck's response in which he agreed. I'm happy to make these edits myself but wanted the chance for some discussion and to eventually record my edit rationale. Best, Jojopeanut (talk) 03:36, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Major trim needed

Article is to long. Really? How did this promotion happen? Wikipietime (talk) 02:47, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Example; “ By 1994, Beck was suicidal, and he imagined shooting himself to the music of Kurt Cobain.[32] He credits Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) with helping him achieve sobriety. He said he stopped drinking alcohol and smoking cannabis in November 1994, the same month he attended his first AA meeting.[32] Beck later said that he had gotten high every day for the previous 15 years, since the age of 16.[25]” Laughable...... Wikipietime (talk) 02:52, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Controversy Section

I think that there should be a Controversy section added to Beck's article. His entire career has been built on being controversial, and he's said and done some really outlandish things. In fact, I changed the article today, b/c in section 3.5 Philanthropy, there was an incorrect accounting of an event that Beck announced in 2014. At the time, thousands of unaccompanied minors had crossed the Southern border of the US, and Beck, in conjunction w/ Senator Mike Lee of Utah and Representative Louie Gohmert of Texas, announced that they would visit the border w/ "tractor trailers full of food, hot meals, and teddy bears" to present to these children. There was bipartisan acclaim across the media spectrum, but after this announcement, there was no evidence that the visit ever took place or that the much-needed contributions ever arrived at the border. The article gave credit to these three men for this alleged action. In my estimation, this was something that would go beyond controversy. Invoking the plight of young children fleeing war-torn regions in order to make a perilous journey to an unknown and uncertain destination, all in the name of credit-seeking, was an abhorrent act.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmg999 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 29 August 2021 (UTC)‎

Glenn Beck as conspiracy theorist

He is not a conspiracy theorist. JH019593 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:23, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

No, and "conspiracy theorist" is not used as an impartial description here, but as a pejorative. And note that the article is locked. This is just another pathetic example of how political propagandists and activists, under the disguise of impartial administrators, misuse Wikipedia as a propaganda platform. It is a disgrace.

Also, note that almost nothing of all the hundreds of discussions throughhout the years can be found on this page; they are "archived" (hidden). The article in itself is nothing other than a propagandistic smear piece, and the same unserious administrators who allowed that, must hide all the criticizm and discussion from public eyes... It is unbelievably pathetic and unserious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:AA1:1604:9340:218B:E7D1:2419:B9A9 (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

And see, only a few minutes after I wrote the text above, my IP address is "partially blocked" by a Wiki administrator. Unbelievably pathetic and unserious, as I said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:AA1:1604:9340:218B:E7D1:2419:B9A9 (talk) 21:59, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

  • I've removed this descriptor, see my explanation in the revision history. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:30, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
    • A bad move. He's one of the most notable conspiracy theorists around. Do you want to suffer the same fate as the IP above? That's how bad a move this is. I reverted and per BRD, if you really want to push it, you should start a new section to discuss this, but that will only bring more attention to your dubious understanding of this subject. -- Valjean (talk) 15:29, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
      Statements like "He's one of the most notable conspiracy theorist around" without any RS backing is not helpful to this discussion or any discussion. I have no problem labeling anyone a conspiracy theorist. I would faithfully and without reservation defend the labeling of Alex Jones, Mark Dice, Marjorie Taylor Greene, and Mike Lindell as conspiracy theorist, but for one reason and one reason only—RS labels them that. That does not appear to be the case here. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:18, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
    • "Conspiracy theorist" is verified well enough. Drmies (talk) 15:54, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
      • See also the RFC here; the article has plenty of sources discussing how he spreads conspiracy theories. If the objection is to the framing of "conspiracy theorist" specifically it is easy to find additional sources supporting that particular wording (eg. The Philosophy of Conspiracy Theories describes him as a signature example of modern conspiracy theorists and uses him as an example throughout). --Aquillion (talk) 17:20, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
        @Aquillion: My concern is with MOS:LABEL. I think there would need to be several extensive reliable sourcing to label Beck a conspiracy theorist in WP:WIKIVOICE. I'll take your word that the book describes him with the term conspiracy theorist, but MOS:LABEL demands more. Citing the RfC is not relevant since it dealt with the mention of conspiracy theorist he's promoted, which is not the concern of my edit. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:00, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
  • You all have the WP:BURDEN to prove that RS abundantly label him a conspiracy theorist. Because I've looked around, and besides maybe the book Aquillion mentioned, there are not many if any RS labeling him a conspiracy theorist. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:15, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
    • About three should be enough to satisfy WP:PUBLICFIGURE, and they don't have to use the exact words "conspiracy theorist". I don't know how many far more experienced editors have to tell you that but you really need to let that sink in and stop beating a dead horse. It's disruptive and tendentious IDHT behavior. That's how we interpret policies around here. You're not going to change that. Accept it, even if you don't agree. -- Valjean (talk) 02:16, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
There isn't even 3 sources labeling him as a conspiracy theory. The only one is the book mentioned by Aquillion. The 2 Salon one's are not reliable at WP:RSP, using Salon to label Beck a conspiracy theorist is like using a Fox article to label Obama a conspiracy theorist, Fox and Salon have the same reliability at RSP. Can you explain how that's enough to make an appearance in the first sentence? I'm not beating a dead horse, this is not settled a issue, here or at the Trump page, and there are editors with years of experience who agree with my opinion on this with regards to MOS:LABEL. Not that experience makes a quality editor in the first place. You speak as your POV is the law the land, and it's not. MOS:LABEL is very clear on this: Value-laden labels... may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject. This is the what I have been saying, if anything you are beating the dead horse against MOS:LABEL. I really am having a hard time understanding how this can be contested, guideline is crystal clear on the issue. Even then there's a worthy discussion that using this term in the first sentence is WP:UNDUE or redundant since there's already a lead paragraph regarding his promotion of conspiracy theories. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:12, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Many editors believe that MOS:LABEL (which is a guideline) conflicts with WP:NPOV and WP:V (which are core policies). In the event of conflict, core policies must prevail. There is a discussion of this occurring presently at WT:WTW. Newimpartial (talk) 05:53, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2022

The text noting "conspiracy theorist" should be deleted as that is an opinion. WHile people noted in the page such as Sean Wilentz have opinions of Glen Beck, Wikipedia (The Free Encyclopedia) is supposed to be fact not opinion. Jcfranklin2 (talk) 12:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This is reasonably well sourced. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:57, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Where is Sandy Hook? That wasn’t a conspiracy theory? This page is illegitimate as it stands. Kittyisinnocent (talk) 04:33, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Sandy Hook?

Where is it? Kittyisinnocent (talk) 04:34, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Newtown, Connecticut. We have an article on the topic at Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:41, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Glenn_Beck/Archive_17&oldid=1191741558"