Talk:Glenn Beck/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

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)

Matthews didn't compare Beck to Sheen so much, per se, but essentially postulated him a wannabe Sheen (who was a well respected religious broadcaster).--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 08:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Reducing critical biographies

Becks bestsellers are a list without description, but these two critical biographies which are probably barely notable enough to be mentioned here have their own sections to express their authors opinions. There is more on these books here than there even is in their respective author's wikipages. I'm moving the critical biographies into a list format thus to reduce their weight.AerobicFox (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The degree of coverage on their respective articles would fall under WP:OTHERCRAP. However, as a slightly reworded "Public reception" section, I do believe that positive biographies should be included as well if they do in fact exist. If they do not, then per WP:Undue these (although critical) would be appropriate - as they are the only ones out there.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 22:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Please do not revert as "The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material."WP:BLP

Tell me why the following should be added before restoring them

1.:In an interview about the book, Zaitchik theorized that "Beck’s politics and his insatiable hunger for money and fame are not mutually exclusive", while stating:

"Beck’s true religion is not Patriotism, Mormonism, or Conservatism. His true religion is cross-platform self-marketing ... According to Beck’s worldview, there’s no inherent contradiction between his sophisticated instinct for self-promotion, his propagandist rodeo clown act, his self-image as a media mogul, and his professed belief system. I think he actually believes that God wants him to make a ton of money and become this huge celebrity by fear mongering and generally doing whatever it takes in the media to promote right-wing causes."

2.One of Bunch's primary theses is that Beck is nothing more than a morning zoo deejay playing a fictional character as a money-making stunt.

3.Writer Bob Cesca, in a review of Bunch's book, compares Beck to Steve Martin's faith-healer character in the 1992 film Leap of Faith, before describing the "derivative grab bag of other tried and tested personalities" that Bunch contends comprises Beck's persona:

His (Beck's) adenoidal 'Clydie Clyde' voice is based on morning zoo pioneer Scott Shannon's "Mr. Leonard" character. His history is borrowed from the widely debunked work of W. Cleon Skousen. His conspiracy theories are horked from Alex Jones and maybe Jack Van Impe. His anti-Obama, anti-socialist monologues are pure Joe McCarthy. His chalkboard is stolen from televangelist Gene Scott. His solemn, over-processed radio monologue delivery is a dead ringer for Eric Bogosian in Talk Radio. This is all well-worn stuff, but no one has drawn it all together and sculpted it for the purpose of conning an especially susceptible audience during turbulent racial and economic times.

Demonstrate why these attacks should be included, what do they add to the article other than that these two people dislike Beck? how is this significant? before you edit them back in.AerobicFox (talk) 23:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

AerobicFox, there is also a "burden" for you to prove that your removal of long-standing and referenced material is not merely a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. But to specifically address your questions – (a) Is the material referenced per WP:Verify? Yes. (b) Are the references WP:RS? I’d say so. (c) Does the material violate WP:Undue? This has yet to be shown, as these are the only biographies that I am aware of that are out there on Beck. Hence, if the only biographies on a public figure all have negative conclusions, then those would not violate undue – as there are no positive ones to counter balance them [i.e. if every book on Dracula critically concludes he’s nothing but a blood drinker, then that’s what we go with] (d) As for whether their criticisms are accurate? = We don’t deal with WP:Accuracy. (e) It is not significant per se that these specific individuals dislike Beck, but the conclusions of the only authors (that I am aware of) so far to write a biography on Beck after spending the necessary time conducting research – is notable and worthy of inclusion. I am all for using the hypothesis of authors who have researched a biography on Beck and arrived at a more "neutral" conclusion than these men have – but I don’t believe they exist at this time. Thus, as editors compiling an article utilizing the research of others – it is of course acceptable to include the findings (albeit negative) from these various books. Now what would be your policy based rationale for their removal – other than your own WP:OR that you don’t like them being included? Moreover, why do you believe your new section doesn't violate WP:List?  Redthoreau -- (talk) 00:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

"the conclusions of the only authors... notable and worthy of inclusion".

Writer Bob Cesca, in a review of Bunch's book, compares Beck to Steve Martin's faith-healer character in the 1992 film Leap of Faith

"the conclusions of the only authors... notable and worthy of inclusion".

Your comment doesn't address what I deleted. I choose 3 things to delete and I can't argue against "WP:IDONTLIKE" because that is not an argument for keeping anything. This would be nice to see:

1.This should be kept for XXX

2.This should be kept for XXX

3.This should be kept for XXX

I don't need an essay, just a one or two sentence explanation for each of these. This should be clear but:

1.This quote.

2.One of Bunch's primary theses

Does he state this as one of his primary theses? Because it sounds like a joke and not serious.

3.This is not even by the author, but from an editorialist writing in the Huffington Post.

"burden" for you to prove that your removal of long-standing and referenced material is not merely a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

There is no "burden" for me to prove that I am acting for the reasons I state. Also I cannot prove that something does not have weight because it is impossible to prove a negative. You have to provide a reason for why it has weight, so far you have not provided a reason, so I cannot argue.AerobicFox (talk) 02:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

AerobicFox –

~ Cesca’s review is used to prevent accusations of WP:OR on a primary source i.e. this is not what I think Bunch’s book is about, but what Cesca does.

~ “I chose 3 things to delete”, no actually you converted a subsection into merely a list and then didn’t answer my concern of how it didn’t violate WP:LIST. For someone so concerned that I am not answering your specific questions, you somehow have a habit of skipping right over mine.

~ 1. Should be kept because it is the primary thesis from Zaitchik’s book, and he is one of the few people who have written a biography on Beck (after spending a year listening, watching, and reading everything Beck has said publicly, according to Zaitchik). The accuracy of the claim is not for us to decide (but for the record I don’t even agree with it, as I think Beck is a "true believer" who sincerely thinks he is "revealing hidden truths" – but my personal view is also irrelevant).

~ 2. If you read Bunch’s book (which I did) then it is clear that this is his "primary" theses, however to technically prevent WP:OR I removed the word "primary". As for whether it is a "theses" in general – that is what Cesca contends, and it is attributed to him per WP:Verify.

~ 3. I would contend that The Huffington Post is a WP:Reliable source for the stated and attributed claim, which is what Cesca’s thinks about something, and written by Cesca himself. If you have evidence to call into question that what Cesca believes and wrote on HP may not be a reliable indicator of what Cesca really believes then you are free to include it here for our consideration.

~ As for WP:IDONTLIKEIT, it is not a matter of sincerity, as no user ever admits that this is their reasoning (I don’t doubt that you think this material violates Wiki rules). However, it is a deductive matter – where if you can’t show your reasoning is rooted in specific Wiki policy – then it can deduced that it is merely a matter that you don’t like it (self denial does not answer the charge, showing your rationale of how the included material violates a specific Wiki policy does).

~ This would be entirely different if there were other biographies on Beck, written in a more neutral tone (I wish there were) – which would allow us to gage whether these men have reached their conclusions out of bias against the subject (maybe they have), or whether every writer who researched the subject in a similar fashion would arrive at these conclusions. Right now, there is no way to challenge the WP:WEIGHT of their remarks = because their books are the only ones on the proverbial scale.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 09:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

People wanting to know about Beck, will want to know what his detractors say. That two critical biographies have been written about him (and that his opponents continue to use them as sources) is important and should be included. Whether they should each get their own section, I don't know. But they should be in the article. BlennGeck (talk) 13:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

"I chose 3 things to delete”, no actually you converted a subsection into merely a list and then didn’t answer my concern of how it didn’t violate WP:LIST."

No actually I deleted those three things and put bullets in front of the remaining info. I could care less if you want to delete said bullets and turn it into prose(even if bulleted lists like those are totally acceptable); I just want these three things out of here.

"For someone so concerned that I am not answering your specific questions, you somehow have a habit of skipping right over mine."

I couldn't care less for your stylistic preferences, and I don't bother responding to questions about whether this should be a list or prose because all I want are these three things removed, so you can do whatever you want after that. If you want the list to be prose then go right ahead. It's less readable but both are acceptable.

"'1. Should be kept because it is the primary thesis from Zaitchik’s '"

Zaitchik is not a psychoanalyst. We don't include character judgments on Wikipedia. Do you believe Beck is right to accuse progressives of being liars who just want money? No. It is not okay for Beck to do, and it is not okay for Zaitchik to do, and if you believe this is acceptable for Wikipedia then please consider looking for another BLP where the subject is called a liar. You will not find any because Wikipedia does not include commentary on people's character.

2. Pretty much ditto. His opinion is not backed by some sort of studying in psychology to make a judgment on Beck's character, and such judgments are never included anyways. For such an inflammatory judgment to be given weight, it would have to have had a significant impact on something.

3. Who the fuck is Cesca and why is his personal opinion about Beck's character relevant or encyclopedic? I can find thousands of comments by political commentators who have accused political pundits and politicians of being liars. I don't see this type of thing in Obama, Oreilly, Hannity, Pelosi, or anybody else. Do not believe that an editorial trashing someone's authenticity has enough weight to be included in someone's Wikipage, especially since it's not even his representation of Bunch's book, but just his own opinion.AerobicFox (talk) 18:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

AerobicFOx, with all due respect, you appear to be editing things out you simply don't like, and you haven't made a strong case for removing these things on wiki guideline grounds. Also you are violating consensus here it seems. You may not personally agree with the critical biographers ideas about Beck, and many of us don't, but your reasons for exluding them just don't make much sense. So long as they are presented as the opinions of the biographers and not objective assessments of Beck's personality, there shouldn't be an issue. It seems to me like you are conflating describing a person's opinion with sharing that opinion. BlennGeck (talk) 19:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, please remain courteous. There is no need to use bad language. BlennGeck (talk) 19:05, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

If your argument is attacking the other editor then it should be ignored.Cptnono (talk) 19:07, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Cptnono, I haven't attacked anyone.

Aerobic, WE do not make character judgments on wikipedia, but we can describe other peoples' character judgments when relevent. So if Beck did in fact say he believes progressives are liars who just want money, that would be relevant to the article and need to be included (since it would be an important component of his beliefs about progressives). Again just because we are describing something in the article, that doesn't mean the article supports that position. BlennGeck (talk) 19:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

And I think it is worth mentioning Cptono that you took exception to my rather light handed criticism of Aerobic, but completely ignored his use of the F word, or his acrid tone. BlennGeck (talk) 19:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

My tone isn't intentionally acrid if it is coming off that way to you. It is hard to judge someone's tone when they cannot itonate their language through writing, as for my use of the "F word", are we not adults? I was being emphatic that I didn't know who Cesca was, I was not directing that towarda anybody here or aware that it would offend anybody, so I will refrain from cursing at this talk page.

As for your other statement you said saying Beck believes some progressives lie for money should be in Beck's article, but I said it shouldn't be in the article about progressives like George Soros, and I believe you would agree that such a statement by Beck would not be appropriate in the Soros article. No other BLP has commentary by people attacking the character of the subject. We do not includes Becks personal attacks against people like Soros, nor do we include personal attacks from conservatives about Obama, or from liberals about Hannity. You can include an attack on their policies, but attacking their character is not acceptable here.AerobicFox (talk) 20:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually we don't know if we are all adults here, which is why you shouldn't be using the F word. Wikipedia is used by people of all ages. BlennGeck (talk) 20:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

And yes, personal attacks should get coverage in the article if they are relevant and significant. That people have questioned Obama's religion and birth, while unsupported by the facts, should be included, because there are widespread conspiracy theories about these things. BlennGeck (talk) 20:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry but Wikipedia is not censored and children afraid of the "F word" shouldn't be writing encyclopedias. I'll avoid using here out of respect for you, but I couldn't care less if a child sees the F-word on a site which has pictures of people having sex.

"That people have questioned Obama's religion and birth, while unsupported by the facts, should be included, because there are widespread conspiracy theories about these things. "

People go to Obama's article to learn about Obama, not conspiracy theories about him. The birther movement has become notable due to it's size and impact, so the birther movement has gotten it's own page. In their page their views are described. There is no mention of the birthers in Obama's page, and similarly there should be no mentions of personal attacks like this on any page. If this man's views become notable enough that people will be looking for them then they should be placed on his page where they will find them.

Similarly the Flat Earth Society is notable, but is not included in our article on Earth. Character assaults are never included in a BLP; if they become independently notable then they get their own article for people that are looking for them.AerobicFox (talk) 23:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Aerobic, conspiracy theories about Obama are an important part of who he is at this stage. I don't agree at all with the birthers or those who think he is a secret muslim. But when large numbers of people in poll after poll, share the beliefs of these conspiracy theories and when they are criticisms used to galvanize people against his presidency (and this has all been widely reported), it deserves to be included because it is significant to his life. We aren't in the business here of protecting editing out the warts or editing out the good stuff. It may in fact not be on the Obama page, but it certainly should be mentioned there.

I just don't get your argument that there should be no mention of personal attacks in a bio page. That isn't even based on wikipedia policy. You are just announcing it shouldn't be. BlennGeck (talk) 14:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Because a personal attack is not encyclopedic and adds nothing to the readers understanding of the article. If the personal attack has gained enough notability on its own that people would be looking for it, then it should be mentioned in its own page or the page of its author. I'm not responding to aside below since Wikipedia is not a forum for discussion of things like that.AerobicFox (talk) 17:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

"Not encyclopedic" isn't a valid argument on wikipedia and they specifically say that in their guidelines. You need to site a specific policy against including criticisms of a personal nature on bio pages, or stop arguing. BlennGeck (talk) 23:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

JUst as an aside here. Images of people having sex on wikipedia are for information purposes. There is a difference between articles dealing with content like sex or profanity academically, and using profanity in the course of interacting with people on the talk page. BlennGeck (talk) 15:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Draft for Egypt

Beck has been heavily criticized by Bill Kristol and others for his comments regarding political instability in Egypt. Beck has claimed that the revolution is a part of a new global caliphate that would join Muslim Brotherhood forces, whom he claims are behind the uprising, with marxist revolutionaries from around the world, including left-wing forces in the United States.

Sources: [1], [2], [3], [4] [5] I would be willing to remove the others, though I can produce numerous critical opinion columns in prominent newspapers. Soxwon (talk) 00:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

What are his views in Egypt? That will need to be added to anything proposed.AerobicFox (talk) 00:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Second statement added 00:47 (UTC) Soxwon (talk) 01:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

15. Editorial presents this as typical Beck, and appears routine criticism of him: "As is typically his style, Beck doesn’t address the arguments of his opponents but goes after them personally... All of this has become great fun for others in the commentariat."

16. "Article" is 3 sentences long if you do not include the quote by Kristol.

17. This is a 13 minute long interview on the GOP's likely next candidate, Beck is talked about for less than a minute.

18. Article gives this feud 4 whole sentences.

Soxwon, dozens of articles(and sentence long blog posts) that barely mention this does not make it notable, and almost everything you have found sandwich Beck as part of a larger story. There is a statement by David Brook(who hates Glenn Beck) where he mentions a divide between the Glenn Beck types and other conservatives in context of the GOP's next candidate, but he then never mentions it again or elaborates further. What makes you think this is significant or that people will be talking about this a month from now?AerobicFox (talk) 00:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

"Beck has claimed that the revolution would lead to a new caliphate that would join forces with left-wing forces in the United States.

Not one of those sources say that. AerobicFox (talk) 01:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Please leave comments sequential so that they can be responded to. The CSM source DOES say the following:

Caliphate: What Glenn Beck warns could take over much of the western world.

It’s not a “conspiracy,” Glenn Beck says, but just a group of “like-minded” organizations and individuals – from the Muslim Brotherhood to the AFL-CIO (with assorted other fellow travelers in a "red-green alliance") – working together to “overthrow and overturn stability.” And he has the charts, graphs, and a map to prove it.

I can get the transcript if you like, but I can assure you, he DOES say that. Soxwon (talk) 01:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

That is a hyperbole in an editorial that is filled to the brink of them. Get the transcript of Beck saying this then. I have viewed two videos of Beck now discussing this and he has not said anything like this.

"Beck said he was sure that the uprising "is being orchestrated by the Marxist Communists and the Muslim Brotherhood,", this is from the huffington post. There is another one here that similarly has Beck going in detail about the Marxists in Greece unable to find support, so they have teamed up with the Muslim Brotherhood. I'm not seeing the "joining forces with left-wing forces in the United States" anywhere but from you and Bleck.AerobicFox (talk) 01:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

[6] First statement he makes. Added LA Times article detailing event. Soxwon (talk) 01:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The first statement he makes in this 1:47 clip by MediaMatters is a vague "There is a strange alliance between the left and the Islamasists", I have provided two complete 6 minute clips, one with commentary by the Huffington Post, and both explain in detail Beck's belief the Marxists and the Muslim Brotherhood are in bed, so why do you believe the above statement is proof of your theory that Beck believes liberal America is working with the Muslim brotherhood to launch a revolution. Media Matters themselves call this clip "Beck: Food Shortages In Egypt, High Oil Prices Tied To "Coming Insurrection"" and makes no claim that you are making.AerobicFox (talk) 02:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

He's referring to the American Liberal left as communists and Marxists: [7]. Notice the ties to Van Jones, Ayers, and others. Soxwon (talk) 02:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Beck believing that Jones and Ayers are Marxists is not the same as believing the American liberal left is Marxist. Ayers was a leader of a self-described communist revolutionary group called the Weather Underground who was central to motivating them to bomb multiple government buildings, and Jones has been attacked by Beck as a Marxist since forever which led him to resign his position. No where in this clip does Beck even mention the left, he just talks about Marxists and Islamists, and as you pointed out Ayers and Jones are in the background.AerobicFox (talk) 03:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

He has also linked Obama, Democrats, George Soros, ect. to being Marxists through Van Jones and others. Soxwon (talk) 03:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I've edited the second sentence, hopefully, this will meet with AF's approval. Soxwon (talk) 03:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

"Left-forces" in the U.S. is vague, who are these forces?. Beck does not believe Obama or Pelosi are involved with the Muslim brotherhood. If it is changed to "and forces he believes to be Marxist in America" or more specifically, who these people he believe are then that would be fine. I'm not debating this anymore then that, years from now when nobody has discussed or remembers this it will get deleted and be easier to be see as recentism.AerobicFox (talk) 03:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

[Oh yes http://mediamatters.org/research/200909220027] he doesn't consider Obama or He considers the Labor Unions and those affiliated with Van Jones and Co. to be Marxist/Socialist/Islamist by his own words. Soxwon (talk) 03:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Synthesize much? Or is he so prescient he was able to discuss the Egyptian revolution back in 2009? Fat&Happy (talk) 04:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Edited. Soxwon (talk) 04:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm still trailing a bit behind here. Is therightscoop.com a Beck outlet? Because the unstricken link appears to be their words. But moving on, some additional comments:

• I'm not convinced this is important enough to his life and career to be included as part of his biography, but if there is a consensus to add something on the story:
• It's Beck's biography, not Kristol's; what Beck said, and the circumstances of him saying it, should lead off, followed by any reaction to his comments.
• I don't get the impression "part of a new global caliphate" is accurate; it seems to be something more along the lines of laying the groundwork for such a caliphate.
• Caliphate should be linked to avoid having people read the CSM's snarky comments and conclude that "caliphate" is a complete figment of Beck's imagination rather than a historical reality.
• As AF has indicated, the link to Modern Liberalism in the United States is an inappropriate Easter-egg and needs do be eliminated.

Fat&Happy (talk) 04:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The draft looks good to me. For those who think this isn't important enough to include, I am affraid I just don't see how that argument works. It continues to get coverage. He's covered it himself exhaustively. And a number of high profile editorials have questioned whether this signals the end or a major change in his career. I've provided the sources. I've responded to every concern about wiki guidelines. And to be quite honest it feels like the goal post keeps getting shifted here. BlennGeck (talk) 14:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

And yes, left wing forces is vague Aerobic, but if you watch Beck's show you see he is often very general about who the Left Wing/Progressive forces are in his analysis. In one of his programs, and I can't remember which day it was, he did at one point put up a number of organizations from the left and from the Islamists on the board. Still it was unclear how comprehensive he was attempting to be. BlennGeck (talk) 14:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with F&A, that it is probably more accurate to say groundwork for, or movement toward a new caliphate. Also Beck isn't saying a global caliphate. He seems to be arguing that there will be multiple revolutions across the world, some will be Islamist and some will be Marxist, and they will all be colluding in some way because they have the same agenda: destroy capitalism. BlennGeck (talk) 14:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

William Kristol is the one who describes Beck's argument as connecting the american left with the Islamists here: “When Glenn Beck rants about the caliphate taking over the Middle East from Morocco to the Philippines, and lists (invents?) the connections between caliphate-promoters and the American left, he brings to mind no one so much as Robert Welch and the John Birch Society. He’s marginalizing himself, just as his predecessors did back in the early 1960s.”BlennGeck (talk) 15:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

"He's covered it himself exhaustively."

He's covering Egypt because Egypt is still going on. Everybody is covering the riots in Egypt because that is the breaking news story with the most importance.

"And a number of high profile editorials have questioned whether this signals the end or a major change in his career."

If you quoted these saying this signifies a major change in career then that would be fine. So far though that seems to be your interpretation of these sources because I haven't seen a single source mention his career or how this will affect it at all.

"I've provided the sources. I've responded to every concern about wiki guidelines. And to be quite honest it feels like the goal post keeps getting shifted here."

Honestly all you have done is show that a breaking news story continues to get coverage, and propose that a bunch of stories have connected this to Beck's career without pointing out which ones do. I have read about 7 of them now, and none of those mentioned Beck's career at all so point me to the one you think does.AerobicFox (talk) 16:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

1) No. He is covering his dispute as well. Look at the sources I posted. Its in there. He has told his critics to "go to hell", he has lashed back at William Kristol on his radio program, and he devoted a whole segment of his show to "proving" his critics on the egypt crisis don't have facts to support their criticism.

2) No its not my interpretation. Its in the pieces and headlines I posted. If you can't be bothered to actually look at them that isn't my fault.

3) No, I have provided reliable sources, and they support my claim that this is a significant story. They also support my summary of the story. I honestly don't think you have read them, or if you have, you have been reading them quite selectively. Start with a thorough read of the Klein editorial from Time. He is rather explicit about the impact this could have on Beck's career at Fox. BlennGeck (talk) 16:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

From the time article by Klein:

"Today, (hat tip/Ben Smith), we have Bill Kristol sticking with the demonstrators and calling out free-range lunatic Glenn Beck, for his hilarious commie-muslim caliphate delusions. This is not unimportant. Kristol lies very close to the throbbing heart of the Fox News sensibility. And I've heard, from more than a couple of conservative sources, that prominent Republicans have approached Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes about the potential embarrassment that the paranoid-messianic rodeo clown may bring upon their brand. The speculation is that Beck is on thin ice. His ratings are dropping, too--which, in the end, is a good part of what this is all about. But I wouldn't be surprised if we saw a mirror-Olbermann situation soon."

http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2011/02/05/how-long-glenn-beck-how-long/ BlennGeck (talk) 16:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

One thing I think we should try to include here, is Beck's defense of his own views. While it has been characterized as a conspiracy theory by pundits, and while it superficially appears that is what beck says (I personally think this is a case where his view is developing on the air so there are some contradictions), he has said it isn't an active or conscious conspiracy. BlennGeck (talk) 17:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

"This is not unimportant."

Ringing endorsement of the significance of this.

The author speculates that Beck's career has been falling and that he is on thin ice, but it does not state that this is going to push him over the edge or that this is significant at all. He says "Glenn Beck has recently said a controversial statement. He's been on thin ice and I wouldn't be surprised if we saw him fired one of these days" if he had said "Glenn Beck has recently said a controversial statement. He's been on thin ice and I think this will be the breaking point" then that would be significant. All the author has stated is that this is "not unimportant".AerobicFox (talk) 17:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually it is a ringing endorsement of the significance. The literal meaning of "this is not unimportant" is "this is important". And he is clearly drawing a connection between Beck's egypt analysis and this being a final straw of sorts. In my opinion you are splitting hairs at this stage. You are not citing any real guideline policies, and you are not accurately describing the content of the articles I am using as sources. BlennGeck (talk) 19:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, he is not just speculating. He is saying his sources tell him, that prominent republicans have complained to the higher ups at Fox about Beck, and he also references Beck's declining ratings (which is correct his ratings have declined). What Klein leaves out is that Beck still has very good ratings. BlennGeck (talk) 19:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

"Actually it is a ringing endorsement of the significance. The literal meaning of "this is not unimportant" is "this is important""

No the literal meaning is "it is of ambiguous importance". Something that is "barely important" is also "not unimportant", something that is "really important" is also "not unimportant", something that is important enough for a newspaper but not important enough for an encyclopedia is "not unimportant". The source has not said this is a "final straw", they didn't even really imply that. You are telling me if I read your 20 sources I will get your same impression, but cannot point to a single source that says "This will affect his career" that is called synthesis. It's not hairsplitting to ask for a source saying exactly what you claim the source says.

"prominent republicans have complained to the higher ups at Fox about Beck"

As the article makes clear they have been doing this since before the Egypt comments.AerobicFox (talk) 21:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

1) Aerobic, you are entitled to your own opinion regarding the significance of these events, but not to your own interpretation of a common english phrase. Not important, is just another way of saying something is important. That very literally is the meaning of the phrase. That is how intentional double negatives work in English.

2)if you can read that article and not come away thinking Klein meant this was possibly some kind of final straw, then I don't know what I can say at this stage. It seems like you are seriously splitting hairs and trying to whittle away any meaning possible from the article. In short, I think you are playing semantics.

3) Except now, prominent conservative William Kristol (who works for Fox) has made a public statement against beck's egypt theorizing in his own magazine. I am done painting the connections for you. Either you are unintentionally or intentionally misunderstanding the source material. BlennGeck (talk) 22:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

You claim I have asked you for reliable sources, and after you did I "shifted the goalpost", yet I have not used the word "reliable" at all except by telling you that I believe CNN is reliable and that is not what I am arguing. You still come away with this strange argument that I have been arguing for RS's despite my never saying the word reliable, and now you argue the sources say this is a significant impact on his career, despite not having one source that. "Not unimportant" does not mean important, otherwise the speaker would have just said "important". If I say "your not completely misreading the sources to form you own opinion" does that mean "You are totally correctly reading this", no.AerobicFox (talk) 23:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

My mistake. You asked for mainstream sources. Which I provided, and then you shifted the goal post after that.: "I do like CNN very much, and assuming that I don't because I don't approve of your edits is a bit much. I've never heard of the Christian Science monitor, the Financial Times, and have never read the Boston Phoenix. If this was a significant story then there would be more mainstream sources, and you would not have to scour the internet using google news for mentions of this outside of the USA Today, Wall Street Journal, New York Times, CBS news, and other more commonly seen news sources. Find a mainstream source that has given this dispute in depth coverage and discussed the lasting impact; that is not hard to find for genuinely significant events.AerobicFox (talk) 22:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC) "BlennGeck (talk) 00:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

AF:"Find a mainstream source that has given this dispute in depth coverage and discussed the lasting impact"

BG:"Reliable sources were given. Then the aim was shifted to "mainstream sources""

AF:"You claim I have asked you for reliable sources, and after you did I "shifted the goalpost", yet I have not used the word "reliable" at all"

BG:"My mistake. You asked for mainstream sources. Which I provided, and then you shifted the goal post after that.:"

Is anybody else seeing this? Does anybody understand why I am feeling misunderstood, and my concerns not addressed?AerobicFox (talk) 07:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

"Find a mainstream source that has given this dispute in depth coverage and discussed the lasting impact;"

This isn't ambiguous. I was clearly not asking for a reliable source that mentions this, but one that covers it in depth(not Brook's off hand comment), and discusses the lasting significance. Pointing out that this has been covered in RS does not answer my request in any way.AerobicFox (talk) 04:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

And Klein said "this is not unimportant" for effect. There isn't just one way to say things in the English language. And your comparison is not an accurate one. It is not an equivalent to Klein's statement at all. A more accurate comparison would be "You are not unintentionally misreading the sources to form your own opinion." And that means "You are intentionally misreading sources to form your own opinion". You applied the negative modifier to the wrong word in your example, which is why it doesn't work.BlennGeck (talk) 00:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Aerobic, one please cite some guidelines here rather than demands for particular kinds of sources. Second, I believe the sources I provided included in depth coverage (entire segments and entire articles devoted to the subject) and discuss the impact (signals split among conservatives and signals or is part of a possible negative shift in Beck's career). BlennGeck (talk) 23:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I suggest including The Week article (http://theweek.com/article/index/211897/are-conservatives-turning-on-glenn-beck) in the draft. It is a reputable weekly news magazine that summarizes important events and developments. This article in particular gives a good overview of why the story is or is not important. BlennGeck (talk) 14:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

"It's worth noting that "Beck and Kristol aren't the only conservatives feuding" over Egypt"

"Both Beck and Kristol are "advocating reasonable positions" "

"this isn't all that unusual given the situation."

Appears like routine coverage, and to be arguing that this sort of thing happens often, and is going on between other conservatives.AerobicFox (talk) 17:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

1) No one is saying otherwise. But their dispute is clearly the most prominent and the lens through which many are viewing the divide. Keep in mind, Kristol isn't simply attacking Beck for being concerned about the possible negative outcomes (if he were he would also be attacking O'Reilly and many other conservatives who worry about the outcome. He specifically singles out Beck for connecting it with non-Islamist, left wing movements.

2) Again, this is an overview of the perspectives on the issue. If a prominent pundit believes they are both being reasonable, then that should be included. But you should also include the many pundits who think he is over the edge on this one.

3) Again this is one pundits opinion. While it deserves mention, most pundits and analysts don't seem to be taking that position. It is rare for two Fox employees to feud so emotionally so publicly.

4) I don't think this is "routine" this is a major dispute between two high profile figures who are in the conservative movement and work for Fox News. The growing divide between conservatives is a major development post bush. This is all against the backdrop of a major event: a revolution in egypt. What is more, it is significant because it has many predicting the end of Beck at Fox. BlennGeck (talk) 17:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Beck on The O'Reilly Factor

Video of Glenn Beck discussing his Egypt = Leftists/Communists + Islamists = Caliphate & Chaos theory ---> on the February 11, 2011 edition of The O'Reilly Factor on Fox News.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 21:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I've already linked the used here. He clearly distinguishes multiple times between the Marxists in Egypt and the people here: "They want fundemental change, they are people of one mind, just like the Marxists and Islamists in Egypt".AerobicFox (talk) 23:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

He distinguishes, but also makes connections between them, and says they are all moving int he same direction against capitalism. Please stop the hair splitting Aerobic. BlennGeck (talk) 00:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Please cool down the tone. I have explained to you why I believe saying that Beck believes the radicals in the left in America are joining forces with the Muslim brother to create a caliphate is not an accurate representation of his views. He says that the Marxists in Greece were unable to do more than create riots, so they teamed up with whoever they could, in this case the Muslim Brotherhood, to create a riot in Egypt. Beck states in this very clip that people in the left here are organizing the rioters believing democracy to be on its, but that the left doesn't know that this is being orchestrated by Marxists and the Muslim Brotherhood. If you believe differently, then that is fine, but I am not "hairsplitting" as I think you are completely off here.AerobicFox (talk) 00:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Aerobic, I am done. You are on ignore from me. We've already had this debate a few sections above. I am not going to revisit it and I am not going to engage you when you challenge everything for the sake of being argumentative. BlennGeck (talk) 00:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

And for the last time, that isn't the only source that says its significant. I am not going to spoon feed you all of them, or waste any more of my personal time arguing with you. BlennGeck (talk) 00:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

When you believe editors are challenging you for the "sake of being argumentative" then it is time to leave. You have questioned my motives for my argument from the start and have never appeared to genuinely care that I disagree, and seem in denial that I actually do believe this is not significant. If you feel you are wasting your time then perhaps you should try a different approach to how you argue. If an editor seems to not be making sense to you then ask them about their argument.AerobicFox (talk) 01:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Aerobic, the reason I question your motives is because you haven't substantively cited policy guidelines. You've just disagreed with anything I've said. It seems like each time I adress your concern, you just add another level of debate, till we are stuck arguing about the true meaning of double negative phrases. I just don't see how continuing to argue with you will be productive. And it just takes up too much of my time. I've made my argument. I don't expect you to be swayed at this point. Regardless of your actual motives, I am done arguing with you. BlennGeck (talk) 01:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

It may be a bit of an oversimplification, but the main objection to inclusion of this particular issue, and to some extent other routine sniping between commentators and pundits, seems to be an amalgam of WP:CRYSTAL, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and WP:WEIGHT, all of which are discussed in the policy stating that content must be encyclopedic. Fat&Happy (talk) 01:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Beck's Ratings

(using 25-54 metric which is what mediabistro reports) [8] shows Beck with a huge lead in the 5 p.m. (EST) slot. [9] is one year prior (2010) showing Beck with less than a 10% change. [10] for April (2009) shows Beck down about 20% on average. [11] for 2008 (sorry I could not easily find corresponding page for 2008) shows Beck has an insignificant change from then. It appears he is about 205 down from his peak (looking at weekly totals - if one looks at "highest rating in a week" v. "average" the percentage change is somewhere on the 30% level). Again, using the 25-54 demo group favored by mediabistro. [12] also states (as of May 2010) "What if you factored out the poorly rated Saturday shows from May 2009? In that scenario, Beck's audience has grown more like 8 percent, May-to-May. " This from MediaMatters itself in 2010. In short, ratings fluctuate, but Beck has not seen a drop of the magnitude where Blitzer is close to breathing down his neck. [13] shows Blitzer ahead in 2007 before Beck went to Fox. Personally, I doubt that following ratings fluctuations means much at all - especially with other variables being around. Collect (talk) 21:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

You can do what you want with statistics. His ratings are still good, but many have noted his decline. Even if it is a decline from a peak, that is still a decline. BlennGeck (talk) 22:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I would like to see something from an RS that is not so biased. This is mentioned often enough that it should be easy to find and include. Doesn't need a whole section or anything though.Cptnono (talk) 07:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Back to business

INstead of accusing people of being sockpuppets or of edit warring without evidence, can we return to the discussion about including Beck's analysis of egypt and the ensuing conflict with Kristol?BlennGeck (talk) 01:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I haven't accused you of edit warring.AerobicFox (talk) 03:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

You seemed to be accusing me of that. You also accused me of being a sock puppet and of canvassing. Oh, and you tried to publicly out me as poster with a bad history on this talk page. Again, rather than take that route. Just deal with the issues the talk page was meant to cover. BlennGeck (talk) 04:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The mysterious closing gnome can probably close this discussion also.AerobicFox (talk) 04:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I would close this discussion. Maybe revist this in 6 months. If this is some huge deal in retrospect, then maybe include then. --Threeafterthree (talk) 04:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

So we have to wait six months after an incident or event to include it in an article? BlennGeck (talk) 04:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you didn't know about that policy? Seriously, just curious, has some talking head made a point about this "material"? --Threeafterthree (talk) 04:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Why? The discussion is silly. Bring it back up in the unlikely scenario that it is worthy of mention in an overall biography of the guy. The same goes for next weeks scandalous and flavorful story.Cptnono (talk) 03:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Why is it silly? It is a big story, was covered by lots of major news sources, was a serious source of contention between Beck and Kristol and was part of a major event in Global Politics. It is also an unusual enough point of view, that I think it deserves inclusion in the article. 24.61.171.248 (talk) 00:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Should claims that Beck incites violence be included?

There are at least two documented cases Francis Ford Piven and the Tides foundation. These should be mentioned.

Sources or removing per BLP.Cptnono (talk) 07:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, suprisingly, there ARE sources (if you bother looking).

• Dana Milbank (2010-07-30). "Glenn Beck and the Oakland shooter". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2011-02-18.
• "Did Beck's Rhetoric Inspire Violence?". The Christian Science Monitor. 2010-10-16. Retrieved 2011-02-18.

Soxwon (talk) 07:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

You can also add these to the list:

• "Academic Groups Condemn Glenn Beck for Rhetoric That Has Led to Threats Against Scholar". The Chronicle of Higher Education. 2011-02-15. Retrieved 2011-02-18.
• "23 Academic Groups Condemn Glenn Beck's Attacks On Piven". Media Matters for America. 2011-02-15. Retrieved 2011-02-18.
• "Critics Say Glenn Beck Incites Violence". AOL News. 2010-03-01. Retrieved 2011-02-28.

If you expand the sources to include MSNBC, CNN, and other non-print media, we could have another 30 or 40. So, could we please stop sticking our fingers in our ears and pretending like the issue is one of sourcing? Thanks. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't need to bother, Soxwon. It isn't my responsibility. We don't need POV ladden stuff like Media Matters but CNN and others should certainly be considered. "Some liberal commentators worry that Glenn Beck's increasingly strident verbal attacks on all things "progressive" could lead to physical attacks." doesn't say tat he has caused violence, does it now? But of course commentary that fears have been expressed or that the accusation has been made could easily be appropriate depending on the wording.Cptnono (talk) 04:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I haven't read the individual stories, but it seems to me that the additionally-mentioned reportage is more about what others have opined about what Beck has said than directly about either what Beck has said or about how he said it. Headline-writers do often oversimplify or distort the content of headlined stories but, repeating from above:

1. "Academic Groups Condemn Glenn Beck for Rhetoric That Has Led to Threats Against Scholar".
2. "23 Academic Groups Condemn Glenn Beck's Attacks On Piven".
3. "Critics Say Glenn Beck Incites Violence".

Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The sources are surprisingly fair (one even says it isn't "fair" to blame Beck while another gives a nice rebuttal from a conservative) so if the wording is done with some NPOV instead of sensationalism then try it out.Cptnono (talk) 19:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Cptnono, please be aware that Media Matters for America is an acceptable source on Wikipedia. Sources can certainly be partisan; there is no support in policy or precedent for your attempt to exclude them on the basis of their point of view. Thanks. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I am aware of that. However, it has come up at the RS noticeboard enough that if the same thing is printed in a better source then the better source should be used. We also cannot duplicate their POV tone which has not been easily accomplished in the past. And you do not know my POV so strike that out or I am removing it. THanks. (disregard. I misread. You clearly typed "their") Cptnono (talk) 19:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Cptnono, a few points of order:

1. By making statements like "We don't need POV ladden[sic] stuff like Media Matters... but CNN and others should be considered", you are plainly showing that you either do not know policy or are knowingly violating it.
2. The number of times an issue is brought up at WP:RSN is mostly irrelevant. In fact, a consensus upheld so frequently actually carries more force.
3. I would recommend you stop threatening to remove others' comments and certainly stop trying to bully me, as it only makes you look petulant. I suggest reading posts two or three times before replying, instead of immediately violating WP:AGF and making threats.

Hope this helps. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Did you see the note at I left at your page? I had misread your comment and struck it out while apologizing over there.

We do not need Media Matters. If CNN says the same thing then we should use CNN. It is a better source and Media Matters is often questioned here. So how about you propose some wording instead of starting an argument over one source?Cptnono (talk) 00:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Cptono, while you may not realize it, your behavior in conjunction with the behavior of other regular editors here, comes off as article ownership behavior and tag teaming. Especially when you issue warnings to other users. I think this is a serious problem for the article. It really looks like you and the editors who side with you, typically win in the end and have had more of a hand in shaping this article than other users. 24.61.171.248 (talk) 00:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I have reported Cptnon's repeated removal of comments, and bullyish behaivor, to WP:ANI. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

You should be familiar enough with wikipolicy to not be starting frivolous ANI complaints. There is a perfectly reasonable discussion going on, feel free to join it down below.AerobicFox (talk) 04:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Cptono you can report me all you want. The fact is this page has a serious problem, and it stems from your control over it. Wikipedia should be ashamed of this article. 24.61.171.248 (talk) 01:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

It is acceptable to remove personal attacks and to strike out other comments that socks make. So the above should be struck out. But since gaming has again been brought up, please note that the editors accused of it have not forced this article in any direction and the last time this article was checked for neutrality only some changes were made and it didn't cause much of a stir from those being accused.

So if someone wants to propose wording, I again will say that I can see how it could be included. I shouldn't have to repeat that again.Cptnono (talk) 01:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Stricken the IP sock. Per Cptnono will someone please propose a wording so you all can have a meaningful discussion about this content.AerobicFox (talk) 04:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

objectivity of the Beck biography.

This re-write now omits previously included material stating his mother was alcoholic. It implies his parents were divorced rather than state they divorced as it did in the previous version. I previously criticised this article for focusing on Beck as an image rather than Beck as a person. Here the problem presents itself again.

This article is a biography of a living person and biographical information should be the primary content, not content secondary to the subjects image or persona. Exclusion of biographical information in a biography creates an inherent bias. I again question this articles objectivity.

In my previous critique I criticized the author for presenting technical information in a compressed and confusing manner. I believed then it was a simple mistake based on incomplete research. Now this article steps backward by removing information formerly included and fundamentally biographical in nature. This is not an insignificant step backward. It shows an ongoing problem with objectivity regarding the subject and cannot be described as a problem with incomplete research.

This a violation of Wikkipedia's policy of objectivity. The author might, and I hope the author does, re-insert this information in the article. Due to the ongoing nature of this problem with objectivity, I think the author should be monitored by Wikkipedia for re-emergence of this problem. If the author cannot treat his subject biographically and objectively, then the article should be removed from Wikkipedia. 71.53.195.160 (talk) 15:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The discussion on this page is interesting, but fails to grapple with the core concern of writing biography. Writing biography is about helping the reader have some understanding of the individual presented in the biography. A number of the other topics in this discussion address important and interesting points, but they are often well off the topic of this biography, Glenn Beck. They add much to what we might want to know about someone Beck has read and admires and a fair amount about The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints, yet little of this contributes to what we know about Mr. Beck.

I know editing of this article is frozen and will not be opened up until these controversies are resolved. This is unfortunate because it blocks addition of information about Mr. Beck that are fundamental to his biography. The discussion of his present controversy over his remarks about Egypt cannot be added. Suggestion he might leave Fox TV is speculative, but if he were to leave or be fired that information cannot added to this article. Simple biographical information previously contained in this article cannot be re-inserted because of these controversies. It's a shame these controversies have so little to do with the subject of the article.

71.53.195.160 (talk) 01:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)DWright

Heads up w/rgd various MSM commentaries about Beck

that Alexander Zaitchik has mined, about Glenn Beck, published in the March 2nd Rolling Stone:

People inside his company tell me Beck follows what we do closely. It's frustrating that I've never sold out, yet I'm being gobbled up by this giant Pac-Man who puts my work through his corporate-media assembly line. He takes information from me about secret combines and elites and then spins it against big government, but he ignores big business. He says George Soros is at the top of the New World Order power pyramid? Give me a break. I have no love for Soros. But I don't trust Beck. Ninety-eight percent of my audience hates him. New listeners tell me I'm a Beck wanna-be. I'm like, "No, it's the other way around."---Alex Jones

Zaitchik follows up with a Beck-Jones comparison chart, published today.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 21:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

News Real Blog rebuts Zaitchik here.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 05:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

David Carr of the NYT says Fox execs work with Beck to keep some glimmer of hope shining within his pessimistic rantings emotings: LINK--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 01:31, 7 March 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[ed] 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". [14] [15]'

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: [16] [17] [18] [19]

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. [20]) 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.[21] 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)

OK, this discussion is out of control. Suggest we start over from a more NPOV.--74.107.74.39 (talk) 02:48, 11 March 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)

I agree, it isn't relevant to discuss the religiosity of particular Jewish organisations, since the sources make no mention of such dimensions. Quite clearly the full mission statement evidences the nature and motivation of the group, although this is merely a distraction from the point first raised. The information is well-sourced and relevant.Ninahexan (talk) 00:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I recommend permitting the paragraph regarding the January 2011 dispute to remain. The dispute was significant enough for Glen Beck to issue an apology. That's why I believe it is significant enough to be posted here. rturnham —Preceding undated comment added 02:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC).

It is not the purpose of wikipedia to compell the subject into action. The subject is not necessarily the author. The purpose is simply to document the facts and supporting evidence.

--74.107.74.39 (talk) 02:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

It is a fact Mr. Beck has made several controversial comments that offended Jewish people and brought Rabbis to comment on his apparent lack of sensitivity. I agree this was not insignificant and it is a fact he appologised for his comments. These are the events of one of his controversies and belong in the article.

Oh good grief! Mr. Beck offended Jewish people and Jewish leaders by comparing himself to Moses. Now this article needs to question their umbrage by pointing to their religious feelings and values? There doesn't seem a lot of perspective in this argument. The events are he offended someone by being insensitive and later appologised.

71.53.195.160 (talk) 06:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)DWright

Glenn Beck, Egypt

Whether or not criticism of Glenn Beck's recent comments regarding Egypt and a global caliphate should be inserted into the biography on Beck. The proposed text would read as follows: Beck has been heavily criticized by Bill Kristol and others for his comments regarding political instability in Egypt. Beck has claimed that the revolution is a part of a new global caliphate that would join Muslim Brotherhood forces, whom he claims are behind the uprising, with marxist revolutionaries from around the world, including left-wing forces in the United States.

Sources for inclusion: [22], [23], [24], [25] [26] Soxwon (talk) 05:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Could you please provide more details - not every editor is familiar with this issue. TFD (talk) 06:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The opposition basically states that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and cannot predict whether this will have a lasting or significant impact on Beck's career. Since "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion."WP:NOTNEWS, there would need to be some sort clear evidence of its significance to put this in context within the article and to show that this is not "... routine news reporting on things like ... celebrities". Since Glenn Beck has the public coverage of a celebrity, and is routinely criticized in editorials it would help if non-opinion pieces were used to illustrate this.AerobicFox (talk) 06:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Your argument is absolutely correct AF, as WP:NOTNEWS applies to WP:N as a judge of stand-alone articles. I completely agree that this is not enough for its own article. It is, however, definitely notable enough for his bio. Soxwon (talk) 20:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you are getting this. The top of WP:NOT states "This page documents an English Wikipedia policy"(emphasis mine), and also "For Wikipedia's notability guidelines, see Wikipedia:Notability."(emphasis mine). I don't see how a wikipedia policy like WP:NOT could be referring to a wikipedia guideline like WP:N. Am I missing something?AerobicFox (talk) 21:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

At the section you linked (WP:NOTNEWS) there is a link to WP:N and how at the end of the section on news there is a link to the notability guidelines regarding events? Those arguments are referring to notability and whether or not information should receive its own article, not whether or not it should be included in an article. Soxwon (talk) 21:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The link is a see also section. Per:WP:N:"Content coverage within a given article or list is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies." If you click on content policies it will take you to Category:Wikipedia content policies which lists Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not among five other policies which are content policies. There isn't a connection between WP:N(a notability guideline) and WP:NOT(a content policy), see also links between the two are to help navigate things which cross over.AerobicFox (talk) 21:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I see a lot of people holding up wikiguidelines, but not explaining explicitly why they apply. BlennGeck (talk) 22:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

link to continuing discussionAerobicFox (talk) 23:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

That link doesn't explain anything. Again you aren't linking the wikiguidelines explicitly to the content of the sources. BlennGeck (talk) 23:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion. Editors recently axed tons of info that had a couple days worth of coverage. This is similarly lacking of notice over the grand scheme of things.Cptnono (talk) 07:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment That's a rather vague comment, could you be a little more specific as to how a completely different situation applies to the current situation? Soxwon (talk) 20:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• Could you explain why you believe this is a completely different situation?AerobicFox (talk) 21:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• the burden is on you to prove it is the same. But for starters, this event's significance has been commented on in mainstream sources, and it has lasted well over a few days. BlennGeck (talk) 22:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• comment Additionally, this has more than a couple of days of coverage, and its significance has been noted by major pundits, and reported on in sources like the week. BlennGeck (talk) 21:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - What does a previous axing, right or wrong, have to do with anything? PPdd (talk) 03:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• support inclusion. This has over a week of coverage. Has been covered in major sources and by major news pundits. It is a story about a divide between Beck and another prominent conservative, but also fits into the context of a broader split. Also the Crystal Ball guideline swings both ways. You don't exlude material because it may or may not be significant in a year. You include it, and if it turns out to be insignificant, you remove it. At this stage, most people in the media seem to think it is significant. I do however think we need to present Beck's response and include any articles from people who agree or support his position. BlennGeck (talk) 13:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I would just like to point at that the story is continuing as of this monday, and even appears in PC Magazine of all places:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2380384,00.aspBlennGeck (talk) 20:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment For editors who don't know, the information and sources for inclusion can be found at the top of the Beck draft section. I will reprint the sources here:

• Oppose: editorials featuring pictures of him crying and discussing this as another example of crazy Beck doesn't show this to be of any particular significance. The only larger context these sources state criticism of Beck to be in is as an example of a split in the conservative movement over Egypt, and have been citing Beck among others as being divided with other conservatives over Egypt. That context does not seem relevant in Beck's article, or any of the other conservative commentators articles.AerobicFox (talk) 21:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• comment editorials showing beck crying don't really have much to do with this. This fits into three larger contexts: Beck's career and public image (which these editorials argue are being negatively impacted by his egypt theory), the split between neocons over egypt, and the impact this split is having over at fox news. Frankly, I don't see how one (even a fan of Beck) wouldn't find this relevant. BlennGeck (talk) 21:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• B/c nobody has even mentioned the split at Fox News(the argument isn't even between two Fox news employees[Kristol is an editor at the Weekly standard which is owned by News Corp which also owns Fox News and many other things like Myspace and the Wallstreet Journal). Nobody has talked about Beck's public image either, and the split between conservatives and neocons over Egypt isn't relevant to the Beck article. As for Beck's career, at most you could claim the sources have stated this to be one more step towards getting too radical for Fox News, but something like that from an opinion article definitely doesn't show that this will significantly impact his career(which seems unlikely).AerobicFox (talk) 23:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Kristol and Beck are both also employees of Fox. Kristol appears regularly as a news analyst on Fox's evening programs:

Klein (Beck's career and the Fox split): "Kristol's criticism is "not unimportant," says Joe Klein in Time. The noted neocon is "very close to the throbbing heart of the Fox News sensibility," and "I've heard, from more than a couple of conservative sources, that prominent Republicans have approached Rupert Murdoch and [Fox's] Roger Ailes about the potential embarrassment that the paranoid-messianic rodeo clown may bring upon their brand." Beck's days at Fox may well be numbered, and "I wouldn't be surprised if we saw a mirror-Olbermann situation soon."

Butler (reported in the week on Beck's career and how other conservatives are turning against him): "Conservative annoyance with Glenn Beck's messianism has been growing" just as his ratings have been dropping, says Anthea Butler at Religion Dispatches. Kristol's criticism is just the latest evidence that the sharks are circling Beck, and that an "apocalyptic end" is coming soon for his media career. His "doomsday televangelist prophet routine jeopardizes not only his show on Fox, but any chance that he can be considered to be any sort of a king- or queen-maker in the 2012 elections."

Aerobic, your last sentence is telling. We are not here to decide for ourselves or the article what condition beck's career is in. We are reporting what is being said by prominent pundits and reported on by reliable sources like The Week. We aren't taking sides. We are simply reporting what those opinions are. But they are highly relevant and are being discussed all over the media. BlennGeck (talk) 23:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

"Kristol's criticism is just the latest evidence that the sharks are circling Beck,"

One of the sources up above. Both sources seem to indicate that this is just one of many steps Beck is taking to getting to extreme, both of these stories are also editorials that have probably been saying similar things for a long time.AerobicFox (talk) 23:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Except this story, unlike many others, has generated a lot more media attention and has pitted kristol directly against Beck. You are just taking one statement in one article and not considering all the other sources together. Also you are either intentionally or unintentionally misunderstanding the thrust of that paragraph. The writer is clearly saying this is coming to a head with the egypt thing. Just look at this characterization from the ABC News piece posted before:

"Conservatives are taking sides, lining up behind two of the biggest names on the American right as a tiff over the crisis in Egypt this week turned into a national debate about who speaks for the movement.

In one corner, Bill Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard , Fox News contributor and dauphin of American neoconservatism. In the other corner Glenn Beck, the emotive host of his own Fox News program and Tea Party standard bearer."BlennGeck (talk) 23:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Aerobic, would you please stop with this tactic. You ask for sources, or some evidence showing this is significant to the article. It is presented and invariably you hone in on a minor aspect of the text, and inflate that to cloud the overall meaning of the source. I don't know if you are doing this intentionally or not. But you seem to be denying the obvious meaning and importance of the sources being sited, in order to keep the content off of the Beck article. At this point I have to wonder if you any sources would be adequate for you. BlennGeck (talk) 23:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

"You are just taking one statement in one article and not considering all the other sources together"

Because that is called WP:SYN. You don't put all of the sources together to come to a conclusion.

"Conservatives are taking sides, lining up behind two of the biggest names on the American right as a tiff over the crisis in Egypt this week turned into a national debate about who speaks for the movement."

The split between conservatives over Egypt is not relevant to Glenn Beck's article. Something needs to be connected to a larger context that has to do with Glenn Beck to be included in Glenn Beck's article.

Media attention alone— especially from editorials you need to piece together to form a coherent picture of significance from— does not sufficiently provide enough context to determine the lasting significance of this. You need in depth coverage of how this will affect Glenn Beck's career(preferably by a non-opinion piece) if you want to show the relevance of this three months from now.AerobicFox (talk) 00:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

1) No it isn't. The article you mentioned was one among many summarized in The Week article.

2) Yes it is, because it is the lens that the split is being viewed by the media.

3) What wiki guideline supports this statement? What is more, there were hard news sources sited, opinion pieces sited, and a hard news summary of the opinions. That should be plenty. BlennGeck (talk) 00:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for going ahead and posting again, I am leaving, but just to bring up to other editors. The hard news source(the CNN report) was a report on the next GOP candidate, an analyst(David Brook) was brought in to discuss it(whom I have met personally and who openly dislikes Beck) and he gave a brief, off-topic aside to the Beck criticism in his discussion on the GOP candidate, it wasn't really "covered" by CNN. With that, I'm gone, and glad to be free of this.AerobicFox (talk) 04:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I posted two CNN videos and 1 CNN international report. One video was from John King's show where it was discussed at some length. The other was CNN newsroom, hard news, where it was covered at length. This was most definitely covered by CNN. BlennGeck (talk) 04:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support, or alternatively support including the part about what Beck said, (criticism by Krystol is not so relevant). "Beck commented on the 2011 instability in Egypt, that the revolution is a part of a new global caliphate that would join Muslim Brotherhood forces, whom he claims are behind the uprising, with marxist revolutionaries from around the world, including left-wing forces in the United States. A better summary of Beck could not be made, even if this remark drops off the radar. PPdd (talk) 03:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support. I think a brief summary merits mention. Beck has been making comments about Muslims,/Islam and many of them have reported and discussed in other sources. Yet, this article is missing any discussion of his views on the matter. Why?VR _talk 05:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I've supported the idea of a paragraph on his feelings regarding Muslims. Instead of adding one, editors seem to prefer adding news coverage. There is little value in such coverage in the grand scheme of things. How about we create a paragraph on his feelings on the topic of Muslims as a whole instead of latching on every little news story. Is this one more important than last weeks? No. Do they combine to give an overall portrait of the dude? Certainly.Cptnono (talk) 07:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I support this option. News coverage should go in The Glenn Beck Program or Glenn Beck (TV program). His personal views should be discussed here, absolutely. An overview of his perceptions on different groups should be made as a collective whole, so that rather than focusing on one or two moments, we can see the general storyline. Ampersandestet (talk) 07:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Off-topic trivia - Tempest in a Teapot

User Blenn Geck is user LynnCityofsin Just to point this out to everyone. Blenn accidently posting as an IP and self revert Blenn reinserting the post logged in as Blenn LynnCityofsin accidently using the identical IP address to edit his post Just to add some disclosure to this discussion.AerobicFox (talk) 00:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC) I am not the person you are accusing me of being. In any case this is not the proper location to discuss such a matter. Instead of attacking me, or looking for reasons to have me removed, focus on the arguments at hand on the talk page. 00:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlennGeck (talk • contribs) Oh really? Lynn seems to be a single purpose account editing the Glenn Beck article. The IP seems to almost exclusively edit the Beck, John Birch, and other articles, and you almost exclusively edit the Beck article. What links you three together? That IP has edited both your post, and Lynn's post within this same article. That's a pretty incredible coincidence your asking me to buy.AerobicFox (talk) 00:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC) Edit: I don't know of any rules this violates since I don't think sockpuppet applies, so I am only bringing this up here for disclosure to those who seem familiar with you.AerobicFox (talk) 00:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC) I am not going to get into who I am in real life. Suffice it to say, there is a good reason for me having that IP address, and I am not the user you accuse me of being. For the last time, this is not the appropriate place to address this issue. BlennGeck (talk) 00:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC) Nobody is asking about who you are in real life.AerobicFox (talk) 00:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC) Aerobic, "What links you three together?" comes very close to a request for personal information related to my identity. Now stop accusing me of things when you don't know anything about me. BlennGeck (talk) 00:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC) Also if you don't stop hounding me, looking up what I am doing and trying to find information about me, posting accusations about me, I will seek arbitration for harassment. This is the only warning I will give. BlennGeck (talk) 01:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC) Since one account ceased editing long before the other one began, it does not matter. See Wikipedia:Clean start. TFD (talk) 01:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC) The lead sentence of clean start, emphasis not mine. "A clean start is when a user sets aside an old account in order to start afresh with a new account, where the old account is clearly discontinued and the new account is not merely continuing the same kinds of behaviors and activities." Changing from one Glenn Beck SPA with warnings to another SPA on the same page does not qualify as "not continuing the same kinds of behaviors and activities" and seems more like trying to shed his record of edit warring here.AerobicFox (talk) 01:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC) The Lynn account was never blocked and is not currently on any restrictive editing ban, so the fact that the two accounts are the same is moot.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC) Aerobic, since you continue with this, and you continue to use my UserSpace as a hall of shame, I will seek arbitration now. BlennGeck (talk) 01:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC) I have gone ahead and brought the discussion to ANI. You were previously warned for edit warring and making personal attacks as LynnCity, and are engaging in similar behavior now, which is not allowed by WP:CLEANSTART as well as canvassing, and doing other things.AerobicFox (talk) 01:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC) First, do not accuse me of being someone when you don't have all the facts. Second, I have not been edit warring (I haven't even edited the article yet), and I have not been making personal attacks. If you are concerned about personal attacks, please review your own comments and statmenets to other users. BlennGeck (talk) 01:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC) Just to be clear, by similar behavior I meant editing the same article, and acting the same way. I did not mean to accuse you of edit warring.AerobicFox (talk) 03:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC) I would just like to point out that Aerobic is posting this nonsense all over the place. Isn't there a policy against this sort of behavior? BlennGeck (talk) 02:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC) Given that this has gone to AN/I, I'd suggest you should stop arguing here. Aerobic, you'd do as well to provide diffs for the edit-warring and personal attacks you allege, as otherwise your claims are likely to be seen as having little weight. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC) Instead of devoting a whole section of the Glenn Beck talk page to accuse me of various things, how about we use the Glenn Beck talk page to discuss content of the article? BlennGeck (talk) 02:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC) Aerobic, "editing the same article"? I haven't even edited the article. All I've done is propose a draft. BlennGeck (talk) 03:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC) Note: User:BlennGeck was reported to be a sockpuppet, and has been banned indefinitely.VR talk 05:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• Seems reasonable IMO to have an overview of Beck's opinions about Muslims, if one can be written in a balanced fashion, citing reliable sources.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 19:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support The references are reputable. Beck's extreme views and statements are noteable and so too is the criticism they recieve. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 21:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support Ditto--the refs are solid, and these comments by Beck are getting a lot of press. Looks like a defining point in his career. I saw a report yesterday in a major newspaper saying that these comments are pushing Fox towards not renewing his show in December of this year. Early morning person (talk) 17:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

It is a fact Glenn Beck made these statements. It is also a fact his statements have obscure references that need some brief factual discussion so the reader might understand how his statement is controversial. Beyond this material is speculation and not tied to events and facts. I agree personal attacks really don't have a place in a biography.

Again this argument Beck's show is too controversial for FOX... That's like saying a pinto bean is too oblong to be a bean. FOX lives on controversy. It feeds their outsider personna. I'm certainly no fan of Mr. Beck or FOX, but I believe he will be around at least another four or five years. It's when he stops being controversial that FOX will can him.

But I digress into a discussion about FOX...

71.53.195.160 (talk) 05:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)DWright