Talk:Glenn Beck/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 17

"Give a damn" Quote

DocOfSoc, why does this quote need to go in the lead? Has it been referenced many times and become synonymous with Beck? If not, it's really just some random quote that has no real significance. Soxwon (talk) 14:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. It seems out of place and WP:Undue for the lead.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 15:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

OK. Semi-consensus and the sensible Redthoreau works for me. Soxwon, I would rather have you with me than "agin" me :) Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 14:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Expanding the lead

For an article this size, it is perfectly acceptable to start with three paragraphs, and work our way to four or five if required:

• First paragraph: Name, bdate, title, career highlights, general notability.
• Second paragraph: Summary of Beck's personal life, early years and adulthood, career in radio and television, published books, stage shows and speeches
• Third paragraph: Beck-related projects and rallies, project and tea party protests, restoring honor rally, political views, ideological influences, public reception and public disputes.

My preference is to split the public reception and public disputes out into a fourth paragraph. Viriditas (talk) 12:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

For an article this size, it is perfectly acceptable to start with three paragraphs, and work our way to four or five if required:

• First paragraph: Name, bdate, title, career highlights, general notability.
• Second paragraph: Summary of Beck's personal life, early years and adulthood, career in radio and television, published books, stage shows and speeches
• Third paragraph: Beck-related projects and rallies, project and tea party protests, restoring honor rally, political views, ideological influences, public reception and public disputes.

My preference is to split the public reception and public disputes out into a fourth paragraph. Viriditas (talk) 12:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the argument that this article is too long isn't true. In terms of actual readable prose, there is about 4,000-5,000 if you do an actual word count. Soxwon (talk) 01:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, although the word count I got from a rough estimate was ~6000, possibly 6500. For my argument about lead vs. length, see the following: [1] There is a fundamental problem communicating basic Wikipedia policies and guidelines here, and I think an article RfC would help. I would appreciate it if a neutral RfC was authored by an uninvolved party. For the record, I have very little interest in this article, other than seeing it improved to standards. Viriditas (talk) 02:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

As long as the lead summarize everything on the article. That's what's the leads are supposed to be about. − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 02:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's the crux of the problem. IMO, the lead does not summarize the article, and it is virtually unprecedented to have a ~40,000 character, ~6,000 word encyclopedia article represented by a lead section composed of 134 words. The argument isn't even tenable. Viriditas (talk) 02:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Well I am sure you can work things out to make it comply with WP:Lead. Why are we mainly discussing it instead of fixing it. Is there some kind of disagreements or edit war leading it to be discussed if you don't mind me asking. − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 15:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

What does this have to do with anything relating to Beck? Soxwon (talk) 06:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Fresh start

TY, see my talk page. Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 12:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Arrghurrrphrumpph

Gonna discuss an editing issue, as an, um, Teaching Moment.

Point 1: be conservative. The most basic page on all of WP is wp:EDIT. This page, especially its wp:PRESERVE section, talks about not undoing uncontroversial MATERIAL on Wikipedia simply because it isn't up to snuff in FORM. I.e., if some MATERIAL would belong in a finished article, even if it requires some editing of FORM, THEN LEAVE IT BE. If you want to be a peach, "tag" it. (For example, {{Peacock}}, etc., etc.) If you want to be an Eagle Scout or a Gold Award Girl Scout, then bring the matter to the talk page and hope someone else steps in to fix it. If you want to be a truly helpful Wikipedian, fix it yourself.

OK then. Now to an actual point of recent contention. Point 2: Research editing guidelines when in doubt. <sighs> Recently I linked Chris Balfe. Then an editor reverted me with the edit summary, "[...]don't link it, as it would be a redlink."

Do a little searching and you will find the page called wp:REDIRECT, in whose wp:NOTBROKEN subsection it sezzz

With a few limited exceptions, there are no good reasons to pipe links solely to avoid redirects. It is almost never helpful to replace [[redirect]] with [[target|redirect]]. (However [[redirect|target]] may be replaced with [[target]] if [[redirect]] is not a {{Redirect with possibilities}}).

It is likewise unhelpful to edit visible links for no reason other than to avoid redirects. That is, editors should not change, for instance, [[Franklin Roosevelt]] to [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] just to "fix a redirect". This rule does not apply to cases where there are other reasons to make the change, such as linking to an unprintworthy redirect.

Please take a note of it. Thank you.

--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 22:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Never mind. (I'd messed up the Wlink.)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 22:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

"Point 1: be conservative."

Openly suggesting a political POV? :P --AerobicFox (talk) 23:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Oops, I hope not (I'm a bit of a anarcho-capitalist myself)!--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 00:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

This is just a pointer

Some editors watchlisting this page seem to be unaware of the wp:WELLKNOWN subsection of the wp:BLP page. The fact that, e.g., a U.K. politically progressive Jewish group [this despite this group's--and other similar groups making similar complaints--connection, via their funding, to financier/philanthropist/activist George Soros]...is calling for Beck's show to be banned there under their hate speech laws (Britain of course having no codified right of free speech) is at least a part of the well-known, public commentator Mr. Beck's public image and perceptions. Whether this current controversy deserves a place in the article under wp:WEIGHT is another matter, but to delete the discussion of the subject ironically itself violates the free flow of information necessary to sift through these issues among editors IMO. Anyone else agree with me?--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 16:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I would not of deleted the discussion here, but I disagree that it has enough weight to be included into the article. The fact that many politically progressive groups are trying to get him off the air is just a redundant reminder that Glenn Beck dislikes Progressivism, and not a significant part of his public image. Unless you can find a source that says large swathes of the general population believe Beck is an Anti-Semitic then I don't see how it could be put in without sounding POV. --AerobicFox (talk) 18:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Whether it should be included depends on how well their campaign to get him off the air in England is going. If they are attracting support, and people think he violates England's hate speech laws, sure its significant. If only a handful of people take it seriously. No significant. 24.61.171.248 (talk) 14:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Tucson

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

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

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

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

Never mind, I answered my own question with this: [2]. Lhb1239 (talk) 00:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

YouTube

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Center-left bloggers want...]you to believe that the “you” is Beck’s audience, whom Beck is inciting to violence. Nothing could be further from the truth.

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

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

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

The controversy surrounding his George Soros series

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

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

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

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

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

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

'put in a lunatic asylum'

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Barr     Absolutely not.

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

Barr     Absolutely not. [... ...]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.Mark Lilla in the NYRB:

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

3.Tim Cavanaugh in Reason magazine:

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

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

4. Nat'nl Review's Jonah Goldberg terms Beck a "libertarian populist."--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 19:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

Sean Wilentz

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

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

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

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

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

• The New Yorker article is commentary, not reporting.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

^^That is actually not that inaccurate.

The article then proceeds with this statement:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is exactly what I said:

"has almost always been associated with the left"

Why are you arguing this?

"Progressivism did not develop into liberalism."

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

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

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

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

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

"either the New Deal"

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

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

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

Aerobic, most historians actually don't agree with your analysis there. Largely because people who aren't really progressives are being labeled as such by guys like beck. Also the line of causation isn't at all clear. Just because I might happen to agree with things Epictetus said a couple of thousand years ago, that doesn't mean my ideas come from Epictetus. It is much more complicated than you are making it out to be, and frankly, the Glenn Beck article isn't the appropraite place for this issue to be resolved. What you are arguing is what Beck says, and therefore, those ideas should be present in the article. But we shouldn't be in the business here of validating or attacking the subject's beliefsBlennGeck (talk) 15:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Section Break

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

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

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

Edit request from Cymru.lass, 2 February 2011

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

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

Conservative Libertarian

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"gay rights"

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

"See, I can do original research too!"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Have someone add it then. PokeHomsar (talk) 21:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Egypt

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

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

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

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

I think we'll probably do as well to wait until we see what further sources say on this one, though I've got to admire Joe Klien's use of language in his Time blog: "...the paranoid-messianic rodeo clown"![3] AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

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

More places covering this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sure reads like commentary from here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Collect, you are being selective. JUst because a show includes some analysis from experts, that doesn't make the whole show non-hard news (nor does the use of casual language by reporters). Here is the full description of CNN News Room from wikipedia:

"CNN Newsroom is an American news program on CNN/US.

Broadcasting throughout the week, Newsroom features live and taped news reports, in addition to analysis from experts on the issues being covered, and headlines throughout each hour. The program is the standard "brand" for general rolling-news programming for the network, originating from their headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia. It debuted in September 2006 replacing"CNN Live Today," "Live From," "CNN Saturday," "CNN Saturday Night," "CNN Sunday" and "CNN Sunday Night."[1]

CNN Newsroom airs continuously for eight hours starting from 9:00am ET until 5:00pm ET on weekdays and since the start of September 2008, the program has employed a single-presenter format on such days. On weekends, it airs at various times with late-night editions.[2]

The program shares the same name of an earlier CNN program, debuted in 1992, that was shown by teachers in schools."

It is a news show. I read the transcript and watched the broadcast, that was a report on the Beck-Kristol controversy. It is a reach to argue otherwise. BlennGeck (talk) 18:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Aerobic it is notable because he is fighting with conservative figures like Bill Kristol, who basically said he is akin to the birchers who marginalized themselves int he 60s. This is clearly significant, and the CNN coverage of it made that very point. And that isn't the only place its been covered. What is more, if you bother to read the piece by Klein and others, they say conservatives have said off the record they are fed up with Beck. BlennGeck (talk) 18:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll be pithy. The "conservative" is a neocon who runs a conservative magazine that doesn't like Beck and has been saying so for quite some time.

The CNN program didn't even dedicate a segment to this "controversy", but rather a few lines inside of a segment.

This is another political play to try and portray the other side as having division among their ranks. There is "infighting" within the conservative and liberal movements, but not as much as political pundits attempt to portray. :This is more sensationalist than it is analysis, but if you believe this will be a big story nonetheless then you can wait for it to have some sort of consequences or get some traction and add it then.AerobicFox (talk) 07:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Aerobic, now you are simply inserting your own point of view into the mix. I am not suggesting we take sides, just that we report on the dispute. You may not like CNN, but it is a reliable source, and that was indeed a segment (if you actually saw the broadcast you would certainly understand that). BlennGeck (talk) 14:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I would just add that Glenn Beck himself has been responding to the controversy now for days (and by all means his responses should be included in this segment of the article). Also the Christian Science monitor has reported on it as well: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0209/Egypt-protests-US-conservatives-divided-on-how-to-view-themBlennGeck (talk) 14:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Also it appears in the Financial times and in an editorial in the Boston Pheonix:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e50fe5a8-3475-11e0-9ebc-00144feabdc0.html

http://thephoenix.com/Boston/news/115425-sarah-palin-wilts-as-glenn-beck-self-destructs/ BlennGeck (talk) 14:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

"You may not like CNN"

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)

Actually Financial times and CSM are considered MSM. Soxwon (talk) 22:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

From our article on the FT: "The Financial Times (FT) is an international business newspaper. It is a morning daily newspaper published in London and printed in 23 cities around the world. Its primary rival is New York City-based The Wall Street Journal. The FT has a global print circulation of 390,121. Along with FT.com, it has an average daily readership of 1.9 million people worldwide (PwC audited figures, April 2010). FT.com has three million registered users and 206,892 digital subscribers, as well as 597,015 paid users (2 October 2010 to 4 January 2011). FT Chinese has more than 1.5 million registered users." AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

So you are seriously arguing that CNN, Christian Science Monitor, Time Magazine, etc aren't mainstream sources? Aerobic, you seem to be moving the goal post here. You asked for reliable sources. I provided them. Beck himself has covered this for days. BlennGeck (talk) 03:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

No one has said those publishers are not generally reliable. Please reread the discussion.Cptnono (talk) 03:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually Aerobic Fox basically said they weren't mainstream enough, after asking for reliable sources. My point is, reliable sources were requested. Reliable sources were given. Then the aim was shifted to "mainstream sources". Of course CSM, CNN, and the Financial Times are all Mainstream and Reliable. But I guess that isn't enough now either. BlennGeck (talk) 03:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Your new here, so let me help by providing you with WP:RS. It describes what a reliable source is and is not.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Is this somehow intended to suggest that the FT, CNN etc aren't WP:RS? There may possibly be an issue of weight here, but to suggest there is a problem with sourcing is absurd. Personally, I'm convinced that the anti-Beck momentum in US conservative circles is increasing, so there is no need to worry too much about sourcing in any case - eventually, it will become blindingly-obvious to everyone that he is no longer an asset to the right, and he'll be unceremoniously dumped. This is just opinion of course, but I'm sufficiently convinced of its inevitability not to be over-concerned what goes into the article for now. I'll just stand back, and enjoy the fireworks... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, just going to go ahead and say it. There are reliable sources here. Specifically these sources: [4], [5], and these: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/scott-galupo/2011/02/02/glenn-becks-egypt-protest-theories-show-hes-finally-lost-his-marbles

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

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

Per [WP:BLPSPS]] Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. I'm not sure why you all keep debating CNN when you have plenty of sources right there. Based on this, unless there are further objections to these source, I'll include the information in the article. Soxwon (talk) 05:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

ABC News Blog has reported on it as well: http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2011/02/who-speaks-for-the-right-bill-kristol-takes-on-glenn-beck.html

BlennGeck (talk) 13:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Jojhutton, I am familiar with that guideline and the major sources I posted were reliable. There were some that fit into the category of opinion or punditry as well, but those sources were listed simply to demonstrate the extent of the dialogue on the subject. That an opinion piece appeared on the subject in Time for example is significant. That it was addressed and debated on John King's evening program was significant. But sources such as The Christian Science Monitor and CNN Newsroom are most certainly reliable sources. BlennGeck (talk) 17:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

And it appears again on the CNN website: http://edition.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/02/11/mann.egypt.us.republicans/?hpt=C2BlennGeck (talk) 17:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Reliability is not the issue. For this to be included into the article it needs some sort of context to explain its significance such as "Glenn Beck was criticized for saying XXX, this will likely have a major impact of his career", or "A significant criticism of Beck came from his beliefs on XXX". You need a reliable source explaining why the criticism is significant, and not just making the criticism.

Suggestions:

• demonstrate breadth of coverage outside of political editorials
• an RS stating the criticism is significant
• in depth coverage

There are many ways you can show weight, and I am open to any ways you can demonstrate weight, but you have only addressed reliability at this time.AerobicFox (talk) 22:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Are we just making up our own rules here? WP:WEIGHT specifically says that weight is conferred "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint" in reliable sources. It does not say anything about "explaining significance". I count at least a dozen reliable sources in this thread, from CNN to the Washington Post. You can certainly argue that you don't believe the material is encyclopedic or appropriate for a BLP, but please don't just go latching on to policy buzzwords and making things up. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 05:29, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if you are familiar with it or not, but WEIGHT is often misused per the wording in regards to prominence. Of course, then other standards point to weight meaning prominence so it is understandable that people get confused. I would say that common practice over the wording should be followed but it isn't needed. We have standards pointing to not focusing primarily on recent events and looking at noteworthiness as a whole of the subject. So if you can honestly say that this has some overbearing amount of prominence in the subject's life, then we should discuss it. If you even question it then think about being more conservative (no pun intended) in your editing instead of focusing on something that got mention in a couple days worth of news. Sensationalism is fun but this is not a blog.Cptnono (talk) 06:27, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Not everything said on CNN has enough weight to be mentioned in Wikipedia, otherwise Wikipedia would just be an indiscriminate collection of CNN information, becoming a news source. What is the importance of this criticism? Did CNN say that this was important? If this had it's own segment, or had indepth coverage, of had clear and evident lasting significance then it would perfectly appropriate. Until then this is just random news fluff.AerobicFox (talk) 07:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you deliberately ignoring the other sources? This is not just about the CNN source, this has been covered by multiple reliable sources and therefore by wikipedia standards is worthy of inclusion. Soxwon (talk) 08:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

• I don't have an opinion on this issue in general but while reading that thread I saw someone assert that WP:BLP does not allow the use of videos without transcripts. Neither that policy nor WP:V forbid the use of videos as sources. WP:IRS does say this: However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable third-party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable source. Like text sources, media sources must be produced by a reliable third-party and be properly cited. Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is useful but by no means necessary for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet. So a broadcaster with a reputation for reliability, like CNN, is an adequate source assuming the video is archived somewhere. Note that some material on news channels may actually be opinion pieces, so care is still required when using them.   Will Beback  talk  08:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a list of growing sources. Beck continues to discuss the subject himself. And its significance is explained by the sources. It represents both a split within the conservative movement, and major republican figure (figures if Joe Klein is to be believed) are turning against beck. This isn't a case of recentism. By any measure, for a conservative pundit, this is significant. And as others have pointed out, this isn't just about cnn. Please see all the sources I posted. BlennGeck (talk) 13:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Another source, the LA Times: http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-onthemedia-20110212,0,7125172.columnBlennGeck (talk) 13:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

"It represents both a split within the conservative movement, and major republican figure (figures if Joe Klein is to be believed) are turning against beck."

Is this your view or the sources? And if this was the sources, did they go in detail to explain this view(did it even have a segment/section devoted to it) or was this just stated as part of routine coverage.

"Are you deliberately ignoring the other sources?"

Yes as you have not stated the importance of the other sources, so I have nothing to day about them. A recent spur of widespread coverage doesn't make up for a lack of in depth coverage. If you believe a source here clearly demonstrates the significance of Beck's views on Egypt then point out what it is saying and direct me there. To be uber clear as to my position, widespread coverage does not equal significance, the coverage has to either say what's going on is significant or demonstrate it some other way, a source simply mentioning something does not make that something significant.AerobicFox (talk) 20:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

1. Yes, many of the sources say this represents a split among conservatives. Please read them. Whether it was simply stated or given an entire section, doesn't really matter. What matters is it made up a portion of the coverage.

2. I can't force you to read the sources, but don't object to them if you aren't going to read them. BlennGeck (talk) 20:29, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems I have to agree w/Blaxthos AF. You don't seem to think Wikipedia's policies go far enough, so you've invented your own. If there are no further objections from other parties, I will now insert the material. Soxwon (talk) 20:34, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

By all means, I believe the material should be included. BlennGeck (talk) 20:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

What material? No, seriously, this entire section looks like a Google returns page interspersed with arguments over whether the sources are reliable, undue, etc. There has been no actual discussion of proposed changes to the article. Perhaps before asking whether there are any objections to inserting "the material" it would be useful to provide a draft of proposed additions for discussion, no? Fat&Happy (talk) 21:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Well I am suggesting that we include a summary of Beck's analysis of Egypt, that his analysis has led to criticism from from people like William Kristol and others. We should include Beck's response to the criticisms. It is also probably worth mentioning that some have viewed this as a reflection of a deeper division within the conservative movement. BlennGeck (talk) 21:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Can I suggest you produce a draft of what you are proposing, and start a new section when it is ready, so we can discuss it. I'm inclined to think there is now enough written about this to merit at least a sentence or two. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Bleck, Sox, you have said "Glenn Beck argues XXX, it's in the links". I read the CNN story and it did not argue what you are saying, so until you say "Article XXX says this" I am not going to go to every single article like a fool looking for what part you could be referring to. Tell me "The politico article says "XXXX"" and I will read the politico article and comment back to it. Also, yes a draft would be nice.AerobicFox (talk) 23:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Ancient Babylon? some sort of religious plan?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Beck has said on his show and web site that the Egyptian uprising is likely to lead to a global Islamic caliphate. MSNBC commentator Chris Matthews responded to this by opining, "From crackdown to crack-up....we had the delusional Glenn Beck imagining the creation of a worldwide Islamic caliphate with the help of the two George Bushes."(support: [6]) Beck responded to such suggestions that these assertions indicated that he was crazy by saying, "The communist left, the uber socialist left and the Islamic radicals are in bed together, period. Look it up. It’s called Islamic socialism."(support: [7])

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It seems like you guys are getting into the validity of Beck's and Mathew's arguments. Really the article should just cover their positions. It isn't hte place of the wiki article to speculate on the plausibility of a new pan-Arab caliphate. BlennGeck (talk) 18:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what their arguments are from what I've read here. Beck believes we avoided destroying important cultural sites like Babylon, so are you saying he believes that was divinely inspired or that it was an attempt to keep good relations with the locals?

And is Beck just arguing that he fears there could be a new Islam caliphate? Because that is a possibility since Egypt is the largest Muslim nation in the worldregion(per population), and although very unlikely fearing something like that doesn't seem less rational than fearing a meteor is going to hit the Earth in 20 years and cause massive damage. People will fear that meteor even though there's a very small chance of it hitting because it is a perfectly natural emotional response.AerobicFox (talk) 22:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

He's arguing that the new muslim caliphate will join forces with the "radical left" in the United States, despite the fact that the rioters in Egypt have no intention of installing a caliphate. Also, I'm not where you're getting your numbers about Egypt, you might wish to look at Bangladesh, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Indonesia. Soxwon (talk) 00:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

My bad typing too fast. Meant to say region.AerobicFox (talk) 21:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think people take issue with Beck's concern about radical Islamists using the unrest to their advantage. Many pundits and analysts, both left and right, have expressed this concern about the Muslim brotherhood. Beck's particular theory about Islamists and Left-wingers working together, and his application of historical patterns (something few real historians do, since you can't take something that happened in Iran in 1979 and assume it is the same as what is happening in Egypt for example) is what has raised eye brows. Essentially, the hysterical nature of his Egypt analysis is what is attracting attention here. His attempt to bring it into a larger narrative. BlennGeck (talk) 03:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear, all historians do in fact look for historical patterns, and bring instances into a larger narrative. It is whether that is done responsibly and with evidence which makes one a historian rather than a radical, so when arguing about Beck it would be better to argue that he makes weak connections between unrelated things to form conspiracies and doesn't have enough evidence to back them up, rather than arguing that making connections between things is fundamentally illogical.

I'm going to need to get a better handle on just what Beck believes since what I am hearing here is unclear. Just who exactly is the "radical left" that Beck says is teaming up with the Muslim brotherhood? Is radical left the progressives?, the Marxists? Is he talking about mainstream liberals, or is he arguing about a fringe group? And why does he believe this? Since the info doesn't have any indepth coverage that goes into detail or something to support its lasting importance I think it's giving undue weight until we have a clear explanation of Beck's view and of why this view is of lasting significance.AerobicFox (talk) 21:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Aerobic, while hisotrians look for patterns of development and other such things, the notion that history has predictive value (which is the sort of pattern Beck looks for) has been largely abandoned by mainstream historians. There will always be similar circumstances in history, but the specific conditions are always different. The kind of historical reasoning Beck employs is simply not accepted by most historians. Only fringe historians on the left and right continue this largely disproven approach.

This isn't to say that history has no value for the present day, or for helping us to place events into a meaningful context. But most historians these days reject the notion that history is a laboratory, where one can conduct experiments for predictive patterns, because the specifics are always different. There is not real way to control for variables in history. So while you may see two similar figures emerge in history, it is hard to predict the outcome of one based on the other, simply because context is not the same. An example is comparing Iran with Egypt. Some comparison can be made, particularly in a more general way with regards to revolutions and their stages of development. But the facts on the ground are totally different, and will make it nearly impossible to say, because X worked or failed in Iran, it will also fail in Egypt. For starters, Iran is Shia, and Egypt is largely Sunni. Egypts political situation with regard to its neighbors is totally different. Iran was a largely Persian country, whereas Egypt is a largely Arab country. Their economies are different. Their histories are different. So on, and so on. Not to mention, all the actors are different people. BlennGeck (talk) 14:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC) BlennGeck (talk) 13:29, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Aerobic, his theories have been widely covered (largely by the sources I listed in the above section), and Beck himself has been talking about his theory for a straight week. The problem with explaining his theory is he seems to have contradicted himself multiple times. But he seems to be arguing that the left and the radical Islamists, will, in his opinion, join forces by default (he seems to want his cake and eat it too, saying they won't be a literal conspiracy but will be moving in the same direction in the same location and therefor form a defacto conspiracy). So his argument is unions, progressives, left wing organizations etc, are going to provide moral, intellectual and material support to the movement in Egypt, and this will play into the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood. I am sure there are sources that describe his argument better than I just did, but his argument is widely covered. Any confusion over it, results from the fact that Beck hasn't been especially clear on the details. BlennGeck (talk) 13:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course history is not a laboratory. Historians none the less look back over things and try to find a cause and effect to them. You can't be making history claims right now, because it is way to recent to compare Iran and Egypt. In 20 or so years when historians are writing about uprises in the Arab world they will compare and contrast Egypt and Iran; probably saying they are similar in XXX but different in YYY, so the claim that a comparison between them is fundamentally non-historical forgets the purpose of historical research, in this case to compare and contrast different uprisings in order to learn why some worked, and some didn't.

" So his argument is unions, progressives, left wing organizations etc, are going to provide moral, intellectual and material support to the movement in Egypt, and this will play into the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood."

Yes. Most on the left do support the movement in Egypt, as do I and I believe most here. If Glenn Beck believes this movement will fall into the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood then I don't see how his view differs from other conservatives who fear the MB will try to exploit the movement to take power.AerobicFox (talk) 19:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Again, the reason his position is attracting criticism is because he seems to be arguing that there will be active collusion between progressives and the muslim brotherhood, and he sees this as a universal move toward revolutions across the globe.

We aren't going to get anywhere on the history argument, but I strongly urge you to read some overviews of Historiography and to read what I wrote more carefully. Here is an excellent one: http://www.amazon.com/Historiography-Twentieth-Century-Scientific-Objectivity/dp/0819567663/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1297538154&sr=1-1 BlennGeck (talk) 19:17, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I went here, viewed the video "Beck at your Call"(the shortest) where Beck explains for 6 minutes his views on Egypt, and he said nothing about this. He is pretty clear in that he believes foreign marxists(the same in Greece according to him) are teaming up with the Muslim Brotherhood. Do you have a clip of Glenn Beck saying what you are saying? This site apparently has recorded every show and appearance Beck has made.

I'm not going to respond on the history comment.AerobicFox (talk) 23:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

First, he says nothing about what in that segment. It is unclear what part of my summary you are specifically refuting there. Second, watch his regular show, not a six minute blip like that. The problem with Beck's position is it is enormously convoluted, inconsistent, and he keeps refining it. But believe me, my summary is based on watching all of his programs this week and reading the reactions to it. Over the course of the last week, he brought a number of actors, including american unions, into the mix. BlennGeck (talk) 14:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

That is not a blip. Those are two 6 minute appearances on another show where he explains his views on Egypt. I watched about half of another show, and I am still not seeing what you are claiming, that Beck believes actors and unions are teaming up with the Muslim brotherhood to overtake Egypt and turn it into an Islamic caliphate.AerobicFox (talk) 21:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Then you missed the episode where beck shows videos of Union leaders giving their support to the egyptians. He also covered it online:

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/glenn-beck/transcript/while-egypt-fire-tsa-unionizing

http://www.glennbeck.com/2011/02/08/unions-aligned-with-egypt/

http://mediamatters.org/research/201102080001BlennGeck (talk) 22:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and I never said actors (meaning thespians). If I used the term actors it was meant as "actors on the world stage". BlennGeck (talk) 22:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)