Talk:Glenn Beck/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Books

"An interview with Beck about The Christmas Sweater appeared on James Dobson's Focus on the Family web site but was removed after complaints by an evangelical group that the article failed to mention that he is a Mormon.[42][43]

Beck is also the publisher of Fusion Magazine, which is a play on the slogan of the The Glenn Beck Program, "The Fusion of Entertainment and Enlightenment."

In 2002 Beck created Mercury Radio Arts, a media platform which produces his broadcast, publishing and online projects, as well as his live performances."

Are not books. The subject header can be ammended to printed works to keep Fusion but the other two need to be moved. Also, is "The Christmas Sweater" included as a slight to his religious beliefs or is it actually noteworthy?Cptnono (talk) 03:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me to a non-netural and non-notable bit of sectarian bickering. The Squicks (talk) 03:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Fence

Is the fence he want to build at his house neccasary. It is juicey and funny and all but it really offers nothing of encyclopedic value. It comes across like it was included to make a point that some people don't like him.Cptnono (talk) 03:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Personally I would agree that it is not worth including. Celebrities routinely enclose or otherwise protect their properties in some fashion, so I don't think there's anything notable on this point and it can probably be removed. Maybe wait awhile and if no one disagrees then go ahead and do that. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Add Time's Beck cover story to external links?

I'd be inclined to, since having one's pic on newstands bordered in red with T-I-M-E written across the top of it is really quite the touchstone, IMO. Our only concern against doing so that I can come up with would be that of a vio of WEIGHT and BLP, especially cos Beck in no wise lent any assistance to its author, ne'ertheless even this worry I think is overcome by the fact that Beck himself sed ---- Well, here it is in his own words:

PUNDIT BILL O'REILLY: "Final question about Time magazine. Did you read the piece, and did you think it was fair?"

BECK: "Yes, I did. I actually did. I think you stated exactly right. It wasn't exactly a valentine. But I thought it was fair, which is really all you can ask from anybody in the media, is you can say things, you're going to say things that I disagree with, but at least you tried to do a fair article, and I think they did."

↜Just M E here , now 15:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I don;t know that it needs to be an external link, if it is already linked through footnotes. If there is no copyright issues, I would like to see the Time cover in the article relating to the section. Bytebear (talk) 23:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it needs to be an EL either. The article is already cited quite a few times, and has a sidebar quote. Since the subject did not even participate in the creation of the Time piece, I think it has been given enough weight, and is readily accessed through existing links in the article. - Crockspot (talk) 00:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Beck says his mother died when he was 13 not 15

In this youtube video Beck says his mother died when he was 13, not 15 as this wikipedia article suggests. He says this around the 4:07 mark at this video [1]. Is the Salon article wrong or is Beck?

It's a good question, and this is a somewhat dicey situation. Oddly, Zaitchik's article is probably more reliable than Beck himself on this. Zaitchik consulted both newspaper obits and government records, and also learned that Beck's first wife had never heard that his mother killed herself, which is exceedingly odd if true. However Beck has said repeatedly that his mother killed herself when she was 13. I have a feeling there will be more investigation into this and we'll end up with something more definitive. Perhaps a compromise for now would be to not put in a definite age or year (or any talk of cause of death), and simply say that Beck' mother died when he was "in his early teens". --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The article by Zaitchik addresses this specifically:

... the story Glenn Beck often tells about his mother is not quite the one recorded by the Tacoma paper. As Beck would later relate to millions of his listeners, his mother's drowning was no boating accident. It was a suicide, he claimed, explained in a short note written on that fateful dawn and left on the mantel. And he said it happened in 1977, when he was 13, not 1979, when he was 15 (even though newspaper obits and government records confirm that a 41-year-old woman named Mary Beck died in Puyallup in 1979.) In fact, Beck's first wife had never heard of Mary Beck's alleged suicide until years after they married, when she heard her husband discussing it live on the radio.

It is hardly unusual that a person is an unreliable narrator; that's why Wikipedia says that information in articles is to be based on reliable sources, and that (for example) an autobiography of a person, on a website, is not to be taken as fact (one may say, accurately, that "X's website says that X did Y", but saying that "X did Y", without any qualification, is simply wrong). That's also why Wikipedia has a conflict of interest guideline - because the reality is that people are simply not capable, anywhere near 100% of the time, of being objective - or even fully accurate - about their own lives.

So, in summary, there is no reason to think that Beck is correct about his age at the time of his mother's death, in the face of documented contradictory evidence that is cited in an article that explicitly discusses how Beck's telling of the situation differs from those documented facts. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you John, and I'm fairly certain that Zaitchik is correct and Beck, for whatever reason, is wrong. But even in his very recent interview with Katie Couric, Beck discussed his mother as though she had killed herself, and I don't think we can dismiss that—particularly since this is a BLP and as of now we only have one source that contradicts him. On the off chance that Zaitchik screwed up his research, it wouldn't be a terrible idea to keep our statements vague for now in terms of Beck's mother's death. Honestly this was a rather shocking revelation given that Beck has built up this entire story around himself relating to his mother's suicide (which is, I assume, why Zaitchik led his three-part piece, which I've read in its entirety, with this tidbit) that I expect it will be investigated and reported on by other publications at some point and might end up a bit of a controversy in its own right.

I don't think it's a high priority to change what we have now (died in '79 when he was 15), but if someone wants to omit a date and age until more reporting is done I don't have a problem with that either. The whole situation is quite strange, and it might be awhile before other outlets back up Zaitchik, simply because to do so (particularly on the "not a suicide" claim) is to essentially call Beck a liar. One could (I suppose, though it's extremely strange) understand some confusion as to the year of her death, but certainly not the cause. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• " 'It was determined that (Mary Beck) appeared to be a classic drowning victim,' a Tacoma police report on her death investigation states. ¶ 'There were no obvious injuries on the exterior of the body and at this point there is no reason to believe that this was anything other than an accidental drowning.' [ . . . ¶ ¶ ¶ . . . ] Washington state death certificates show the cause of both deaths as drowning, with Carroll’s death ruled an accident and Mary Beck’s as 'probable accidental.' ¶ Although most of the Tacoma police investigation report also describes the deaths as accidental, it offered one other possible explanation: 'Coast Guardsman theorize that Mrs. Beck, who had a history of heart problems and also was thought to be having a nervous breakdown, might have fallen overboard or jumped overboard,' the report says, adding that 'Carroll attempted to save her and the result being both victims drowning.'"---LEWIS KAMB, The (Tacoma) News Tribune (Link.)

  I'll edit the article accordingly. ↜Just M E here , now 12:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

That's a good source, but you give too much weight to the suicide possibility I think. They didn't exactly "speculate that she may have jumped overboard," it just could not be ruled out as a possibility, and the emphasis needs to be on the judgment that it was a "probable accident", whereas the current wording immediately undermines it and somewhat gives more weight to the suicided possibility (I think the word "considered", which is too weak, is part of the probelm). I think the sentence needs to be reworded slightly though I don't have time for that now. Also the sentence needs to be sourced to the News Tribune. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 14:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Bigtimepeace, note that in fact I'd added the Tacoma News Trib citation, too (hidden behind the Salon "cite" that I'd leftinfrontofit). ↜Just M E here , now 15:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Recent SNL Parody of Beck

Last night Saturday Night Live featured this short parody of Glenn Beck. What are editors thoughts of notability for inclusion?   Redthoreau (talk)RT 01:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Not important. Editors should ask: "why is this important or noteworthy?" Will it improve the reader's comprehension of the subject? Is it interesting enough to devote a couple lines when compared to every other little story that has come out about him? Should every SNL sketch or parody of whoever get mention somewhere on Wikipedia or is there something about this one that makes it extra special?Cptnono (talk) 01:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, it has now been noted upon by Time's James Poniewozik (who blogged, "[...]Glenn Beck received a tribute greater than the cover of Time magazine last night: a Saturday Night Live (in this case Weekend Update Thursday) parody"). ↜Just M E here , now 01:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

No, no reason whatsoever to mention this in the article. L0b0t (talk) 01:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

[removed again per BLP], I disagree with Poniewozik if he actually believes that. I have a feeling it was just to be cute for his blog. Common sense says Time is of greater importance than SNL. Time also provides an in depth analysis while SNK is just cute. It is trivial compared to the rest of the stuff that is mentioned. That line would almost be appropriate if a subsection was devoted to his rise in popularity recently along with all sorts of other interesting tidbits. Writing a new paragraph solely for the purpose of including this is unnecessary. Cptnono (talk) 01:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

It could be mentioned in passing, in my opinion -- although I also think it's not that important, either way. ↜Just M E here , now 02:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Does not really add to anything in a good or historic way that defines Beck in a notable way. Maybe if he was himself on SNL and something was done that stood out but even then that would be a reach. People are made fun on SNL all the time. To include each and every one of them would not really help a Wiki article unless it became a national thing like Janet Jackson and the boob incident. --Marlin1975 (talk) 12:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Glenn Beck not born in Mount Vernon, WA

Glenn was actually born in Everett WA, 30 miles south of Mount Vernon.

JGK

I was born in Everett where the hospital is but was growing up in another town within a couple of hours of coming out. "he grew up in" might work instead. Also, provide a source.Cptnono (talk) 11:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done Hmm, that's possible, thx, Cptnono. Until we've a source for the family's moving to Mt. Vernon after Beck's birth, I've finessed the issue by changing the text to specify no more than the fact that Beck was raised there, as you've suggested. ↜Just M E here , now 20:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Well...obviously they did move to MV after he born - his father owned a business there, Beck went to school there, etc. I'm not sure what the question is here... SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 20:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't really comb through the source, Kelly; if it says the family moved to Mount Vernon after Beck's birth, restore this info. :^)

The place of a subject's birth often conflicts with the place hi/r family resided at the time, eg my friend's kid was born in Hackensack (Hackensack Univsity Medical Center) even though she lives in Teaneck; I was born in Sacramento (Sutter Maternity Hospital) even though my family lived in Arden-Arcade. ↜Just M E here , now 22:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Arden-Arcade is less than 10 miles from Sacramento. In 1964, Everett to Mount Vernon was nearly 40 miles. As a life-long resident of this area, I can tell you that back in 1964 (and I was alive back then and living in the area, BTW), no one went all the way to Everett (in Snohomish County) to have a baby while living in Mount Vernon (Skagit County). Additionally, driving to Everett from Mt. Vernon to give birth would have been even more ridiculous as the freeway between Everett and Mt. Vernon did not exist yet. In 1964, you would be forced to take Highway 99 - with stop lights and two-lane traffic, it took over an hour to get to Everett from Mount Vernon. It's seriously doubtful the Beck's lived in Mt. Vernon and drove all the way to Everett to have a baby - especially since there were two hospitals in Skagit County at the time and if any complications would have arisen, they would have probably taken Mrs. Beck to Bellingham (much closer with larger facilities) rather than Everett. With all of this in mind, I think it's safe to believe Beck and his family moved to MV *after* he was born. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 23:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

You have convinced me, SagitRiverQueen, and I would not revert you on this likely fact, WP:OR be damned. ↜Just M E here , now 23:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Done, and thank you, Justme. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 23:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please directly source that line in the prose or direct me to which source it is? Also, depending on which unincorporated are you live in the difference between Bellingham and Everett from Mt Vernon could be less than 10 miles and not "much closer". Regardless, it is about what the sources say so let me know. Thanks. Whoo hoo found it!Cptnono (talk) 00:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Look, we're talking the early 1960's in a rural area of northwestern Washington state before Interstate 5 went no farther north than Seattle. "Unincorporated area"? Not. Believe me, in 1964, Mount Vernon was considered "the sticks" and going to Everett was a big deal. But, I see you found a source - and I'm glad because this back and forth on such a minute detail was starting to wear me out! ;-) SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 00:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

That is why verifiability is so important. Assertions shouldn't even start without sources.Cptnono (talk) 00:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

suggested removal of sentence

In the section on Beck's early life, there is an uncited sentence which I would like to remove. Any objections to deleting: Although it was considered a probable accident, Coast Guard investigators noted that she had been thought to be experiencing a nervous breakdown at the time and speculated that she may have jumped overboard.[citation needed] ? Regards, ObserverNY (talk) 12:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Nice editing, John_Broughton. ObserverNY (talk) 15:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

? The sentence was cited. (Click the ref to the Tacoma News Tribune, also see section above about age when Beck's mother died.) ↜Just M E here , now 15:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Please check the history. It was not cited. ObserverNY (talk) 15:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

(When making my original contribution of the sentence, I'd included the News Trib cite, mentioned the News Trib in my edit summary, then posted a quote from the News Trib on the talkpage. See i. contribution's diff ii. its edit summary iii. talkpage post.) ↜Just M E here , now 16:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I removed language that would endorse any one conflicting explanation for the tragedy in favor of neutral language attempting to balance the competing possibilities mentioned in the investigations, referencing the Tacoma News Tribune piece that reports that while the police decided to wrap up the case as a boating accident (obviosly, I might add, implying there was insufficient evidence to suggest single or even double-homicide), that the Coast Guard's investigation found that Mary reportedly had been experiecing a nervous breakdown at the time and may have jumped overboard:

"Although most of the Tacoma police investigation report also describes the deaths as accidental, it offered one other possible explanation: 'Coast Guardsman theorize that Mrs. Beck, who had a history of heart problems and also was thought to be having a nervous breakdown, might have fallen overboard or jumped overboard,' the report says, adding that 'Carroll attempted to save her and the result being both victims drowning.'"---Reporter LEWIS KAMB (Link.)

↜Just M E here , now 16:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer that we cite the line: "Yet the report added that Coast Guard officials theorized Beck’s mother also could have jumped overboard.. I think the unprofessional opinion of an unidentified Coast Guardsman is not WP:notable or worthy of inclusion. ObserverNY (talk) 16:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

The Coast Guard are certainly professionals with regard an investigations of a boating incident. Whereas, our language should be WP:NPOV. ↜Just M E here , now 16:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

If we all all believe it obviously an accident, your resolute language in contradiction of the subject of this BLP might slide, but as it is I must insist that our editing guidelines be stringently followed here, which in instances where a determination conceivably remains controversial, disfavors "reported," "determined," and so on and so forth, in favor of "said," "believed," "speculated," "expressed the opinion that," and the like. ↜Just M E here , now 16:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The recent edits by Kelly Siebecke have created havoc with the former cites to the early bio section. I am not all that proficient at fixing this stuff so anyone else with more expertise's help would be appreciated. To Kelly - the addition of Beck's mother possibly suffering a nervous breakdown and as a result throwing herself overboard does NOT appear in the source you cited. Therefore it is pure speculation and should not be included in the article. ObserverNY (talk) 15:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)Regards, ObserverNY

Excuse me??? I didn't add the material about his mother suffering a nervous breakdown - it was already there. And, BTW - my edits have hardly "created havoc". Please get your facts straight on who did what, when with the editing before you start throwing out accusations (and what ever happened to the Wikipedia standard of "Assume Good Faith"? Sheesh. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 20:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, my contribution had not been wrt Mary's (quote) possibly suffering a nervous breakdown and as a result throwing herself overboard, as you say; rather it had related that Mary (quote) reportedly had been experiecing a nervous breakdown at the time and may have jumped overboard.

Cf the Tacoma News Times's recent item on the conflicting stories w/regard Mary's death, that says:

"Although most of the Tacoma police investigation report also describes the deaths as accidental, it offered one other possible explanation: 'Coast Guardsman theorize that Mrs. Beck, who had a history of heart problems and also was thought to be having a nervous breakdown, might have fallen overboard or jumped overboard.'"

What is the "other possible explanation" the reporter mentions, if not the one I am attempting to cite for balance in my contribution to the article? ↜Just M E here , now 18:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you to AnomieBot for fixing that Salon cite. ObserverNY (talk) 16:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Thank you Tony Sideaway for reverting JustHereMeNow's edit. JustHereMeNow - you are attempting to add malicious hearsay that is not WP:notable to the article. It is not "balance", it is anonymous speculation. Regards, ObserverNY (talk) 18:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

If you believe Beck's alleging his mother committed suicide as malicious to her memory, I'd ask if others might agree with me that such an interpretation would certainly be open to debate and not necessarily be as open and closed as you appear to think? (I'm sincerely trying to understand your rationale here, ObserverNY; and am starting to think that it is my sincere attempt at balance that you believe to be malicious, please, please, please AGF.) As for hearsay: the article itself already says Mary suffered from depression, so how would an official report by the US Coast Guard relating to Mary's psychiatric ails be mere hearsay? As for notability, Mary's alleged suicide was mentioned by Couric et al and was recently the subject of an investigative piece in the <sighs> Tacoma News Trib. ↜Just M E here , now 18:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) There are already plenty of references to Mrs. Beck's "condition". By adding this additional phrase which is coming from an unidentified non-professional (the Coast Guardsman is not a psychiatrist), not Beck, you are trying to place WP:Undue on the issue. It's not necessary, it is speculation and not WP:notable. ObserverNY (talk) 19:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

JHMN - see if you are ok with the wording now. I know there were prior references to Mary's conditions before - that seem to have been edited out along the way, so this reference as it stands no longer gives undue weight to the matter. Regards, ObserverNY (talk) 19:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I like it! Thanks. ↜Just M E here , now 19:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Bravo. Nice working with you JHMN. ObserverNY (talk) 20:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

N/p! {chuckles at easy resolution of what seemed such intractable differences} ↜Just M E here , now 20:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Key

The key to the city paragraph is receiving too much attention here. A couple lines was sufficient for what is a blip compared to the other info in the article. Trimming it will also alleviate any weight/making a point concerns (intentional or not). It doesn't look like overweighting was intentional so apologies if my edit summary came across snippy.Cptnono (talk) 03:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I say leave it as it is. 16,000 residents of the county that houses the town he grew up in say they don't want him and they don't want him to represent them. I realize that it may be considered "small-town" news to those of you outside of this area, but it goes hand-in-hand with the recent controversy surrounding him and statements he has made. What if we get other editors to take a vote re: the size of the paragraph? My vote is that the paragraph should stay as it was at the time of my last edit. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 03:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Is 16,000 in the source? The ones I looked did not have any good numbers. One random guy speculated the city itself was divided. Without having firm data we run the risk of twisting the info. If there is a source that says "1,000 people protested" on the day that will be firm and worthy of mention. Until the actual presentation there is no reason to start mentioning news reports.Cptnono (talk) 03:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not in the sources provided (I don't think, anyway) but it's all over the place on the net - including our local paper. The city isn't "divided" over this - in fact, I think there are more here for Glenn Beck than against him - the againsts are just louder. But I didn't say anything in my edits about 16,000 signatures on the petition - although it is now a recorded fact. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 04:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Without sources giving more detail, "The announcement drew both support and resentment from local citizens" is sufficient. There is no reason to say "The announcement drew both support and resentment from local citizens...which has raised cries of protest from Mount Vernon and Skagit County residents". Thta is givng too much to the louder ones. It could say "The announcement drew both support and cries of protest from residents." Instead. Also, this isn't a newsource and we shouldn't be updating the line with scheduled dates just to have to replace the tense in a few days. Wait to see if it is an actual story the day of and then expand it if neccasary.04:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay - but I can guarantee you it's going to be "an actual story". The protesters (several of whom are personal friends of mine) are planning for it to be "an actual story".  ;-) SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 04:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Aren't you embarrassed to admit that on Wikipedia SkagitRiverQueen? If you watch Beck today, I'm the 9/12 Mom who comments on IB. Btw, he smells very good in person. But of course that constitutes WP:OR which is NOT permissible. ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 16:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

As long as you don't use original research or write in a manner that promotes your friends' cause I could care less.Cptnono (talk) 04:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Good grief...where's that Wikipedia Assume Good Faith spirit? SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 05:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

It sounds more like wp:coi to me. Bytebear (talk) 22:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Too many of you are jumping to conclusions here that have no basis in fact. Did I say anything that would indicate the friends and relatives of mine who are going to the protest are on the same ideological side as I am? I edit without bias and without conflict of interest at all times. To insinuate otherwise without evidence of such is just plain wrong (not to mention prejudiced). SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 03:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

SkagitRiverQueen, couldn't have Bytebear's somewhat silly barb just as likely been directed toward ObserverNY aka "9/12 Mom"? ↜Just M E here , now 03:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Since the statement came immediately after my statement and referenced a Wikipedia standard as I did, I can't see why you would think that <shrug> SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 04:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Citation needed for where he attended Catholic School?

I note that a has been placed after the statement about where Beck attended Catholic School. For quite a while, the article has stated that Beck attended Catholic School in Mount Vernon, with no challenge. I imagine that the is referencing the actual school? During the time Beck went to school in Mount Vernon, the only Catholic school open there was Immaculate Conception. Any thoughts or comments? SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 21:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

If there is not a source it has to be removed. We cannot assume anything. A crap source I found (Salon?) said his sisters went but made no mention of him. Removing.Cptnono (talk) 02:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Already reverted your edit. I had no problem finding an article at Salon.com that showed Beck and his sisters attended Immaculate Conception (although those of us who live in Skagit County already knew it to be so without the reference ;-) SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 02:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Why do you keep reverting a perfectly good edit with a perfectly good cite, Cptnono? The statement in the article is, "The Becks were also active in the Immaculate Conception Catholic Church, whose day school Beck and his sisters attended." Hello? SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 02:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Holy shit relax This should have read: "Don't worry about it" since that is a little less snippy. I was formatting the source and removing the eigth grade part when you reverted.Cptnono (talk) 02:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

First of all, don't curse at me. You don't even know me. Secondly, I'm perfectly relaxed. Lastly, why are you taking out the 8th-grade part? The school only has classes up through the 8th grade and always has. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 02:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Your edit summaries and comment ending in a patronizing "Hello?" are rude so seriously: relax.Cptnono (talk) 02:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

And your revert was just knee-jerk (mine was too a little since I should have done it right the first time) but you used a format for the citation that is to be avoided and the sources says nothing about eigth grade. There is too much assuming going on. You can't assume he went through eigth grade. We don't know when he started, if he was held back, or other variables. This isn't a big deal but your last revert is a concern so fix it.Cptnono (talk) 02:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

You're the one who's so worked up about it - feel free to "fix it" yourself. Oh, and BTW - don't presume you have a right to tell me or anyone in Wikipedia what they should do, when they should do it, or how they should do it. Thanks. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 02:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Stop adding patronizing commentary to your edit summaries, stop trying to shift the balame of your screw-ups by raising flags where they don't need to be, and stop adding assumptions to a BLP.Cptnono (talk) 03:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Oy vey...<rolling eyes> SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 03:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

If we are both going to be jerks about it than that is the way it is. I made it clear that I too had made a knee jerk reaction and modified the "holy shit" comment to provide at least good will. Kettle and pots and rocks in glass houses and all of that fun stuff.Cptnono (talk) 03:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

This seems resolved now, but boy could you both have handled that better. Really you should both be blocked for edit warring, but I think the reverting is now done with so there's no point. The disagreement here was incredibly trivial, but it blew up because both of you revert warred rather than discussing here, and when you did discuss here the attitudes were less than calm. In terms of the content Cptnono is of course correct that, barring information that Beck attended until eighth grade, we cannot say that he attended until that time. The fact that an editor knows that "the school only has classes up through the 8th grade and always has" is quite irrelevant—if the source doesn't say that we don't either.

This little thread is a pretty textbook example of how a minor disagreement on a contentious article can suddenly flare up into an angry dispute completely unnecessarily. Please don't repeat it. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I hate to agree with you. Like I said, knee-jerk reverts. They also may not have been blockable with the amount of alterations within the reverts but it doesn't matter becuase it was stupid.Cptnono (talk) 03:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Would've been blockable as an edit-war, and I just checked in to see if it was still going on. I'd have supported BTP in blocking, had he done it. ThuranX (talk) 04:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

If you look closely, you might see that it wasn't actually an edit-war, rather edits happening almost simultaneously and confusion arising from that. What I took umbrage with was the unnecessary lack of sophistication in language choices and general snarkiness coming from the other involved party. What's more, AFAIC, I was definitely *not* edit-warring. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 04:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Civility maybe but if you really want to get into it: A revert of an unsourced edit on a BLP is OK. A revert of an edit when the other editor refuses to fix the error and says "you fix it" is OK. That leaves one other revert which was an ease of editing since not all material was removed. So my editing actions were clearly justified. Should have been nicer about it, though. Also, blocks are not punitive and since some order has been restored it is no longer needed.Cptnono (talk) 04:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

"...but if you really want to get into it" No - I really don't. Can we move on and away?SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 04:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

That wasn't directed at you but the the two coments from other editors. Also, your previous comment was not super polite so like I said, we don't need to be supper happy with eachother.Cptnono (talk) 04:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh...well my apologies for misreading the direction your comments were aimed. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 05:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Even if the editing directives say that it's .....

"Bim! Bam! Bang!"(OKandsonowyou'reblocked)

that doesn't mean they imply that a full "3R" bang is bad but just a measly single bim is OK.*

____

 *And I'm not saying either of you even as much as bimmed, I wasn't following it (although I'll admit I did get a bag of popcorn at the concession stand for the edit summaries). ↜Just M E here , now 05:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

"Meta" discussions (somewhat)

Let's be more bold

Mea culpa. Above somewhere I implied (paranoidally, ironically) that the coverage in this article of Beck's public reception is anemic because people had been removing things. I believe I was wrong. It's just that we editors are lazy. Look up the talk page! We've been busily bringing such things to the talkpage as "Glenn Beck Day," the survey of public opinion about Beck, the spoof website parodying Beck's accusatory style, and on and on, but no one then bothers to, at the same time as or soon after their posts, to write a summary sentence of phrase, with the best citations available, to include mention of this notable information about Beck's life/work/image into the Reception section of the article. ↜Just M E here , now 19:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Thinking about it, I've decided what the problem is, we've forgotten about WP:BOLD. Folks, it doesn't matter if ppl come along later and re-edit to make your contributions more in-line with a fitting biography, or even if some tidbit is deleted. Come on, don't be shy!

As an experiment, I'm going to add something about Beck's explanation regarding to his query of Ellison, "I like Muslims, I've been to mosques. . . . And I have to tell you, I have been nervous about this interview because what I feel like saying is, sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies."

Then I'm going to throw something in about the notable anti-Beck crack by Stewart (whose "Finally, a guy who says what people who aren't thinking are thinking" has certainly been repeated a lot in the media).

Have at it. Unless the topic is deemed absolutely non-notable (per WP:N and WP:FANCRUFT) please try and improve what I write rather than merely kick it out though, OK? (That is, per WP:PRESERVE.) Thanks. ↜Just M E here , now 20:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Remember their is consensus and policy regarding adding information to a BLP. If you try to stuff it with crap and disregard this, you're disrupting the article, not improving it. If anything, we can see that more time is spent on debating long determined policies, instead of actually working to improve the article. If you want to improve it, focus on writing a biography, not a critical hit piece based on the latest news. If criticism is important enough to include in the article, you can be absolutely sure we'll know about it as it will be big news that ties to his notability. If we have to look for it, if it involves a comment made by one person with few sources, than please don't waste our time being bold, as it's just going to end up turning into an edit war. Ellison is already in the article, and give too much weight at that. Stewart? What controversy is there? Are we going to add something to every person he crack's on? Do we have any standards or we just reviewing the latest blog stories for critical stuff to stick in? Morphh ^(talk) 20:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Morphh, Stewart aside (an "opinion" entertainer similar in his genre/level of fame as Beck, IMO), I dare say I sincerely find your vague, generalized, over-the-top handwringing offputting to an inclination to contribute material to expand the article's coverage of reliably sourced, pertinent info. Please re-read WP:AGF and come back here and, yes, provide specific input as to, eg, why you might believe the Stewart quote not notable, and we can work from there. If consensus agrees with deletions, then information must come out. But such things should proceed through polite discussions, not calling into question the motives of the ppl conscientiously trying to expand the article's coverage of its subject, per WP:WELLKNOWN. ↜Just M E here , now 20:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry... it just seems like we keep having the same discussions here, over and over and over again. So and so said (insert famous person) this about Beck and it was reported in a reliable source. So what? How is that notable to Beck? People say stuff all the time, Beck is critical of people all the time. We shouldn't add every comment Beck says about Steward in his article no more than we should add what Steward says about Beck. Take a look at Talk:Glenn_Beck#Joe_Scarborough_Statement... it's the same discussion. I don't know how many times we have to repeat the same thing, the same consensus, applying the same global policies of Wikipedia before we can move forward. It's not your fault and I'm sorry... it's just a constant thing trying to show that this is an Encyclopedia and a historical biography and not media matters. Morphh ^(talk) 20:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Your apology accepted. You say, "[...W]e can see that more time is spent on debating long determined policies[...]."

To which I respond that if we can all just pay especial attention to WP:BLP and its section WP:WELLKNOWN we might avoid any potential misunderstanding of basic BLP policy that might end up rendering our encyclopedic coverage of the opinion comedian Glenn Beck lifelessly bloodless. ↜Just M E here , now 20:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Well just keep in mind that there are more specific sub-policies to follow with regard to Criticism and praise that over-ride the more general WELLKNOWN. Morphh ^(talk) 20:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough.

Hey, wrt Media Matters, I find the handwringing of both liberal and conservative media watchdog sites a bit over the top, as well. Still, theirs and other blogsites' commentary and analyses dig into stuff and put their takes out there as part of the public discourse, so it's all good. (Although I myself am probably a liberal, politically, for the most part, I actually do have a lot of sympathy for libertarianism -- heck, even for many types of populism. (And well, heck, even Communism and Joseph McCarthyism. In various ways I can relate to the appeals of both.)) My iffy political leanings aside, though, I do believe Scarborough's critique absolutely notable. How could it even possibly not be considered so? Please see WP:RS/WP:N. Yes, Jonah Goldberg's defenses of Beck should be cited for balance. But to ignore such commentary about this public person would be a disservice to our readers. ↜Just M E here , now 21:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're referring to WP:RS/WP:N? Even if we did consider it a reliable source, which is disputed, a reliable source is only one requirement for inclusion among many. And for criticism in a BLP, you should have several good reliable sources. WP:N notability doesn't apply here. That policy is for the creation of an article and the standards in place for creating an article. So it would only be applicable if you wanted to write an article about Scarborough's comment (which would fail that policy). When I say notability here, I'm speaking of WP:BLP policy that states such criticism "should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources". So is this criticism part of Glenn Beck's notability, is he known in some way as the person that took a tongue lashing from Scarborough? Did it become a controversy, a heated battle, a network war, did someone get fired, is this in any way historically important looking back several years from now on Glenn Beck's career? Has it been reported on in several reliable sources? Does it come up as a story in the top 100 hits when you Google "Glenn Beck"? Is this WP:RECENTISM, how does this rank in the lifetime criticism of Glenn Beck? Again, these guys trade words all the time. Glenn Beck called Scarborough a "loser" that couldn't be voted dog catcher. This should not go into Scarborough's article. Being called a loser by Glenn Beck is not part of Scarborough's notability. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; not a newspaper; not a soapbox; and not an indiscriminate collection of information. It is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. It's not our job to list commentary by every pundit who makes a remark - that is not the purpose of an encyclopedia. If you're interested in getting it to readers, this type of content may be perfectly acceptable for WikiNews, our sister project. Morphh ^(talk) 23:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Yield on Scarborough. You were right, Morphh. I Googled "Scarborough Beck." Results? Although I'd assumed that there would be sufficient 2ndary sources for Scarborough's name to be added to a list of Republican critics (to coverage in our BLP of positive and negative and reactions to the style or substance of Beck's commentary), the fact is that there are insufficient non-blogospheric mentions of Scarborough's critique out there for us to think we absolutely have got to mention it in Beck's BLP. ↜Just M E here , now 13:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Moving beyond my BLP rant, I would be open to a more generic statement that just states the fact and not the critical opinion or incident. For example, what Jon Stewart said is unimportant and irrelevant to Beck's notability - it falls under criticism requirements and would require multiple reliable sources to show that the particular criticism was worth including. However, if we take a different approach, and just say for example.. "Glenn Beck has also been they subject of parody on late-night comedy shows such as Saturday Night Live and The Daily Show." I believe this is informative, factual, encyclopedic, and fairly neutral - it contains no opinion and is not overly critical. It does tie into how Glenn Beck is notable, received, and has a historical meaning with regard to American culture. Morphh ^(talk) 13:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

(@ Morphh): I've not Googled "Stewart Beck" as of yet. ↜Just M E here , now 13:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Stewart-Beck

1. WaPo: "When "The Daily Show" re-aired the clip of Beck's question to Ellison, host Jon Stewart followed up with this thought: "Finally, a guy ...." (link)
2. John Stossel (20/20): "Much of the mainstream media despises Beck. 'The Daily Show's' Jon Stewart quipped, 'Finally, a guy....'" (link)
3.     Interviewer (Entertainment Weekly): Here’s what Jon Stewart said about you: “Finally, a guy....” What do you think he meant by that?
   Beck: Isn’t it time that those people have a voice? I am their king-----
       [Interrupts] Wait — are you crying now?
   I’m getting a little misty from the idea of people who aren’t thinking, bowing in front of me. I’ll have to spend a few minutes explaining to them how to bow, but once they catch on, it’s going to be sweet.
       What do I have to say to make you cry?
   Try this: "This interview is going to last three more minutes." (link)
4. Gentlemen's Quarterly: [...] "'Sir, prove to me you are not working with our enemies.'" In response, Jon Stewart told Daily Show viewers: 'Finally, a guy...'. (link)
5. Publisher Simon & Shuster' (promotional blurb for Beck's 2007 book, An Inconvenient Book (under tongue-in-cheek header Praise):
   
   "Glenn Beck is CNN's chief corporate-fascism advocate."-- Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
   
   "Finally! A guy...."-- Jon Stewart
   
   "Satan's mentally challenged younger brother."-- Stephen King
   
   "There's something about him that suggests that, one night, he'll say something that will cost him his career...."-- Keith Olbermann
   
   "Glenn Beck shouldn't be on [the air]."-- Al Franken (link) ↜Just M E here , now 02:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Great research here Justmeherenow. I think you've provided sufficient evidence from third party sources and notability (he placed it on his book cover). So you've convinced me and I'd support including this specific quote from Jon Stewart. Suggesting sentence:

Glenn Beck has also been they subject of parody on late-night comedy shows such as Saturday Night Live and The Daily Show. "Finally, a guy who says what people who aren't thinking are thinking" was a quip from Jon Stewart.

How does this sound? Morphh ^(talk) 13:18, 01 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow, Morphh! good use of Stewart's timely barb, that encapsulated Beck's reception by the so-called "elitists/mainstream," IMO. Hey, check out my off-hand placement of your suggested line in the article and see if you think it is OK, OK? ↜Just M E here , now 19:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Appropriate weight

One of the lesser-known aspects of WP:NPOV is that giving undue weight to an aspect of a topic is a violation of the neutral point of view. What is the appropriate amount of text in an article is always subjective. Still, there can be more-or-less clear cases. Consider this text, currently in the article:

On August 31, 2009, Bud Norris, mayor of Beck's childhood hometown, Mount Vernon, Washington, announced that he would award Beck the key to the city in recognition of his achievements. The announcement drew both support and cries of protest from local residents. In response to some public opposition to the award, the Mount Vernon City Council voted unanimously to disassociate itself from the award.[52] The mayor stated that it was not an endorsement of Beck as a political commentator, rather, recognition of a former resident who is now a celebrity.[53] The key presentation ceremony was a sold-out event at the 850-seat McIntyre Hall on September 26, 2009. The event generated $10,000 through ticket sales which Beck matched for the Historic Lincoln Theatre.[6] The local fire department spokesperson said close to 800 demonstrators, both supporting and opposing the event, were present outside. The Young Democrats brought more than 200 protesters to the site. [54] Earlier in the day, Beck said 7,000 people attended the Evergreen Freedom Foundation's "Take the Field with Glenn Beck" at Seattle's Safeco Field. A few dozen people protested outside of the venue.[55]

Here we have a large paragraph that covers parts of a single day in the life of Glenn Beck, and demonstrates that (no surprise) he is (1) a celebrity and (2) controversial. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you there John. In fact, I thought there was consensus around a very limited inclusion here and here. Your thoughts have been repeated by several editors. I just noticed and was surprised by the addition of the lengthy inclusion, along with the undesirable bullet list that "Live events" has recently become. I would agree to keep the first sentence and maybe the second sentence, then place it in personal life or perhaps under the main heading of career if merged with a summary and financial success. I don't think the rest is anything worth including based on weight. Morphh ^(talk) 14:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

In recognition of his life achievements, Beck was awarded the Key to the City of his childhood hometown Mount Vernon in 2009, which drew both support and protest from local residents.

I'd suggest something like the above. Morphh ^(talk) 15:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Bytebear correctly edited out the phrase "local residents" as it was clear that the Young Democrats bused in over 200 demonstrators, as I cited. ObserverNY (talk) 17:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Bytebear made that edit after I posted this... so I don't disagree with that change to the current content. One difference with this suggestion though is that it does not specify protest numbers that could be misrepresented. My intend is to delete all the other content and leave only that statement. It did draw protest from local residents, and they bused in people to express it. I wouldn't care to leave it off as it provides the context that it was a localized protest, not some larger protest, but I'm not attached to it. The protest of it isn't that notable in Beck's life, but I think getting the key is. Morphh ^(talk) 19:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I also think the cowardice of the City Council in backing away from the decision and Beck's generosity/philanthropy in matching the $10,000 is notable. Let me see if I can edit this down to something more acceptable (some cites may have to be fixed, this is for wording only):

Bud Norris, Mayor of Mount Vernon, Washington, announced on August 31, 2009 that he would award Beck the key to his hometown city in recognition of his achievements. In response to some local public opposition, the Mount Vernon City Council voted unanimously to disassociate itself from the award.[52] The key presentation ceremony was a sold-out event at the 850-seat McIntyre Hall on September 26, 2009. The event generated $10,000 through ticket sales which Beck matched for the Historic Lincoln Theatre.[6] The local fire department spokesperson said close to 800 demonstrators, both supporting and opposing the event, were present outside. The Young Democrats brought more than 200 protesters to the site. [54] Approximately 7,000 people attended the Evergreen Freedom Foundation's "Take the Field with Glenn Beck" at Seattle's Safeco Field, while a few dozen people protested outside.[55]

(reduced from 7 lines to 5)ObserverNY (talk) 19:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

• IMO, the concise coverage of the narrative surrounding Beck's being honored and the honor's being protested, as ObserverNY has presented above, is exemplary of excellent encyclopedic practice and just plain good writing. Note that (a) mainstream media profiles (eg Zaitchik) and Beck himself have emphasized his small town origins and values; (b) there may be only one "Glenn Beck Day" proclaimed anywhere, through the remainder of Beck's life; (c) per WP:RECENTISM:

  [...] Recentism in the first sense—established articles that are bloated with event-specific facts at the expense of longstanding content—is usually considered one of Wikipedia's faults. But in many cases, the recentist content can be a valuable preliminary stage in gathering information. Any encyclopedia, even Britannica, goes through rough drafts; new Wikipedia articles are published while in draft and developed/improved in real time, so rapidly developing drafts may appear to be a clutter of news links and half-developed thoughts. Later, as the big picture emerges, the least relevant content ought to be and often is eliminated. [...];

  -- and, finally, (d) per WP:WEIGHT:

  [...A]rticles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views; generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. [...].

  Yet, notice that, per WEIGHT, "minority" viewpoints (and, only by unwritten extension, minor events in a biographical subject's life) are not to be overemphasized in order not to misinform readers. Ah! but, how would readers be misinformed through WP's delineation of Beck's hometown honors/its being protested? After all, isn't everybody "with a stake" here mentioned, metaphorically having their briefs presented, through the means of this tableau?
  
  I appreciate the perfectionism of editors that would have WP be Encyclopaedia Britannica, if at all possible. However, in my opinion, even Britannica could not become written (at least on any "current events" subject) if its editors kept second guessing every phrase written by the assigned author, hyper questioning the prospect for this or that detail's ending up being considered truly notable, years hence. Yet one of the strengths of Wikipedia is its coverage of current events -- thus we should encourage, and not discourage, reasonable "initial sketches." After all, isn't any master's portrait hazy at first, a sketchwork presented, then vague washes, with only the crisp details being applied last? ↜Just M E here , now 21:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure adding the Council position really adds anything - their cowardice would seem to be unimportant for Beck's biography.

In recognition of his life achievements, Beck was awarded the Key to the City of his childhood hometown Mount Vernon in 2009, which drew both support and protest from local residents various groups. The sold-out key presentation ceremony generated $10,000 through ticket sales, which Beck matched for the historic Lincoln Theatre. Earlier that day, approximately 7,000 people attended the Evergreen Freedom Foundation's "Take the Field with Glenn Beck" at Seattle's Safeco Field.

Here is another attempt... slimmed a bit more (reduced from 5 lines to 3). Morphh ^(talk) 21:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I would change "local residents" to "various groups" as it is more accurate to who was actually protesting the event. Bytebear (talk) 23:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words JHMN. I'm sorry Morphh, but I feel your version fails to address controversy surrounding the City Council's disavowal of the resolution, the Young Democrats meddling and the handful of demonstrators outside of Safeco. Clearly, estimates of protesters are significant in both this article and the Taxpayer March on Washington and I feel it is important to document where the majority sentiment lies when it comes to controversial issues.ObserverNY (talk) 23:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

IMO (the opinion of someone who lives where this whole thing took place), you are really going overboard splitting hairs here and missing the trees for the forest. The statement is in regard to Norris' decision to give the key to a city that Beck grew up in. A number of residents of that town and the county were upset by the mayor's decision - especially since the decision was made apart from the city council. Those outside the county didn't get involved until the day of the protest. The statement you keep reverting is NOT about the protest the day of the event, but about the DECISON made by the mayor. The protest the day of the event was geared toward being anti-Beck. They are TWO separate events. If you want something to reflect the Young Democrats' involvement and the busload(s) of protestors brought in from elsewhere, make note of that in the article. But don't confuse the actual protest with the protestations of local citizens regarding Mayor Norris' decision to give Beck the key in the first place. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 23:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Noted, Kelly, see above. Thank you for clarifying the two separate protests. ObserverNY (talk) 00:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ObserverNY, Out of crowd of approx. 7000, why are a handful of demonstrators outside of Safeco important? We don't say anything about them, there is nothing special about them.. they just don't like Beck. How is this historically important? I can agree that drawing a crowd of 7000 is notable enough (which does include these protesters), but why is it particularly important that we express "while a few dozen people protested outside" (why give weight to one half of one percent). That is not important for an encyclopedia and it's not important for Beck's biography. As for the local Council "controversy", how is it important to Beck? This seems to be summarized in the statement "..., which drew both support and protest from various groups." This is a biography about Glenn Beck, not the event, not the City Council, not the Young Democrats. We have to determine what parts are important in Beck's life. Looking back a year or two from now, is it encyclopedic for Glenn Beck's biography to include some local town council that distanced themselves from an event based on the objection from a dozen people in their local meeting? I don't think so... getting the key is probably notable enough, and maybe giving the donation is important in his life, but I don't think we should report the details of what is really a relatively small news story. Morphh ^(talk) 0:28, 01 October 2009 (UTC)

You raise very interesting and important questions, Morphh. Now, this is not a forum, so I won't get into a deep philosophical discussion with you, but I think the size of whichever group opposes a certain issue is important, especially as it concerns how elected officials respond to that opposition. When it becomes an historical biography, hopefully a long long way down the road, how the man will be remembered should reflect what the REAL public support and government opposition was to his words. ObserverNY (talk) 00:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Philosophy issues aside, .5% is an extremely small minority and per weight it does not belong in Wikipedia. In this case, even looking from past to present in a historical context, I'm not sure those additional details would be important in Beck's life. Morphh ^(talk) 1:27, 01 October 2009 (UTC)

"In response to public opposition of Norris' decision to award Beck" can read like all of the public was against it. Been trying to do something about it.I'm going to remove "public" this time since we have established that some residents were concernned. Also, is the extra line about Young Democrats needed (amount of lines has been raised) and if so is an independent student newspaper a good enough source. The second wikilink that is being added is not needed per WP:LINK. Cptnono (talk) 08:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It has been reported and admitted to by the editor that most of the town was for Glenn beck. The petition was an unverified and online (basically anyone from anywhere could sign it and the email addresses were not checked) In response to this, a local commentator exceeded 16,000 within a day or so in a poll for Beck. This is sourced but I thought adding in more lines would be inappropriate.Cptnono (talk) 08:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

break

Good points Cptnono, but are you saying you want to keep the current content and just modify it slightly or do you agree with the premise that started this thread - too much weight being given to this story. Here are two rewrites of this area that have been suggested by myself and ObserverNY.

Current version
On August 31, 2009, Bud Norris, mayor of Beck's childhood hometown, Mount Vernon, Washington, announced that he would award Beck the key to the city in recognition of his professional achievements. The announcement drew both support and protest. In response to public opposition to Norris' decision to recognize Beck, the Mount Vernon City Council voted unanimously to disassociate itself from the event. Norris stated that the award was not meant to be an endorsement of Beck as a political commentator, rather, recognition of a former resident who has obtained celebrity status. The key presentation ceremony on September 26, 2009 was a sold-out event at the 850-seat McIntyre Hall. Ticket sales generated $10,000 which Beck and his wife matched as a donation to the Historic Lincoln Theatre. Mount Vernon Fire Department spokesperson stated that close to 800 demonstrators, both supporting and opposing the event, were present outside the venue. Among the protestors were more than 200 Young Democrats. Earlier in the day, 7,000 people attended the Evergreen Freedom Foundation's "Take the Field with Glenn Beck" at Seattle's Safeco Field. Approximately 30 protesters demonstrated outside the event.

Morphh
In recognition of his life achievements, Beck was awarded the Key to the City of his childhood hometown Mount Vernon in 2009, which drew both support and protest from various groups. The sold-out key presentation ceremony generated $10,000 through ticket sales, which Beck matched for the historic Lincoln Theatre. Earlier that day, approximately 7,000 people attended the Evergreen Freedom Foundation's "Take the Field with Glenn Beck" at Seattle's Safeco Field.

ObserverNY
Bud Norris, Mayor of Mount Vernon, Washington, announced on August 31, 2009 that he would award Beck the key to his hometown city in recognition of his achievements. In response to some local public opposition, the Mount Vernon City Council voted unanimously to disassociate itself from the award. The key presentation ceremony was a sold-out event at the 850-seat McIntyre Hall on September 26, 2009. The event generated $10,000 through ticket sales which Beck matched for the Historic Lincoln Theatre. The local fire department spokesperson said close to 800 demonstrators, both supporting and opposing the event, were present outside. The Young Democrats brought more than 200 protesters to the site. Approximately 7,000 people attended the Evergreen Freedom Foundation's "Take the Field with Glenn Beck" at Seattle's Safeco Field, while a few dozen people protested outside.

Based on my arguments above, I think several of these details are undue weight (like reporting that .5% protested an event, when weight clearly states that the opinion of extremely small minorities should not be included in the encyclopedia). What is about the event, and what is about Glenn Beck? In any case, here are the current proposals and the discussion above that let to the proposals. Morphh ^(talk) 12:55, 01 October 2009 (UTC)

Good discussion. Here's what I think are the key facts:

In late August 2009, the mayor of Mount Vernon, Washington, Beck's hometown, announced that he would award Beck the key to the city. The city council voted unanimously to disassociate itself from the award. The presentation ceremony a month later at the 850-seat McIntyre Hall was sold out, with an estimated 800 demonstrators, both supporting and opposing the event, outside the building. Earlier that day about 7,000 people attended the Evergreen Freedom Foundation's "Take the Field with Glenn Beck" at Seattle's Safeco Field.

I'm leaving out Beck's $10,000 contribution, since that's from a guy making perhaps $10 million per year. (The equivalent, from a household earning $100,000 per year, is giving a donation of $100; nice but not significant.) I'm also leaving out the small number of protesters outside of Safeco Field, and most of the details about the demonstrators in Mount Vernon, since that's available via the newspaper stories. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

(out dent) I'd be willing to concede the contribution and small number of protesters outside of Safeco, but you know what seems to have gotten lost in the sauce? The fact that it was called "Glenn Beck Day". [2]. So let me see if I can tweak JB's version just a tad (cites needed):

In late August 2009, the mayor of Mount Vernon, Washington, Beck's hometown, announced that he would award Beck the key to the city. Due to some local opposition, the city council voted unanimously to disassociate itself from the award. September 26, 2009 was designated "Glenn Beck Day". The day began with Beck performing at Seattle's Safeco Field which drew 7,000 fans, followed by the sold-out key presentation ceremony at the 850-seat McIntyre Hall. An estimated 800 people, both supporting and opposing the event, demonstrated outside the building.

5 lines, waddya think? ObserverNY (talk) 17:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Doesn't go into too much detail and says the facts. My primary concerns were it reading like all of the public was against it and going into too much detail about the protests when that is secondary.Cptnono (talk) 18:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks pretty good. I'd like to suggest that the "Glenn Beck Day" sentence be combined with the next one, perhaps removing "Take the Field with Glenn Beck" (not sure the name of the event is important). Perhaps something like "September 26, 2009 was designated "Glenn Beck Day" and started at Seattle's Safeco Field drawing 7,000 Glenn Beck fans." Morphh ^(talk) 18:34, 01 October 2009 (UTC)

That reads like Mt Vernon's mayoral designated "day" is related to Seattle or the event at Safeco.Cptnono (talk) 19:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh.. I thought they were related. If not, we could tell it from Beck's vantage. Beck started the day at... Morphh ^(talk) 19:18, 01 October 2009 (UTC)

That would be an easy enough fix. Looks like it was a big PR day for him.Cptnono (talk) 19:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

See if you like how it reads now. I made the corrections in the box above. I guess I should have struck the old but that gets confusing. ObserverNY (talk) 19:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Do we need to give space to the Young Democrats? If we do (I don't care much either way) we need a better source than an independent student paper.Cptnono (talk) 20:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I was the one who added that. I'm not married to it though. Let's see what others say. ObserverNY (talk) 21:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I do like the proposal. I could see more added but balanceing would cause it to expend 10 fold if we were not careful. Nice work and I'm curious to see what others think.Cptnono (talk) 21:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Cptnono - How much longer should I wait for other editors to weigh in before making the change? Regards, ObserverNY (talk) 14:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Looks fine to me, it has my support. Morphh ^(talk) 14:54, 02 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done wouldn't mind if someone double-checked the cites. Thanks. ObserverNY (talk) 20:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

(outdent)Please note that I just reverted the edit of Kelly Siebeke|SagitRiverQueen re this paragraph where she sought to reintroduce the 30 protesters outside of Safeco Field. ObserverNY (talk) 18:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

To those who are discussing this article to death and, IMO, starting to become overly heavy-handed regarding other editors not seen as "in the cliquie" - please stop and think about some of the reverts you are making. I asked a day or two ago for someone to please fix the paragraph regarding the key presentation to read that the two events on the same day are not related. No one took action. Today I did - and had my change reverted on the basis that a "consensus" was made as to how the sentence(s) should read. My question is, what kind of logical consensus would vote for keeping the paragraph reading in a confusing manner? The Safeco Field event and the Mount Vernon event are not related, the city of Mount Vernon declared last Saturday to be Glenn Beck day (not the city of Seattle as well), yet some editors continue to insist on the paragraph reading that way. Why? I thought accuracy and inclusion was the call for Wikipedia editing, not self-proclaimed ownership/exclusion and dishonesty/inaccuracy... Dismissing edits by others outside the "group" and not in line with a "consensus" is not in the spirit of what Wikipedia is about. Can some of you maybe step back for a moment and re-evaluate what you are starting to do here and see that it's not conducive to the purposes of Wikipedia and is really just becoming (IMO) a ego-driven exercise in article abduction? SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 19:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Addendum to the above - Here is the comment I received from ObserverNY:

"It was "Glenn Beck Day". If you are unable to comprehend that the two events were indeed related, I think you need to ask yourself who is being stupid. ObserverNY (talk) 19:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY"

Now, come on...the two events were *not* related - the city of Seattle and Mount Vernon are two different places, two counties away from each other. From what I've read and been led to understand by news reports and newspaper articles, "Glenn Beck Day" was a Mount Vernon thing, not a statewide thing, and yes...the two events were unrelated. The only thing they had in common was that they were held in the same state on the same day - probably because he was already here. The above from ObserverNY is a perfect example of the aforementioned heavy-handedness I was speaking of. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 19:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's include the whole exchange, shall we? I just reverted both of your recent edits. 1. The contribution amount was deemed to be "negligible" and not worthy of inclusion. 2. Your changing of the chronological sequence of events makes the paragraph confusing. 3. Please engage on the Talk page before undoing work which took other editors days to agree on. Thank you. ObserverNY (talk) 19:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

It took other editors days to agree on making the paragraph look like two unrelated events were related? How stupid is that? SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 19:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC).

The opportunity to discuss this paragraph was right here. Everyone came to a nice conclusion until you decided to ignore Talk altogether and single-handedly muck up the paragraph. You have said yourself: Okay - but I can guarantee you it's going to be "an actual story". The protesters (several of whom are personal friends of mine) are planning for it to be "an actual story".  ;-) SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 04:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC) pointing our your personal WP:COI as it relates to editing the specific paragraph in question. I would strongly recommend that you wait to hear from other editors such as Morphh or JustHearMeNow or Cptono before you go changing it again. Regards, ObserverNY (talk) 20:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Observer, it wasn't my intention to leave anything out - so let's get that clear right off the bat. Secondly, my comment about the Glenn Beck appearance at Mac Hall in MV was never meant to be my "... personal WP:COI", so let's get that clear as well. You can assume all you like about my motivations, my reasons for the edits I've made and why I said what I did a week ago, but the fact remains that you are behaving, IMO, like a heavy-handed, agenda-driven despot who refuses to be wrong. (as a side note, I am a fan of Beck but happen to have friends and relatives on both sides of the issues and both were on each side during last week's demonstration - so please don't assume you know where I stand based on an off-hand comment meant to be off-the-record and somewhat humorous) Again, this is just my opinion and not meant to be an accusation, just my observation. And frankly, from reading your talk page, I am not the first to think so. I only ask that you take a moment and step back in order to reconsider the simple fact that as the paragraph reads currently, it is not being true to the events of one week ago when Beck was in Washington state. The two events of the day were NOT related, they just happened to be consecutive. The way the paragraph currently reads, the reader is led to believe otherwise. Finally, as fair disclosure, I have asked two admins to look into this as well as your conduct here today. When examined and dealt with as necessary, my hope is that it works out for the best for everyone involved. And foremost, to the benefit of the article and Wikipedia. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 20:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Editors expressed concern about your editing due to you being close to organizers of the event in Mt Vernon. You asked for good faith but it doesn't seem to be working as is since you have shown that you have a focus on the protests and make rash reverts. As I have said, we don't have to be happy with each other (God knows I've been jerky) but deflecting criticism doesn't address the issue. "like a heavy-handed, agenda-driven despot who refuses to be wrong" can be taken pretty poorly. Hopefully ObserverNY doesn't take it too harshly. Since we are being perfectly frank here as of late, you come across like someone who really wants to WP:WIN after our last couple of discussions. Its alright if you don't notice it and even disagree. Take the criticism as something to watch out for and change if you notice it. We don't need to agree (I don't like Beck even though my edits come across otherwise) but we don't need to attack attack attack. And if you notice me screwing up in the future (I'm sure it will happen sooner or later) I hope you will give me the same reminder. Cptnono (talk) 21:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Good grief - how many times do I have to explain myself here so more than one of you will get it? I A M N O T B I A S E D A N D H A V E N O C O I H E R E . Is that now clear? As I stated earlier today, I am a Beck fan and have close friends and relatives on BOTH sides of the issue. I do not edit with prejudice or bias. If you want to investigate, you will never find one of my edits or reverts in the last three years as being biased or classified as COI. Okay? SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 22:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

On to the important issue: Your reading of the article is different than others. We are supposed to be summarizing not listing. Mt Vernon and Seattle together make a tidy summary. If you want to add something to make it clearer that they are different it is OK. Them being separate actually was mentioned in the consensus building discussion. Tacking on protesters and other info when the edit summary says you are doing something else causes a concern, though so watch out for the that. This would have been a great instance where following the practice of WP:BOLD would have been better. You went for it and it got reverted but there was a discussion waiting for you to join here. Cptnono (talk) 21:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

"[My] reading of the article is different than others" - and that opinion is based on what? Did you take a poll of everyone who has read what's there or are you presuming to speak on behalf of all the recent editors of this article? I don't mean to sound rude, I just don't get how you can think you know what everyone else is thinking... Maybe "Mt Vernon and Seattle together make a tidy summary", but it's not an accurate and/or honest summary. Aren't we supposed to be concerned with accuracy rather than convenience out of being "tidy"? SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 22:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm open to rewording it as not to overly imply a direct relationship, but I don't think we should say that it is unrelated. That would be stating a fact where we have no sources to support it (WP:OR), and they are related to some degree. It's not a accident or coincidence they were consecutive (the events were coordinated and related to Beck being in the area for "Glenn Beck Day"). But I think we can better state that it was the Mayor of Mount Vernon that designated it Glenn Beck Day. Morphh ^(talk) 21:18, 03 October 2009 (UTC)

In late August 2009, the mayor of Mount Vernon, Washington, Beck's hometown, announced that he would award Beck the key to the city, and designated September 26, 2009 as "Glenn Beck Day". Due to some local opposition, the city council voted unanimously to disassociate itself from the award. [57] The day began with Beck performing at Seattle's Safeco Field which drew 7,000 fans,[58] followed by the sold-out key presentation ceremony at the 850-seat McIntyre Hall. An estimated 800 people, both supporting and opposing the event, demonstrated outside the building. [59]

I think that your revision is a good effort, however, it still leaves the impression that both events were related. Look...just follow the $$. Did Mount Vernon pay for the Seattle even (or vice versa)? No. The two events happened on the same day likely to fit Beck's busy schedule because he was here on the one day. I don't mean to be rude here, but I seriously don't understand why you guys aren't getting this... SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 21:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your input Morphh. I am fine with your re-wording. Regards, ObserverNY (talk) 21:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Let's not be afraid to have our text edited, folks. Yes, the existing text was the product of consensus -- but consensus ne'ertheless is not cast in stone; so, maybe IMO Kelly A. Siebecke's|SkagitRiverQueen's edit shouldn't really have been reverted in whole but, per WP:PRESERVE, maybe could only have been modified only in part? (Eg, yes, maybe hi/r addition of a detail that another editor or editors believe adds too much WEIGHT could perhaps have been deleted for now and talked more about on the talkpage, whereas hi/r edit making the language clearer about the fact that Glenn Beck Day was proclaimed for Mount Vernon but not for Seattle could have been allowed to stand -- if only for it to be re-tweaked by yet another editor?) ↜Just M E here , now 21:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

They weren't related in the sense that they were organized by the same people. I don't know which event caused him to come to the region in the first place but being done in the same day and within driving distance to the airport do not make them related. I think one easy way to make it clear would be to state the name of the Safeco event. I think this might separate them enough to someone reading the paragraph. "That day Beck yada yada at a separte event at Safeco blah blah" might be an easy fix as well.Cptnono (talk) 21:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I rewrote it using the suggestions above... hope it works for everyone. Morphh ^(talk) 2:02, 04 October 2009 (UTC)

Good work morphh - I just made one wording change - designated to designating - other than that, it was perfect! SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 02:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

another break

I think a good idea for political articles might be [Note: Ignore the following, stricken phrase.] a sort of voluntary article "probation." This would mean our simply stingently enforcing existing editing rules: especially (a) no edit warring (which means 1RR and no more, except in exceptional cases) and (b) no discussing editors' behavior on the talkpage (discussing them instead by way of polite discussions or formalized "notice templates" posted on talkpages or, if considered necessary, other forums elsewhere). Visitors to the page can then be told we're following WP editing and behavior guidelines to the letter on this page, since the blp's political nature tends to produce steam on the page that tends to cause poor visibility w/regard to actual editing issues. Finally, perhaps we might be able to persuade Bigtimepeace to be a designated "go-to" admin to ask for counselling (and, only in egregious cases, blocks) with concern any issues that our self-policing wouldn't seem to be able to deal with (obvioulsly provided the editing issue at hand wouldn't have been one that Bigtimepeace had been personally involved in, of course). What do you all think? (And I'll ping Bigtimepeace's talkpage about this somewhat nebulous proposal here, too!) ↜Just M E here , now 22:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Bad precedent to set. There are tmeplates that already excist to remind users (new to the page or not) of certain things. Wikipedia's practices have consensus so fiddling with it on a single article is bad. You could always seek general santions 9Wikipedia:General sanctions).Cptnono (talk) 22:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but actually, Cptnono, those templates were the ones I was referring to using. And I also think our agreeing among ourselves to strigently abide by Wikipedia's rules and behavioral guidelines and to bring in outside advice or administrative action when we can't resolve our own issues would make for a fantastic precedent. (Would that all editors at all articles would endeavor always to do so, I say! Yeah! ^{:^)} ↜Just M E here , now 22:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you are getting suggestions from essays, practices, and actual guidelines confussed. If someone does something that an admin will block for report them or don't because that is all it really comes down to.Cptnono (talk) 22:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

No, read my suggestion again: "no edit warring" and "no discussing behavior on the article talk page, but instead discuss article content there" are both the most basic of WP policies. I think, in fact, that we're having a miscommunication or the semantics of something I said is confusing. I mean simply to agree among ourselves to follow existing guidelines. I mean absolutely nothing more formal than that. In fact, I'm going to strike out my formulation of "voluntary probation" since the name itself might give the impression of something quasi-formal! ↜Just M E here , now 22:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

D'oh... "Hey remember, don't be a jerk and remember the rules!" right? I haven't seen a policy that says discussing behavor on the talk page if it is negatively impacting the article (point me in the right direction if I am wrong, of course) but it should be done in a proper tone. I also don't agree with assigning a go to admin.Cptnono (talk) 22:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

W/re discussing article content and not editors, the off-hand formulation I've heard has to do with "talk about the edits and not the editor." And the only zero tolerance way to accomplish that is to simply not to broach editors' behavior other than in the most briefly oblique and innocuous terms possible, IMO (...but, in any case, I'll try and look up what the policies say about that, I guess -- thanks! <smiles>) And you are right, of course, about my poor semantics with regard to any quasi-"assigning" of a go-to admin. Of course, that is what is done anyway: we "go-to" who we know has understanding and interest in the page. I was just naming who that admin has seemed to have been, to some extent, and may likely be. But if that is a major hang up, forget I put any names in the hat on that one, I guess....) :^) ↜Just M E here , now 22:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

(Back, from stuff in'd'realworld.) Hey, offhand, the basic policy I was trying to think of about not discussing behaviors on article talkpages, at least all too much anyway, was "assume good faith," I think! :^) ↜Just M E here , now 01:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

"Everyone makes mistakes, both behavioral (like personal attacks) and content-based (like adding original research), and we can correct them with reminders most of the time." If me reminding someone looks like a personal attack please say so and I will attempt to word it in a manner that comes across more civil if needed.Cptnono (talk) 01:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Glenn Beck Day, 9/26

The Daily Kos and others are planning a protest tomorrow when Beck is scheduled for an appearance at Safeco stadium tomorrow. Now whether Yahoo news [3] constitutes a WP:RS, i don't know. I propose waiting until AFTER the event takes place to refer to it in the article, but I'd like some input from other editors. Thanks. ObserverNY (talk) 15:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Definitely wait until after the event, and this issue is connected to the "key" subsection of the talk page directly above, since the protest is about his being awarded the key to the city. Maybe the discussion about how much to discuss this (if at all) should happen in that section just so we keep everything in one place (or you could move this to a subsection of that which I think would be fine). Also the Yahoo story is actually an AP wire story, so it's definitely reliable, but we'll still have to wait for coverage tomorrow. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Bigtimepeace. I was reading the Key section and thought about putting my comment there, but I was afraid this source and comment would get lost in the sauce. Let's see what develops. ObserverNY (talk) 16:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Just FYI: Yahoo link is sourced by AP so it would be acceptable.

On a more whiney note, they did it, too "Groups have demonstrated on the streets". All the pictures and reports I have seen show groups = a few people and most fail to mention that a good portion of the town are like "woo hoo!", Hopefully any overage after the event has actual numbers and isn't "in your face" reporting.Cptnono (talk) 20:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is a link to an interesting news photo of some creative sign work at the Mount Vernon event on Saturday, September 26, 2009:

http://www.goskagit.com/article_images/9-27-Glenn-Beck_74.jpg

--Lorem Ipsum Dolor (talk) 18:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The paragraph re: the key presentation has been coupled with the Safeco Field appearance in such a way that a reader unfamiliar with the two events would think they are related. They are *not* related. Whomever changed it to read this way...will you consider rewording it so it reads differently? Why not just put the Safeco Field event in it's own line rather than putting the two events together with the same bullet? SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 00:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Coast guard investigator mis-ref'd

The sentence "A Coast Guard investigator, referencing Mary's heart and psychiatric conditions, speculated she could have either fallen or jumped overboard." is referenced to ref#6, however nothing in the reference supports the statement. Should be changed to {{fact}} Kamb, Lewis (2009-09-26). "Among Beck's roots in the state lies a South Sound mystery". The News Tribune (Tacoma).

. -- 67.98.206.2 (talk) 19:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done thanks Morphh ^(talk) 19:41, 02 October 2009 (UTC)

Sisterhood of Mommy Patriots

There's a new movement aloft which has arisen as a result of Beck's 9/25 & 9/28 show about 9/12 Moms - A Sisterhood of Mommy Patriots - which will be organizing a Million Mom March and has given rise to [4] Disclosure: I was one of the 9.12 Moms on the show and therefore because of WP:COI don't think I should create the section, but am putting it out here for consideration. Regards, ObserverNY (talk) 00:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I think it could probably be added to the 9-12 Project, with a brief mention here. Morphh ^(talk) 13:04, 03 October 2009 (UTC)

-- When/if it might find mention in the legacy media? :^) ↜Just M E here , now 18:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Concur. Morphh ^(talk) 19:03, 03 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I just wanted to give a head's up - the As A Mom site grew from 3,000 members when Beck's show aired on Fri. to almost 13,000 as of this morning. If it continues growing at that rate and if the group sets a definitive date for the March, it should hit the mainstream news at that time. Pure speculation at this point. Regards, ObserverNY (talk) 19:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Leftist meme using a right-winged "Mormon-conspiracy" subtext?

Wouldn't Wikipedi's calling First Media a "Mormon" company, as cited to Alexander Zaitchik in Salon, be similar to our terming Marriott a "Mormon" hotel chain? (Or, say, even labeling the Williams sisters a "Jehovah's Witnesses" sororal[?lex] tennis rivalry?) Refer to what might essentially be an "anti-defamation" opinion piece (in a media outlet that truly is "Mormon," namely, a Mormon-themed newspaper insert), here. ↜Just M E here , now 16:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with you (if I'm reading you correctly). The "Mormon" reference should be deleted - I didn't change it when editing this section earlier today because it was already there. However (this is unrelated to anything and just an aside of information), the Mormon Church does own a number of big-business corporations, and that could be why it was included by whomever inserted it. But overall, I don't see any need to keep it there - it doesn't add to the article at all. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 16:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

More details on Beck's career with Y-95 in Arizona warranted

I can't edit this article because it's semi-protected, but I believe more information on Beck's career at KOY-FM in Phoenix, now KYOT-FM, is warranted. Significant information has been written about his time there in sources already in the article; for example, his substantial feud with Bruce Kelly, culminating in Beck calling Kelly's wife on-air to make light of her recent miscarriage. 129.21.129.100 (talk) 07:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

KUBE Radio Employment

Beck could not have been working at KUBE per the dates implied here; KUBE did not go on the air until the 1980s. 67.102.173.74 (talk) 23:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

KUBE went on the air as the "New 93, KUBE" in 1981. Prior to that, it was KBLE-FM with a Christian radio format - and would fit into the claim that he hosted a program with Christian music on Saturdays. So...the reference is wrong in stating that he worked at KUBE and should probably say KBLE. Thanks for bringing that info to light. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 00:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

SkagitRiverQueen strikes again! ;^) ↜Just M E here , now 01:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

See? I'm not the devil in disguise at all...! SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 01:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

good grief...why is my text so big? SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 01:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow, SkagitRiverQueen, it appears that your effort to say "{big smile}" turned into something that inadvertenly coded "<\big>" for large print! ↜Just M E here , now 02:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Find a source or remove it.Cptnono (talk) 09:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Uh...excuse me, Cptnono, but just a couple of days ago you claimed that I was clearly speculating exactly when Beck worked for KUBE - and now you have made an edit that states exactly when Beck worked for KUBE (and without a reference to back it up)? What's up with that? SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 23:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

uh uh uh uh... it is in the source and I made a comment below.Cptnono (talk) 23:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I see...and - just for the sake of clarifying - when was that source put in? SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 23:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind admitting that I moved the source late. Next time don't try to badger an admission of guilt out of someone and try reading the edit summaries and the talk page if someone goes through the effort to provide a heads up with the source's name. Thanks.Cptnono (talk) 00:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I see. Interesting response. Oh, and as I said over a week ago - don't presume to think you have a right to tell me what to do, how to behave, and what to say, when in Wikipedia (or anywhere else, for that matter). SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 00:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

If you would stop adding in unsourced info (like you did again which is why the edit was made), writing condescending edit summaries (rolls eyes shrug good grief uh... sigh thank goodness...), and trying to argue on the talk page just to argue (see the previous winning and battleground wikilinks)I wouldn't be so jerky. Sorry if you don't like me telling you to stop screwing up and being rude. If you don't like it you can fix it, report what you think is incivility, or ignore it.Cptnono (talk) 00:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

So you're saying you've *never* added unsourced info? Are you also claiming you've *never* argued on a talk page "just to argue"? And what's more, you're saying that you've *never* been "jerky" nor "rude" in Wikipedia? Unless I'm mistaken, it seems you are now telling me that all will be ducky in my Wikipedia world if I just do things *your* way because you have been a model Wikipedia editor, right? <sarcasm on> Gosh, I don't know how I have been able to even function in Wikipedia before I met you here at the Glenn Beck article, Cptnono <sarcasm off> Good grief. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 00:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Upon reflection moving this to user's talk page instead of here.Cptnono (talk) 01:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Reversions of perfectly good edits

Cptnono - it seems to me that my edits have become a personal thing for you. Latest example: my edits re: Beck's DJing when he was a teenager. First of all, the Wikipedia ref I provided (which you deleted) stated clearly that KBLE became KUBE in 1981. How old was Beck in 1981? He was 17 years old. Now, granted, the article reference I provided stated Beck worked there before he was 18 years old, so it is possible that Beck worked for the station *after* it became KUBE. However...that same ref clearly stated that Beck was "in his midteens" when he sent the audition tape to the station manager. Midteens are, what...? 14-15? 16 at the very latest? Seems to me that since Beck was born in February, 1964 he would have *just* turned 17 when KBLE became KUBE in March, 1981. 17 is not "mid-teens", Cptnono. From a logical standpoint, Beck worked for KBLE *not* KUBE when he first started there. Now, he certainly may have worked for KUBE *after* the call letters changed, but in the beginning - I think what I have shown proves that to not to be the case. It is apparent to me that your reverts of my edits have become a personal issue since last weekend (9/25/09). It is also apparent to me that because there was obvious logic and deduction that fueled my edits of the Radio section of the Beck article - along with evidence from a perfectly good reference - that there was no "assumption" (as you once again asserted against me in the edit comments) and what I edited never should have been reverted. You are not working from the Wikipedia standard of WP:AGF when it comes to me and my edits (especially in your latest edit reversion where you stated, "please stop adding unsourced material or mkaing assumptions. the source says KUBE and nothing about the year or the other call letters so "as a teenager" will fit. self ref doesn't work here since we don't know the year"). Indeed, when it comes to my edits (and the edits of others, frankly), you prefer to work from WP:ABF. And I am forced to wonder why.

I would like to see other editors weigh in on this. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 23:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

You need to follow the sources. Anything else is original research and asusmptions. They aren't my rules.Cptnono (talk) 00:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I did "follow the sources" - Beck auditioned for the station in his midteens and in Beck's midteens, KUBE was not KUBE yet, but KBLE. Once again, with your statement, "Anything else is original research and asusmptions" you appear to insist on implementing WP:ABF in opposition to the Wikipedia standard of WP:AGF. And I still and forced to wonder why. Can you explain? SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 00:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The source did not say a year so you cannot assume it. It is called WP:SYNTH. Find another source if you think this one is incorrect or reword the sentence (ie "he worked at a Seattle station") This isn't complicated. If it makes you feel better I am looking for sources still. PI and Salon say KUBE. This isn't about proving your point it is about following sources. I am also looking for a clarification on age (that is certainly more important and will settle what the call letters were in the year) but have not found anything yet.Cptnono (talk) 01:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

As am I. However, you might want to consider the following when doing your search... When one graduates from, say...Washington State College before it became Washington State University, the alumnus usually refers to being a graduate of WSU in conversation as well as on their resume and/or Curriculum Vitae. This is a common practice amongst academics and various college alumni. In the world of the broadcasting arts and sciences, the station one worked for which now has different, more commonly recognizable call letters, usually refers to their employment at the station's most recent call letters. In both cases, this serves to make for recognizability and keep the listener/reader from confusion. How do I know this? Not from "original research", but "personal experience". If Beck worked for KUBE when it was KBLE, it is no surprise that O'Brien referred to the station by it's current call letters, because that is a standard practice in the industry. You might want to consider this information in your search (or not). Just some friendly advice.

Oh, and I am still waiting for your explanation as to why you seem to continually choose ABF rather than AGF when it comes to reverting my edits, your comments regarding such edits, and your comments directed to me in this talk arena. Thanks. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 01:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

My response is that if you include unsourced material it will be removed. That is not assuming bad faith and is what we are supposed to do with a BLP. I don't see how that needs any further explanation. I also don't mind saying "now known/then known as" but we don't have the age so we just don't know. Sorry.Cptnono (talk) 01:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Dodge noted, Cptnono. IMO, your comments clearly show you have regularly enlisted ABF specifically in regard to your relations with me, on this talk page, for over a week (not to mention personal jabs and barbs). I have tried to AGF with you since our tangle last week here - because of your dodge above, I have no choice but to ABF when you address me or revert my edits in the manner you did today (and have done in the past). I would happily revert back to AGF in my dealings with you if you choose to no longer dodge the question (I have now asked of you three times) and answer honestly and without relying on Wikiese as your cover and scapegoat. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 01:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I think "Dodge noted" summarizes ABF pretty clearly. If you refuse to follow the guidelines and continue to turn the talk page into a WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND it is just going to cause a big fuss. I don't adjust edits made to this page becasue I want to upset you I do it because a couple of them have been inappropriate. I don't see how I can reassure you any more than that.Cptnono (talk) 01:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. If the sources are wrong, we should find new ones. Our wikilink will go to the same article regardless, so this isn't an error that's a big deal. Gamaliel (talk) 01:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• With concern to the issue discussed in this talkpage section, I will put in a plug on the No Original Research Noticeboard and see if any takers offer fresh eyes. (Or, I should say, "troll for fresh eyes," better.) ↜Just M E here , now 03:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
  Here's the "nor/n" thread started. --> WP:No original research/Noticeboard#Kube (formerly known as k-b-l-e?) ↜Just M E here , now 05:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Apologies if my response and clarification came across overly pointed at the notice board.Cptnono (talk) 05:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Just changed teenager to "junior year" per the source. He didn't have a car which points to 15 (the source mentions he started reading trade publications at 15 where he came across an ad) but most jrs are not 15 and don't necessarily drive (money). There is also a page in the archive discussing the potential fallacy in his age which makes it even more confusing. If anyone has any of his books on hand I would be curious to see if it is in there. For now sources say KUBE and he looks to be a teenager of some sort. Go ahead and remove the jr thing if it looks like Salon is incorrect but looked OK to me.Cptnono (talk) 22:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Beck's age is correct. The writer of the recent Everett Herald article where she admitted she made an error with Beck's birthplace (it's one of the references on the page at the beginning of the bio section) states she found Beck's birth announcement for February 1964 at the Everett Public Library, on Everett Herald microfilm. Just as an aside - I have corresponded with Michael O'Shea - the station manager of KBLE/KUBE when Beck worked there (he currently lives in Bellingham, BTW). One of his statements to me regarding the KBLE/KUBE call-sign change-over was. "We didn’t take over KBLE until March of ’81...The call letters were very probably still KBLE as we didn’t get filed for KUBE until sometime in ’82 as I recall..." So...that *does* settle the KBLE-or-KUBE question - however, I realize what he told me is considered original research, and is not Wiki-suitable since it is not an on-the-record reference. <shrug> SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 00:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

"Maybe"s and "recall" put it into question. Add to that the fact that we don't know if it was 15 that he started or just became interested means that we re using the sources correctly.Cptnono (talk) 00:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

There were no "maybe's" in what Michael wrote and the "as I recall" is good enough for me as as coming from someone who has the resume he does. I realize fully that what he told me is not Wikipedia-worthy - and stated as such above - but it does clear up what I already stated a few days ago as far as the timeline for the KBLE to KUBE change-over. Beck worked officially first for KBLE and then KUBE after the transition was complete. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 01:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh oops should read "probably" (more weight than maybe). I don't care about when the changeover took place I care if Beck was working there when it happened.Cptnono (talk) 01:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

9/12 - Less than 50,000

1.2 million? Yeah, right. I was there. Probably more like 40,000 OR 50,000. DO NOT EXAGGERATE.

This is more like it. 350,000 is their attempt at an accurate estimate. Certainly not 1.2 million, but a far cry from 40-50,000. Joshua Ingram 07:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

External links

WP:ELNO Period. This doesn't add needed information. We also have inline citations when necessary. Stop edit warring. (to clarify this was directed towards Jimintheatl edits that Bytebear was attempting to clean up) Cptnono (talk) 02:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Seriousley, wanna talk about it? WP:ELNO was mentioned for inclusion. Here are the reasons why ELNO says not to use it:

• Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article.
• Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints which such sites are presenting. ( fake pundit with a good portion of the segment joking about that aspect.)

Per links to be included: "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete sAlso, tatistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons." It is not neutral and not "factual" analysis. And it could be added in a joke section.Cptnono (talk) 14:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Also WP:NOTLINK, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and WP:NOTSCANDAL from what Wikipedia is not.Cptnono (talk) 14:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The editor has again reverted. He hasn't given reasoning here and it comes across to me as disruptive editing. Does anyone have a concern with me reverting or can anyone provide reasoning that Colbert should stay as an external link?Cptnono (talk) 16:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

..The article already contains quotes/references to Saturday Night Live and the Daily Show. So I don't see any merit to your objection to including Colbert because he is a comedian. Beck himself claims to be a comedian, and can be funny(intentional and unintentionally). So a humorous take on him is wholly appropriate. One editor objected to the host sites; I've addressed that. Another editor implicitly approved the edit by fixing my spelling mistake. You seem to be talkng to yourself here. Colbert's take on Beck, if you bother to listen, makes many of the points made about Beck in the much referenced Time piece, and is much funnier. If you seriously think readers won't realize this a satirical take, then you have a very low opinion of WP readers....Jimintheatl (talk) 17:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Jimintheatl, gather up some legacy media mentions of Colbert's parodies. (Hey, when my sister visited nearby to NYC she visited a taping of the show!) Ahem. Anyway.

My next comment really doesn't belong in this section on the talkpage but here goes: It looks like (1) Beck himself has responded to the White House mentions of him/Fox News and (2) this mention in turn has been mentioned in the media -- so someone could throw in a mention about this into the article, IMO.

Beck's involvement in the vaccine controversy is garnering legacy media mentions and can be mentioned now, too.

Just a heads up, I may or may not ever get around to it; neither issue intrigues me much, personally.↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 23:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware someone else thought it was OK but they were wrong, too. I don't care about the information. It is against external link guidelines. Figure out a way to put it in the prose maybe but the external link section is getting long and this is an obvious cut per the style guidelines. Cptnono (talk) 23:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Jimintheatl, I notice that the "O'Reilly Factor" article has a parodies section. Maybe someone could contribute mention of Colbert at the "Glenn Beck (TV program)" article, with just, say, this (link) as a citation? since there probably would be less of a burden for notability there than here at the the BLP, I think.↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 00:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

(...BTW, Jimintheatl, I am unsure about the copyright thing being a reason not to link, since IMO linking doesn't raise a specter of copyright vio at all. But, as for a rationale to only link to things that could conceivably find mentions in the body of text of a fully-fleshed-out article, or else material that goes into more depth, etc., I'm torn and could probably see some rationale to include the link. (My shorthand for all that, by the way, is simply, "What would it hurt?") But I think "External links" purists do help to keep the sections from ballooning into free for alls, too. So that's why I only corrected your spelling, if you could follow all that. {smiles})↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 00:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

CR is not a problem but the fact that is not something that is factually accurate and neutral but cannot be presented due to copyright issues means that one of the primary reasons for external links does not apply. Cptnono (talk) 00:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Everyone who disagrees with you is wrong? I wasn't aware that you'd been put in charge....Your certitude is frightening. And way to keep those goal posts moving....That being said, I will work on JMHN's suggestion on incorporating the Colbert bit in the article alongside the SNL and Stewart stuff.Jimintheatl (talk) 18:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I haven't read through the discussion or watched the video but did see the link. If this is not an interview with Beck, that adds additional information beyond what the article would have as an FA, the link should be removed. At first glance, it looks like an opinion piece by Colbert, not the type of thing you add to the external links as a BLP (perhaps as a source though to footnote material if sufficient weight is present). Morphh ^(talk) 18:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I think we agree. I intend to attend to this tmw. In the interim, the Capt is free to wag his finger and tip his cap as he deems appropriate...goodnight now!Jimintheatl (talk) 02:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Grrrr... wagging my finger..... arg! :) It has nothing to do with saying your are wrong or you suck. It is simply against the style guidelines. If it is needed, an inline citation is the correct place for it. That is a completely different conversation and I don't really care if it is included or not.Cptnono (talk) 05:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Long enough. Let me know if it is a concern still. Cptnono (talk) 23:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Publishing

This section was converted from a list into prose and a "works" section was added per WP:LAYOUT. It was reverted so I have tagged it. My quick rewrite was poor so if anyone has any ideas on how to get this into encyclopedic text instead of a list it should be done.Cptnono (talk) 16:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this section should be written in prose. Morphh ^(talk) 12:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't say I think prose looks better for this section, but it's in the rules, so I went ahead and rewrote it. I will try to expand it later by writing a separate article about Common Sense. Joshua Ingram 06:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Cptnono, for removing the excess links. I didn't realize how stupid that looked till you removed them. Joshua Ingram 06:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure. I don't recall what the actual style guideline is but a great GA cheat sheet says once a section.Cptnono (talk) 14:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced "Books authored by Glenn Beck" section

...moved here from article space:

Authorship and publishing.   Beck has authored five books since 2003. The Real America: Messages from the Heart and Heartland was published by Pocket Books in 2003. An Inconvenient Book was published by Simon and Shuster in 2007. This book was #1 on the New York Times Bestseller for the week of December 9, 2007. The Christmas Sweater was published by Simon and Shuster in 2008. This book was #1 on the New York Times Bestseller for the weeks of November 30, 2008, and December 25, 2008. America's March to Socialism: Why We're One Step Closer to Giant Missile Parades is an audiobook that was published by Simon and Shuster in 2008.

Glenn Beck's Common Sense: The Case Against an Out-Of-Control Government, Inspired by Thomas Paine was published by Simon and Shuster in 2009. This book is #1 on the New York Times Bestseller, beginning the week of July 4, 2009, and currently retains that position (10/17/09). Arguing with Idiots: How to Stop Small Minds and Big Government was published by Simon and Shuster in 2009. This book is #1 on the New York Times Bestseller, beginning the week of September 30, 2009, and currently retains that position (10/8/09). Glenn Beck is one of the few people to hit #1 on the New York Times New York Times Bestseller List in three separate categories: Hardcover Non-Fiction (Arguing with Idiots and An Inconvenient Book), Paperback Non-Fiction (Common Sense), and Hardcover Fiction (The Christmas Sweater).

Beck is also the publisher of Fusion Magazine, which is a play on the slogan of the The Glenn Beck Program, "The Fusion of Entertainment and Enlightenment."

↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 02:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and I restored it. BLP precludes the inclusion of controversial material - a list of his published works, and their rankings on a widely recognized sales statistics listing aren't controversial. Further, the material is sufficiently sourced by giving the publication (NY TImes) and the dates. If you don't like the wording, and that does has some minor issues, then fix it. ThuranX (talk) 05:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

When TuranX says "you" here, s/he means in general, not me (since I didn't remove the material, although I did post it, after its removal, to the talkpage, per WP:PRESERVE).↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 05:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for preserving it. It saved me time trying to source it. And I can't remember where I saw it, but someone said the words "well-renowned" should not be used to describe him. Well, here's the Merriam-Webster definition:

• Main Entry: re·nowned

Pronunciation: \-ˈnau̇nd\

Function: adjective

Date: 14th century

having renown : celebrated

synonyms: see famous

Anyone who even makes it onto the Times bestseller list at #1 is considered well-renowned, and he did it four times. The fact that you don't like him does not give you the right to downplay his accomplishments. Joshua Ingram 19:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Authorship vs.Works sections

Reacting knee-jerk to this talk page edit which popped up on my watchlist, I tried to conform the list of books in the Media career and income -. Authorship and publishing subsection with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works). When saving the edit, I noiced that the article also has a Works section, and that the info there appears to disagree with the info in that other subsection. I'll leave it to editors more involved with this article than I to reconcile whatever might need reconciling here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Works is the way to go per the guidelines. Converting a list into a wall of text looks poor. I see now see that the editor was trying to convey the best seller info and not just all of the books. I think a simpler and less visually exhaustive way to show this is a simple: "Books 1,2,3,4, and 5 were best sellers upon their release" (or something like that) in the section. It would fit just fine. What info does not match?Cptnono (talk) 20:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Would it be a problem to move the entire Authorship section to the Works section? Joshua Ingram 21:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

It is important enough and there is some commentary on sales and the magazine that there should be something in the prose. The works section is laid out as a bibliography and not prose so expansion should not occur there.Cptnono (talk) 21:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Does Morph's further tinkering work? It is readable and keeps the reception info in so I like it.Cptnono (talk) 21:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)`

I'd like to see more in this section. I would think his works are important to his biography and life. It seems we should be saying more about his most popular books beyond when they were published and how many weeks they spent on the NYT bestseller list. I would support a couple sub-sections that provided a summary style to the main articles on his more popular works. Morphh ^(talk) 21:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I would think that if a small page was made on Arguing with Idiots, the publishing information and the reception should be good enough. If people wanted to know more, they could just go to the page for the book. Joshua Ingram 00:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Joshuaingram, you mean like this one: "Arguing with Idiots"?↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 00:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I suppose that's a...well, a highly POV'd start, but yeah, something like that. Joshua Ingram 01:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Now that looks a LOT better! Joshua Ingram 03:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Picture

Can anyone put a better picture up? Something that looks a little more official? It just seems...degrading to put him up there with a green polo shirt. I mean, lots of public figures have their professional pictures posted on their pages. Why not him? I would do it, but I don't understand the intricacies of licensing and such. Joshua Ingram 21:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with a little Polo. I hate that he has a foreign flag on the shirt! Flickr might have something with the appropriate license (I'll check right now) but Commons does not. Cptnono (talk) 21:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.foxnews.com/bios/img/headshot_beck.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.foxnews.com/bios/talent/glenn-beck/&usg=__SWSDaCzy7bk0bSvteDkI8vSjteE=&h=425&w=325&sz=19&hl=en&start=124&um=1&tbnid=igQZs67hXdJhhM:&tbnh=126&tbnw=96&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dglenn%2Bbeck%26ndsp%3D18%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN%26start%3D108%26um%3D1

What about his official Fox News photo? Joshua Ingram 00:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to work licensing wise. "This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.© 2009 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved." Copyrights and all that fun stuff come into play. Check out Wikipedia:Image use policy.Cptnono (talk) 01:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I've read through it, I'm just too lazy to fully understand it. I'll leave it to someone who knows what they are doing. Joshua Ingram 02:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. There are a bunch of ins and outs that make it one of the more complicated aspects of Wikipedia.Cptnono (talk) 02:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Additional political influence

Pestritto? With an eye toward expanding our coverage of intellectual influences on Beck -- Steven F. Hayward in the WaPo?:

Yet Beck's distinctiveness and his potential contribution to conservatism can be summed up with one name: R.J. Pestritto. ¶ Pestritto is a young political scientist at Hillsdale College in Michigan whom Beck has had on his TV show several times, once for the entire hour discussing Woodrow Wilson and progressivism. He is among a handful of young conservative scholars, several of whom Beck has also featured, engaged in serious academic work critiquing the intellectual pedigree of modern liberalism. Their writing is often dense and difficult, but Beck not only reads it, he assigns it to his staff. "Beck asks me questions about Hegel, based on what he's read in my books," Pestritto told me. Pestritto is the kind of guest Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity would never think of booking.

↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 04:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Reading the article, I found this paragraph more interesting, and pertinent:

But he's on to something with his interest in serious analysis of liberalism's patrimony. The left is enraged with Beck's scandal-mongering over Van Jones and ACORN, but they have no idea that he poses a much bigger threat than that. If more conservative talkers took up the theme of challenging liberalism's bedrock assumptions the way Beck does from time to time, liberals would have to defend their problematic premises more often.

Bytebear (talk) 04:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• Here's a suggestion from the blogosphere that tries to connect some of the dots with concern to Beck's political "stratum."

  "The way I see it, Beck is part of a broad movement to re-brand conservatives as the traditional protectors of liberty, to wrap the blanket of libertarianism around the entire conservative coalition.   ¶   It all started with Jonah Goldberg and his book Liberal Fascism that essentially argued that any action or enlargement of the state was inherently liberal.   ¶   Hence, fascists are liberals, not conservatives.   ¶   Beck has been deeply and explicitly influenced by Goldberg.   ¶   Mark Levin also played on the theme in his bestseller Liberty and Tyranny, which made frequent use of the term “Statist.”   ¶   The problem with these pundits is that they’re not really committed and consistent libertarians — they’re conservatives." TheVermontCynic

  ↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 18:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Tom Scott, a conservative talk radio guy, former state representative, on WELI in Connecticut? (Hartford Advocate)↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 08:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)