Wikipedia

Talk:Glenn Beck/Archive 8

< Talk:Glenn Beck
Latest comment: 15 years ago by Justmeherenow in topic Miscellaneous Beck controversies du jour
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10→Archive 15

Fox - White House controversy

Latest comment: 15 years ago26 comments4 people in discussion

ChiTrib's MARK SILVA (link):

"FOX News Channel's Glenn Beck has become a spokesman for that anger, with a McCarthy-like on-air campaign against anyone in or around the White House who may at one time or another have voiced any appreciation for a radical thought or figure - witness the targeting of Anita Dunn, the White House communications director, for voicing her admiration for Mao Zedong (while Media Matters notes that it was Karl Rove himself, the icon of the right, who once allowed that former President George W. Bush had recommended Mao's biography to him.)   ¶   And Alaska's Sarah Palin has become something of a patron saint for that anger - with Palin pointing her followers on Facebook to Beck's outing of Obama advisers."

-- (and):

"We suspect that Dunn, a veteran of Democratic campaigns, will survive the latest Becking of the White House on FOX[...]."

↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 05:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

You should not imply that this is a ChiTrib source. It is not. This is a blog called "Swamp Politicis." This is implied credibility when it is simply mud slinging partisan opinion. Bytebear (talk) 18:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
@ Bytebear: Isn't The Swamp blog under the editorial supervision of the Chicago Trubune? (Cf WP:SELFPUB.)
Here's a snippet from yet another pundit's blog:

"Glenn, get off your high horse, forget about the White House and your red phone (give me the number and I will call it, I guarantee you). Don’t play demagogue and don’t engage in your own “red-baiting.” It is demeaning and it is uncivil and it is a cheap shot. ¶ It doesn’t become you, it doesn’t add to the discourse, it doesn’t move America forward. ¶ There are not communists or socialists or fascists in the White House. Really, Glenn, there aren’t even radicals there, just human beings trying to do their jobs. Policies are fair game; guilt by character assassinations is not."---The Hill (newspaper)'s PETER FENN (link)

↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 18:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Whether it is or not, you should not give credibility to a blog by claiming it as a news source. Come on, you know the difference, and you should know better than to make such implications. Really, you know better than to present such biased opinions in the first place. Bytebear (talk) 19:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Let me quote Wikipedia:Rs#Statements_of_opinion:
Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material.
Bytebear (talk) 19:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Bytebear said, "[...Y]ou should not give credibility to a blog by claiming it as a news source."
Actually, I am aware that The Swamp is a blog. Yet, per the following
  1. Is the article you're sourcing via a blog of a biographical nature, about a living person? If so, is the blog hosted on a reputable news website? Is the news source in question typically fine to use on Wikipedia on other biographical articles as a source? Is the author a journalist? Is the blog post just a quick--or detailed--news report that happens to be technically formatted as a blog post? If you can answer yes to each of these questions, the source is probably fine to use in a BLP. If the post is expressing an opinion of a named individual, rather than a pure news source, the content added to our BLP article must be attributed to the specific speaker or writer. Such as, 'According to James Smith...'"---WP:BLOGS
  2. "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves."---WP:NPOV's "A Simple Formulation"
  3. "Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article—even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out."---BLP's section, "Wellknown"
-- I knew that it was a sterling source for opinion by the ChiTrib's Mark Silva about Glenn Beck...as would be so referenced.↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 23:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
When did Mark Silva become such an authority? Soxwon (talk) 00:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Soxwon, as it turns out, Silva is the world's foremost authority at least on what it is that he thinks.↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 00:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Let me rephrase, what makes his opinion so important that it should be included? Soxwon (talk) 02:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually, Soxwon, I don't think those two snippet of Silva's are so important but what I was impressed with is how his blog has provided a well-written (if "progressive-slanted": true!) -- uh, summary of the tits and tats of the feud/war that I named this section about and for that reason I think his blog could serve as a good background tool to provide coverage to the issue. (I probably should have said just that in my introduction to the piece: "Hey, this dude has followed these developments and catalogued most of its most obvious particulars! But, unfortunately, I lazily only linked to it, instead -- then, as an after thought, threw in couple of somewhat random quotes from Silva's blogposts.)↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 02:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Uh...being an unapologetic Glenn Beck fan, I hate to say that I agree with Justmeherenow. (That is, on the first two articles. I'm not clear on the implication about the third article, but if it is being said that the third is a neutral point of view, that's BS.) I don't see a problem with this article being used in the main page. Joshua Ingram 03:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

If you are going to use terms like "McCarthy" and whatnot, you should have a reliable and/or notable source to back it up. Soxwon (talk) 03:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, they did say "McCarthy-like." While I realize they are trying to slander him with it (or, in the case of print media, libel), that was really the only thing close to badmouthing him, and, to me, it came off more explanatory than badmouthing. Because, in the beginning, McCarthy really did go after actual communists, and only later began pretty much pulling names out of a hat. Besides, the guy writing that blog had ample opportunity to make him look bad directly, but only tried the indirect, quoting-the-nice/reasonable-sounding-things-Obama-and-his-minions-said approach. That's probably about as neutral as it's going to get. Joshua Ingram 04:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I could not disagree more, if it is truly noteworthy, it will be covered in a neutral manner by reliable mainstream sources like the the USA today. Soxwon (talk) 13:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
USAToday's David Jackson, in admittedly a very balanced fashion, has linked to some very interesting points made about this issue by various sides in the USA Today's political blog:

"Michael Scherer at Time magazine offers this take on what looks like a coordinated White House effort to push back on what it considers unfair coverage.   ¶   It's not exactly a war, but there is one very obvious battle between the White House and the conservative leaning Fox News. The Oval's old pal Mark Silva explains over at The Swamp.   ¶   Of course, some conservatives might scoff at the notion that the press is hard on Obama. This one, for instance.   ¶   As we've pointed out ourselves, President Obama himself has taken on the role of media critic.

↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 16:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Soxwon said, "If it [the recent "White House - versus - Fox" controversy] is truly noteworthy[...].
For those new to this page, way up above I'd listed "Time, NewsMax, The AP, ChiTrib, Television Business Report, Yahoo! News" as evidence for a controversy/rhetorical dispute beginning to brew between specifically Glenn Beck and the Obama Administration and, to be honest, I was completely unaware that anyone thought the issue was not notable by this point in time (Sincerely!) And it was only on the assumption that the issue was notable that I'd come to post here on the talkpage links to the Silva/ChiTrib blog as sources giving many of its granular details. But, in any case, I'll come back in a moment and will list below a random collection of mostly legacy-media "cites" establishing this issue's notability so that we can move on from this question once and for all. BRB!↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 14:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not trying to take sides, but I think Soxwon was saying that we should only use actual journalist reporting, and not opinionated bloggers, no matter how reasonable or neutral they sound. However, in defense of Justmeherenow, there aren't too many journalists or newspapers that haven't started turning their normal news stories into opinion columns (or, in the case of the NYT, progressive hit pieces). Joshua Ingram 15:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate that some wish to avoid mention of the various, notable, political commentaries about some particular, notable, political commentator in hi/r Wikbiography, nevertheless, Wikiguidelines say it's important, actually, to provide such notable opinion encyclopedic coverage. (Eg Wikipedia can observe that certain observsers believe Beck is campaigning against [seeming] corruption and [supposed] radicalism in the Obama administration or whatnot and that other observers believe Beck to be [allegedly] demagoging &c.)
{|(...Hey BTW Alexander Cockburn has an has an interesting take (viz that a competent WH campaign against Fox could conceivably be won!))|}↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 15:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Why on earth would that be a good thing? If they can shut down Fox, they can shut down anyone, including CNN, and NBC, and CBS, and ABC, and all of them. Joshua Ingram 18:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not trying to take sides, but I think Soxwon was saying that we should only use actual journalist reporting, and not opinionated bloggers, no matter how reasonable or neutral they sound.
That is indeed what I was getting at. We should concentrate on neutral presentations, not blogs and pieces that deal in loaded phrases and language. Soxwon (talk) 19:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
@ Soxwon: Fair enough. Of course, sometimes opinion sources contain news, too, in which case we just have to proceed with caution.
@ Joshua: Cockburn seems to be talking about raw hand-to-hand combat in the court of public, political opinion. [Hey... Say that Governor Palin says you pal with terrorists? Then subtly work for left-leaning humorists to paint her common-man's -- or is it common woman's? -- hero status as her being an uninformed hick, then wait to see if she's able to parry your thrust adroitly enough; if not, Palin's opponents win! And that's the game that's being played with regard to Beck. Beck's critics paint him as an unstable, oafish bigot, etc. Beck parries back with genuinely effective propoganda and humor coupled with Beck's becoming a major "opposition research" king of the -- well, I dunno, either Republican Party or at least whatever forces are out there that oppose the Democrats and Obama.] But, what Cockburn seems to be advocating is that instead of ignoring Fox, maybe the administration should take them on, in the court of public opinion, but do so more effectively. But, regardless of whether what Cockburn's advises is, uh, advisable, the O administration seems to be taking this tack (instantly, BTW, making the battle of note, as far as Wikicoverage of it is to be concerned). So, pass the popcorn and watch how it plays out!↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 19:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not going to pretend that I don't watch Fox, or that I don't prefer Fox, but here's how I see this happening. The WH jumps up and attacks Fox in general, and Glenn Beck in particular, and then Beck and Fox keep doing their thing, Fox's ratings keep going up, and the WH keeps doing the same thing, not realizing that their method of attack was moronic because they couldn't prove it, only allege it. Glenn keeps throwing the phone in their face, and they are too proud to admit it. One day, they just give up, because pride becomes a smaller issue than political capital. The only way they can win is if Fox actually starts reporting things that can be proven false, and doing it often.
The WH cannot possibly win. Period. All they are doing is wasting their time, and ours, and playing political games at the expense of the country. Joshua Ingram 21:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Yet, Joshua, I'd tend to agree with Cockburn that if -- if -- Democrats (...as I don't know if the White House is the best front to advance on this) -- are gonna take on the various Fox pundits and the FNCers echoing them, it had better do its own research (heck, even some items mentioned on this talkpage!) and get specific, cos, as I'm sure you and I can agree, slender talking points simply ain't gonna cut it. (MATT GURNEY, of a newspaper published some 700 kilometers northeast of Chicago, blogs):

"Somehow, the White House[...]has come off looking foolish in comparison to ... Glenn Beck. Newspapers and TV hosts are wondering who's going to win the 'war' between Obama and Beck.   ¶   ¶   ¶   [...] There have been some reports that the White House's decision to take on Beck has been motivated at least partially by a growing sense of frustration that all the President's lofty rhetoric and beautifully written speeches can be negated by Beck's rather unpolished showmanship. That makes sense, but if the White House truly wants to lead the American people to some wonderful if as-yet-undefined future, it's going to need to focus on how to raise the discourse, not drop to the lowest common denominator that Fox News appeals to."

↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 22:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

  Done* Since this topic is as equally about the White House as about FNC, I think it probably deserves its own article rather than to be covered either solely at the article about Fox News Channel controversies or the one about the Obama administration. (BTW I've moved many of the references I'd posted on this talkpage section to the top of the new article's talkpage, here: Talk:2009_Fox_News_–_White_House_controversy.↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 01:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Miscellaneous Beck controversies du jour

Latest comment: 15 years ago122 comments18 people in discussion

Alleged ethnic insensitivities

"Criticized for 'hatemongering'" ( --> in lede?)

I've moved the following addition to the lede to here (for anticipated tweaking?)

He has been criticized by many Democrats and independents for "hatemongering", while being defended by many Republicans and libertarians.

IMO, the independents don't necessarily as a body criticize him for "hatemongering," per se, do they? This may well be the best shorthand for Democrats' criticisms, though, I don't know. Suggestions or comments? ↜Just M E here , now 02:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I have not seen anything from a politically independent person accusing him of 'hatemongering'. I've seen that exact term used by liberal astroturf groups auch as Media Matters and by political commentators from the left (and all of that is, in and of itself, notable and there's nothing wrong with presenting that in the articles). But not by independents. The Squicks (talk) 03:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Can you suggest how to phrase the hatemongery charge, Squicks?
(A pair of commentary items with regard to Beck's "Obama is a racist" commentary):
  1. MSNBC's Joe Scarborough: "You cannot preach hatred. You cannot say the president is racist." (Link.)
  2. Jonah Goldberg of the National Review:

    "According to the progs, Beck is a racist because he called Obama a "racist," adding that Obama has a deep-seated hatred for white people. ¶ That statement sparked the Color of Change — Jones's old hangout — boycott attack on Beck which in turn may have prompted Beck to launch his investigations of Jones. ¶ Now my chief problem is simply this: Beck's comments aren't really racist, are they? I don't agree with Beck on the substance; I don't think Obama has a deep-seated hatred for white people. But I don't think his criticism of Obama is itself racist either. Beck's accusation wasn't meant as a compliment, was it? I know the man thinks racism is a bad thing. So how exactly is Beck's accusation racist? Is it just because Obama is black that such criticism automatically becomes racist? Is it really racist merely to call a black person racist? I think Jeremiah Wright is something of a racist. I'm convinced that Louis Farrakhan is a racist. Does that mean I'm racist?" (Link.)

    ↜Just M E here , now 05:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
If someone willingly makes false accusations against another person in the public (in the way Beck did here), then this can perhaps be called libel or slander but not racism. Although racism might very well be the reason behind this manifestation of a lack of decency in public discourse - yet, we don't know this, the reason behind could be just as well, that he got pressure/greed for higher viewing rates or a mental illness or that he's being instrumented politically by people who prefer to stay out of public eye. If the latter case were true, then indeed could you call it hatemonger - whereas if his motivations have to do with viewing rates, you could call it deeply irresponsible and dangerous - but if he suffers from a mental illness, then he would be unfit to plead and in need of help. Conclusion: From an encyclopedic view point, I'd expect mention of his highly questionable discourse (way beyond satire or decent provocation) complemented by some cited examples and the additional information, that his reasons for doing so cannot be verifiably identified (maybe followed by a little exemplary enumeration of the possible motivations - these are of interest, because they should be linked to topics of their own, as they also in an academic sense (i.e. without connotation to Beck) deserve public awareness in a democratic world of media - see examples mentioned above). (JoergB)
Partisan opinions have no place in the lede. Bytebear (talk) 21:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
But there does need to be something in the lede about his controversial & caustic nature. 173.88.154.149 (talk) 06:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

A twitter ("tweet"?) by Beck

is being reported on now in some news sources and blogged about (it would appear, not generally positively). (Link.) ↜Just M E here , now 02:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The bloggers want to moan and that is part of the reason they are not reliable sources. The Jewish Exponent (I assume from a quick check through) and JTA are RS say "Beck said this" and there is 0 commentary. There is no coverage and not really any story.Cptnono (talk) 03:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, speaking of controversies...

Beck has so many (and, now that his profile has been raised as high as it is, there are now even more than there were before) -- since this is a fact related to his career, aren't WP:BLP and WP:WEIGHT concerns for the most part overridden as far as allowing as neutral as possible cataloging of whatever of these controversies have become of note, per WP:RS? (Eg I direct any who might be interested here.) Each controversy by itself seems so minor. But perhaps a sampling of them give a taste to his style and its reception, no? ↜Just M E here , now 03:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

But we can't make contraversies. If RS does not care we can't put it in. If RS does cover it but the percentage is miniscule then there is no reason to give it prominance here.Cptnono (talk) 03:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, Cptnono, I think that reliable sources should trump all -- unless there is a compelling reason per the guidelines not to give a notable event or thing coverage. To pick and choose which noted controversies of Beck's to cover in WP is a fool's errand; let's do 'em all! For better or worse, he's noted as a type of controversialist. (Thus, those who argue that our giving room to them would be WEIGHT/BLP vios apparently simply haven't fully considered the exceptions or reasoning explained in that sub-section within BLP of WP:WELLKNOWN.) ↜Just M E here , now 03:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps the fact that it was the Most Holy Jewish Day which Beck arguably ill-advisedly chose to encourage non-Jewish people to fast and pray on will not find mention in the MSM. But if it does, so far the most balanced criticism of Beck's choice seems to me to the one by Politics Daily's David Gibson (here). ↜Just M E here , now 04:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm not saying we need to cherry pick but if it gets one mention in a good source then there is no reason to give it any play while excluding something that gets significant coverage. I don't think that is anyone's intent but it is something we need to watch out for. Furthermore, it will turn into an excuse to include as much garbage as possible. Although I am not calling for censorship, I do think we need to keep a focus on "Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. (WP:BLPSTYLE). Attempting to figure out a way to include negative remarks over calling for a day of fast and prayer is the perfect example. We shouldn't provide a platform for relatively unknown "controversies". I'm alright with a case by case basis since each incident needs special attention. This is a BLP so we need to be diligent. Editors should also try not adding a new paragraph each time something juicy comes up. How about slapping it on an already exciting line to expand how it summarizes the subject and his career? Also, "our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic"(emphasis mine) (WP:INDISCRIMINATE). Since this runs the risk of creating a frowned upon criticism section the quotes at WP:NOCRIT should be viewed.Cptnono (talk) 04:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
I do find it humorous that negative stuff with 0 importance gets space and editors are seeking more while at least one thing that might be positive of Beck (credit received for the ACORN stuff) still has no mention. that isn't sensationalism picked up by rags, it was something major and respected news outlets considered important. We can discuss these two instances somewhere else on the page, though.Cptnono (talk) 03:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
The coverage that Beck has given to Van Jones's past controversial statements [edited: ACORN] is certainly notable. Why is it not mentioned in the article?
A commentator is known for what they comment on. Not to give this coverage, when notable, citing BLP, rather would be but a vio of encyclopedic duties under WP:WELLKNOWN, IMO. ↜Just M E here , now 04:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Show us some sources and we can go from there. Also, there is a paragraph devoted to the recent Van Jones stuff. This is also a biography of Beck so his general commentary might be better for Wikiquote in some cases.Cptnono (talk) 08:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be some misunderstanding of policy here. Nothing trumps BLP. WP:BLP is there to shield the foundation from legal action by preventing libelous material about an individual from being hosted on foundation servers, as such this policy is inviolable and non-negotiable. The number of sources covering something is irrelevant, if an edit violates BLP then the edit gets excised. L0b0t (talk) 12:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
L0b0t said, "Nothing trumps BLP."
Reading the policy in its entirety, a belief that an advocacy for adhering to WP:WELLKNOWN would in any way, shape, or form hope to trump or violate BLP is incorrect, revealing such a sentiment itself to be a misunderstanding of BLP policy, since WELLKNOWN itself is a part of BLP. According to BLP, to leave out a responsible and balanced coverage of information conceivably thought "negative" about a public person is a dereliction of encyclopedic duty. ↜Just M E here , now 13:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
You misunderstand me. BLP has nothing to do with protecting an article's subject from (reliably sourced) unflattering information. It is simply to protect the Wikimedia Foundation from legal action by keeping potentially libelous material off of their servers. This has nothing to do with balance, weight, POV, opinion, etc... Yes WP:WELLKNOWN is a part of BLP, it's the part that says BLP has nothing to do with censoring information that a subject may find unflattering. As it is part of BLP, where you get the idea that I think BLP trumps part of itself is a mystery. Nothing trumps BLP, of which WELLKNOWN is a part. The fact remains, any and all potentially libelous material must be removed on sight. L0b0t (talk) 13:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Indeed.
"Potentially libelous," BTW, would be according to the laws of Florida, the legal jurisdiction of WP's servers. ...Not, say, those of the U.K. (I'm no expert -- well, I have seen the spine of The Associated Press Stylebook And Briefing On Media Law with Internet Guide and Glossary 35th ed. on my reporter friend's bookshelf. So if any info from inside this book transferred to me through osmosis, I'm good to go. ;^) -- but, in any case, I don't think I'm going too far out on a limb to say that in the U.S. generally, and, therefore, granted to us Wikipedia contributors from around the world, is an extremely broad leeway to legally discuss the public statements or acts of public persons.) ↜Just M E here , now 14:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the Wikimedia servers are physically located in the great State of Florida, so they fall under US and FL law. The standards for Wikipedia, however, are somewhat stricter than those statutorily called for. For example, we require material to have already been published by reliable sources before inclusion, we do not include rumor or innuendo, and our copyright/fair use policy is stricter than required by US law. I am in no way suggesting that material that a subject may not like be excluded (provided, of course, all other policies/guidelines are followed); what I am saying (and what BLP demands of all editors) is that potentially libelous material (and here, if in doubt, we err on the side of caution) that is, material that could conceivably be actionable must be excised. If one disagrees with this policy then one is welcome to take it up on the talk page for the policy but I think that dog won't hunt. L0b0t (talk) 14:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
No, we should not cover such NEWS or detail some indiscriminate collection of information. You're labeling these "controversies", but they're not controversies - it's just daily news (often opinion pieces and pushed with an agenda). There are controversies here, and we cover them.. Van Jones for instance. Each little news story doesn't collectively make anything for our purpose as an encyclopedia. We are not the news, we are not a tabloid, we don't synthesize information, we are not a list of criticism or praise - this is an encyclopedia, a historic biography of a person's life. Wikipedia:News_articles Take into account the historical significance of each story over the career and life of the biography. I'm about to put some form of banner or FAQ on this talk page, because I'm tired of repeating the same thing over and over every time someone comes in with the latest titillating claim about Beck's life. Please, stop the madness. Morphh (talk) 16:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Morph, the larger point I was making did not advocate SYNTH at all -- nor even making WP articles into mere lists of criticisms and praises. (Nice thrusts and parries against such a strawman, though.) In Beck's case, he happens to be a subject who makes his living as an "anti-establishment" commentator, and thus he thereby engenders no small amount of criticism/praise of his viewpoints and style of their delivery. And for Wikicontributors to up and insist on some hurdle that is higher than the one Wikipedia has intelligently set up in its editing directives would simply render anemia to the coverage we grant this subject, IMO. ↜Just M E here , now 17:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Note - Joanna Brooks writes in Religion Dispatches:

    "[...Beck's] Twitter-issued September 19 call: 'Sept 28. Lets make it a day of Fast and Prayer for the Republic. Spread the word. Let us walk in the founders steps.' This call to fasting and prayer may indeed have been an appropriation of the Jewish holy day of Yom Kippur, but it is also rooted in the traditional Mormon practice of holding individual, familial, and collective fasts to address spiritual challenges." ((link)

    ↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 01:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

"Refused to elaborate"

This was contributed to the article with concern to Couric's asking Beck about the "white culture" reference on Fox and Friends. If my memory serves right, however, the context of Beck's responses to Couric was that Beck had already covered what he had meant by what he had said in complete depth on Beck's radio show but that he considered Couric's query to be but a "gotcha" question difficult to answer with anything other than some all-too-likely damaging soundbite.

I have not heard the audio of Beck's radio show which Beck is referring to here (however, I'll go and check it, in a moment, if possible). Nonetheless, judging from the context of what depth of an answer that Beck had given to Couric's question, I would imagine that Beck's radio show would have explained that his controversial statement on Fox and Friends would consist of a very convoluted train of thought where, I believe, Beck had started out by explaining to the Fox and Friends hosts that Beck has begun to believe that Obama might harbor some kind of "reverse-prejudice" [in my turn of phrase, there] againt whites -- immediately after which Beck attempted to correct himself as he wondered (asking this in a questioning tone of voice) if what Obama would be prejudiced against, instead, was with concern to not white people, per se, but against "White culture" (without Beck's trying to define what this "white culture" might be that he speculated that Obama could conceivably be prejudiced against).

See? it is impossibly convoluted in meaning -- hence Beck's refusal to offer a sound bite on the topic, other than (1) to say to Couric that he had said on Fox and Friends that he wondered why Obama would jump to the conclusion that the Cambridge Massachussetts police officers were wrong unless Obama were prejudiced against the white officers involved, due only to these officers' race; yet (2) that Glenn didn't know if it would be that Obama was prejudiced against white people or against white culture -- without Beck's even venturing a guess as to what such a prejudice (the one against white culture) might entail.

Phew!

I'll check his radio show on the topic in addition to refreshing my memory as to Beck's interview by Couric now.↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 12:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

____
First the Couric-interview transcript with regard to her query of Beck about his use of the term white culture -- which is here. --> (Link)↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 12:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
It is actually quite straight forward. To acknowledge that it was a 'gotcha' question illustrates that Beck realizes that it was somewhat of a poor statement to make. This is perhaps emphasised by the ambiguity of his statement "..a deep seated hatred for white people, the white culture, I dont know what it is". He then asserts that "you can't sit in the pew with jeramiah wright for 20 years and not hear some of that stuff and have it washed over", thus attributing his initial opinion to the fact that Obama was linked to Jeremiah Wright. Beck also refers to Obama's response to the police incident, and uses it as an argument for his statement. Whether or not that justifies the statement is obviously debatable, but the fact is that it can easily be explained. The fact of the matter is that Beck did not elaborate on the statement, and that is what I added to the article. There is nothing wrong with adding that to the article, it is not slanted, it simply states the fact that he did not explain it to Couric. He may have explained it again on his radio show, but he did not explain it to Couric. I suppose that the addition of an explaination would clear up the 'controversy', but that would obviously constitute as original research. -Reconsider the static (talk) 13:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
RTS: Fair enough. Anyway, here's the transcript:

      A twitter question is, AdrianInFlorida: What do you mean by white culture?

Um, I, I don’t---

      <interrupts> You said he had a deep-seated hatred for the white culture, what is that? What is the white culture?

I guess it’s--- Gosh. I’m so tempted to make news here today.

      No no, I’m just curious, this was actually AdrianInFlorida.

What to do? What to do? Adrian, Go to GlennBeck.com. Listen to it. You can hear all of it.

      No, but you didn’t really address white culture, I think, in your explanation about President Obama, I haven’t seen the whole show, but can you? Just for our purposes?

Just for your purposes? So this will be a little secret between us?

      No, for this show, can you explain what you mean by the white culture? Because some people say that sounds kind of racist.

Really? It’s amazing to me that, for the first time, I think in history somebody can ask a question and say, “Don’t you think that maybe we have several pieces here?” We have several pieces; George Bush says my grandmother was a typical African-American that had, that had her views bred into her. You don’t think maybe we would ask questions about that comment? How is it that the first time I think in history, you should check on it, somebody says, “Hey. There’s some red flags here maybe we should look at?”--- How am I? How am I the target for asking questions?

      People just want to know. What is white culture?

I’m going to see if I can play your game. People just want to know.

      You know, well, Adrian wants to know.

That’s good for Adrian.

      No but I mean it’s fine if you make a statement though, shouldn’t you be able to defend exactly what you mean by it. I’m not---

<interrupts> Katie, how many times have you said, how many times have you said something where you’re like, “I didn’t think. What’s white culture? I don’t know. What’s the white culture?” <pauses> What? What is the white culture? I don’t know how to answer that that’s not a trap.

      Mhmm.

You know what I mean?

      Yeah I’m not, I’m just, I’m not trying to trap you, I’m just, I think people wanted to know what that meant exactly.

Well we know Adrian does.

      Yeah, and you’re not going to answer her?

I’m not going to get into your sound bite gotcha game which we already are. We already are.

      No we’re actually, this is completely unedited so if you felt like you wanted to explain it, you have all the time in the world.

Mhmm.

      No? Don’t want to go there?

Nope.

      But basically, you stand behind your assertion that in your view, President Obama is a racist.

I believe that Americans should ask themselves tough questions. Americans should turn over all the rocks and make their own decisions.

↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 13:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

  • (Here's a liberal site's paraphrase of of the rest of the interview):

    Beck was suggesting that Obama's comments indicated a mind set that, to Beck, somehow “proved” Obama was not only a racist but held a deep-seated hatred for white people or white culture. Couric later asked Beck what he had meant by "white culture" and he refused to say.

    After Couric suggested that perhaps the prism Obama was viewing the incident through might be the history of racial profiling in this country (and he had said as much), Beck said, “Isn’t that important to know?”

    “Is that the same as saying he’s a racist?” Couric asked.

    “I’m sorry the way it was phrased,” Beck said. But he went on to indicate that that’s exactly what he thinks or at least that he plans to continue to characterize Obama as such.

    Beck said the accusation was a serious question that deserved a serious answer, and that he had given it on his television show. But rather than summarize his answer (and I think Couric let him off too easily here), Beck went on to accuse Obama further. “If George Bush would have sat… in a pew for 20 years where he had a preacher saying black people are wrong and bad, black people are poisoning white people. Would you not question if he immediately made a snap judgment on something and said the black cop was wrong?”

    “So you’re bringing it back to Rev. Wright,” Couric said.

    “That’s one example… We could go longer on that,” Beck replied.

    ↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 14:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
To put it simply, while there is an obvious problem with attempting to define "white culture", Beck could easily explain, in a roundabout manner, that he believes that Obama holds a sense of animosity towards White people due to his association with Wright, and the police incident. I'm just providing my reasons for adding the sentence, though in hindsight maybe it not necessary. -Reconsider the static (talk) 13:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
RTS, consider, nevertheless, that from Beck's point of view, were he to simply repeat his point from Fox & Friends, he might somehow step into the self-same trap he'd somehow fallen in before -- yet this time with a non-sympathetic interviewer. (BTW, to refresh our memories, here is the transcript of Beck's statements on F&F):

This president, I think, has exposed himself as a guy, over and over and over again, who has a deep-seated hatred for white people? -- or the white culture? I don’t know what it is.

      {Brian Kilmeade asks how such a question about Obama can be reconciled against the fact that Obama has such advisers who happen to be white as Axelrod, Gibbs, Emanuel.}

I’m not saying he doesn’t like white people. I’m saying he has a problem. He has a --- This guy is, I believe, a racist.”

↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 13:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I will say it again. Primary sources (transcripts, interviews, YouTube) are not reliable sources, especially for controversial "sound bites" since they do not demonstrate notability. This is especially true of BLPs. Bytebear (talk) 15:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Incorrect. It is how we use them. "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge."-WP:PRIMARY (policy) And Just a reminder: Wikipedia is not a mirror of public domain or other source material. In Wikipedia articles, quotes of any original texts being discussed should be relevant to the discussion (or illustrative of style) and should be kept to an appropriate length.-WP:NPS (guideline) and keep within the principles of the WP:SELFPUB list of do nots of the WP:VERIFY guideline.Cptnono (talk) 00:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but the source in question is not be used as a supplementary source to a primary source. Bytebear (talk) 00:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't even paying attention to the discussion (sorry about that) I just wanted to make it clear that such shows can be used as sources if done correctly. I also don't think it is worth mentioning. "OMG HE DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT IT SO LETS INCLUDE IT IN WIKIPEIDA" Does the paragraph in question even desrve expansion?Cptnono (talk) 01:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Couric: "I thought it was interesting that he [Beck] actually seems himself as more along the lines of Jon Stewart than a journalist and that he wants to be judged accordingly. I think the problem is, because he’s on Fox News and it’s a news network, people feel that he is more along the lines of a journalist." (link)↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 02:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Zaitchik's assertion wrt Beck's being uncomfortable around minorities, including Jews

Latest anti-Beck "Anonymous" Internet meme?

This is something I wonder, from looking at the context, if Zaitchik didn't come up with through deduction merely from a self-deprecating comment by Beck made about how whitebread his home town was(?)

To this day, the face-to-face community of Mount Vernon and the watercolor backdrop of Skagit Valley remains the soft-focus template for Beck's evocations of idealized small-town "real" America. He has also pointed to the area's white demographic -- made up of descendants of Swedish, German and Dutch settlers -- as the source of his lingering discomfort around Jews and other ethnic minorities. "I'm the whitest guy you will ever meet," Beck never tires of saying. "The first time I saw an African-American, my dad had to tell me to stop staring." (link)

Some questions. Would the Catholicism of Beck's youth be considered the majority religion of that place and time?

Who was it that made the generalized reference to Beck's being uncomfortable around ethnic minorities, was this a self-admission of Beck's or something that Zaitchik only read into Beck's "admission" about how the demographics of Mt. Vernon, Washington, vary, say, from Brooklyn's? If Zaitchik here was simply making polemical hay, playing off the hatemongery charge against Beck because of Beck's "Obama is a racist" charge, I think this should be sifted out.

Anyway, Zaitchik's perceptive, or else bizarre, assertion (and which one it is, I can't yet be sure!) is now taking on legs in the political blogosphere (See for example here.) -- where it has mutated first into, "Beck has admitted he feels uncomfortable around minorities and Jews," and then even to "Beck says he has no friends that are Jewish because he feels uncomfortable around them." Still, if my guess is mistaken and it's not a case of people's picking up Zaitchik's weird rhetorical football and running with it and if Beck made some actual admission in this regard, I would be interested in finding it, with a mind to consider contributing a mention of this controversy in this BLP.↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 20:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The political blogosphere is irrelevant to this article. They will always and continually make outlandish claims about any and everything regarding Beck. Attempts to make these pseudo-issues noteworthy through brute force is why we must take special care in choosing only the most reliable sources possible. We really need to avoid this and similar criticisms like the plague. They simply have no place on Wikipedia, especially a BLP. Bytebear (talk) 22:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't support the inclusion of material from the "blogosphere". Hopefully in time Beck's life, works, and ideas will be covered in published books or journal articles. Until then, I believe we as editors should strive to use the most reliable and notable sources out there (right now those unfortunately appear to be Time & Salon magazine amongst others).   Redthoreau (talk)RT 22:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, unreliable blogs should not be used when it comes to BLP articles. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Media spats

Beck - The View controversy

To refocus the discussion: I had brought up as an example the deletion of material -- NPOV stuff composed from a consensus carefully reached in the middle of July -- which concerns mention of the "Beck - 'The View' tiff."

An interpersonal conflict arose in 2009 between Beck and both Whoopi Goldberg and Barbara Walters of the television show The View. Previously on Beck's radio show Beck had made a passing reference to his observation that Goldberg and Walters had received special accomodations on Amtrak. (Cite The Independent) During a guest appearance by Beck on The View, Goldberg, who said she did not necessarily dislike Beck personally but disliked Beck's views, termed Beck "a lying sack of dog mess" for the way Beck had characterized their meeting on the train and Walters questioned Beck's professionalism in his reporting of the incident. Goldberg and Walters have continued to maintain that no seats were reserved for them on the train and their rebukes of Beck have received much airplay and numerous mentions in the media. (Cite the Illinois Daily Times, Salon, Entertainment Weekly and The Week.) Beck has stood by the basic integrity of his original observations and has come to reference the details of the feud within his "Common Sense" stand-up comedy show. (Cite Time magazine and a The Glenn Beck Show transcript.)

Per WP:N, material drawn from WP:RSes giving coverage to this inter- broadcast personalities' squabble deserves mention, despite some Wikicontributors belief otherwise and their claims about the material's mere "tabloidish," since we follow the lead of the reliable 2ndary sources, which, in this case either allude to this incident in specific coverage or else general Beck profiles that can be found in 20/20, Salon, the Independent, Time, Entertainment Weekly, etc. (See especially WP:FANCRUFT.) Per our basic editing guidelines (see WP:PRESERVE) our encyclopedic coverage of this topic/incident can be summarized to a briefer mention, expanded further for more nuanced balance, moved to a mention in a more pertinent article elsewhere, or else moved to the talkpage to elicit more discussion or proposals with concern to it (the last choice of which I'm belatedly performing now.) ↜Just M E here , now 18:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a complete exposition of all possible details. Rather, an article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Treat verifiable and sourced statements with appropriate weight.(WP:NOT).
Yes, this is tabloidish. If it can be worded in a manner that furthers the readers understanding of the subject's career in the existing prose it would be hard to argue that it would be too much weight. Unfortunately, a list style article will result if all news reports are just thrown in without any regard for actually summarizing the subject's life. The prominence of a new section or paragraph would be too much. If the article had more details including more noteworthy controversies (eg ACORN) and maybe mentions of other relatively unimportant tidbits then it would clearly be OK. Start figuring out a way to place it in excising prose or start proposing/wait for other additions to the article so this "controversy" does not receive undue weight with its inclusion.Cptnono (talk)

 YPer a recent wikicontribution to the article's mainspace and per the discussion in this subsection (and the bottom of this subsection), I have restored the above material to the article.↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 06:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

White House mentions of Fox News and Beck

Time, NewsMax, The AP, ChiTrib, Television Business Report, Yahoo! News. ↜Just M E here , now 03:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

If you are going to mention this, then you need to also put in that Beck opened his show with a "correction" on Thursday, that he meant Calgary, not Vancouver. But the TIME piece is so poorly written it never addresses what the "lies" actually were. I mean Doocy? Doocy lied? naaaaaaaah. ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 10:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
Oh God... I'm going to stick out of this one since I heard him saying some silly stuff the other day about it.Cptnono (talk) 11:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I guess we will find out this morning whether or not Chicago gets the nod. If it doesn't and the WH blames Beck for not landing the Olympics, that will be notable. I think we should put this on the back burner until the topic develops fully. ObserverNY (talk) 12:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
Chicago and Tokyo eliminated. Just announced on FOX - [1]. ObserverNY (talk) 15:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
Reading the Time source, it seems the White House blog was critical of Fox News in general, not Beck specifically. Wouldn't this issue be better served on the Fox News article. 68.5.11.175 (talk) 01:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Good suggestion. ObserverNY (talk) 01:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
Kind of. Rio was way ahead of Chicago without Beck of FOX. Any suggestion about the release here or at FOX should put it in the context of one single piece of the continuing friction between FOX and the White House. Hopefully the coverage won't go to nuts about this since it will be contradictory to previous sources and common sense along with causing all sorts of headaches.Cptnono (talk) 01:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
The IP said, "the White House blog was critical of Fox News in general, not Beck specifically."
IP, please read the links at the top of the thread. In fact, even the Time piece you reference said that the lies that the "Call 'Em Out White House" specified "concern the utterances of Fox News' Glenn Beck on Tuesday night and Steve Doocey on Tuesday morning." And the remainder of the sources note the unusual aspect of an adminstration's calling out specific pundits in this manner, such as The AP, which wrote, "The White House's target was Glenn Beck...". Also Google and read the score of legacy media articles' ledes -- such as this one here at TV Guide: "President Barack Obama may have failed to bring the 2016 Summer Olympics to Chicago, but the White House doesn't have any regrets — and lashed out this week at Fox News and Glenn Beck for criticizing the president's efforts."
Here's the primary source:

"[...]Fox News' Glenn Beck program has shown that nothing is worthy of respect if it can be used as part of a partisan attack to boost ratings.

RHETORIC: BECK SAID VANCOUVER LOST $1 BILLION WHEN IT "HAD THE OLYMPICS."

Glenn Beck said, "Vancouver lost, how much was it? they lost a billion dollars when they had the Olympics." (Transcript, Glenn Beck Show, 9/29/09)

-- with Beck's name repeated a score of times throughout thet rest of this White House blogpost. It's final line is

"For even more Fox lies, check out the latest "Truth-O-Meter" feature from Politifact that debunks a false claim about a White House staffer that continues to be repeated by Glenn Beck and others on the network.

↜Just M E here , now 06:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
So your point is that the white House is calling him a liar. I actually happened to be flipping through the channels and heard his original statement about Vancouver losing money. Ridiculous statement that made me want to throw my remote at the TV but it could also have been a screw up (they have spent x amount of money would have been accurate). Regardless, it isn't Beck's fault that the Olympics aren't in Chicago (Obama threw a last play hail mary while down and the receiver didn't catch it) and I doubt you will be able to find the amount of sources required to add this without overweighting the section. "Although Chicago was more than likely not going to receive the games per sources x,y,z the White House took the opportunity to call Beck a liar for saying Vancouver lost money according to b. Other lies pointed out were blah blah blah but Beck counters that the White House are just being yada yada yada." I'm ot saying you shouldn't try but that I think it is a tall order and don't know if it is even neccasary.Cptnono (talk) 07:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Per most of these sources, what's striking and notable is the White House's having called any pundit a liar, or called out a media critic specifically, regardless of whatever are the actual particulars. And so, per WP:RSes, the fact of the WH's having singled Beck out for opprobrium is notable. ↜Just M E here , now 07:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Matt Gurney in the National Post: "While the White House bloggers do effectively rebut several of the points raised during the segment on Beck's show, you have to ask yourself when the White House decided to duke it out with television pundits." (link) ↜Just M E here , now 08:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I find the utilization of new media against opponents as equally or more important since the Executive Branch calling someone out isn't new. That is a discussion for another page though. As long as any inclusion doesn't read like it was Beck's fault that the Games aren't in Chicago it is worth pursuing since it is noteworthy that they are pissed at him.Cptnono (talk) 07:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Cptnono, I disagree about it being common for the WH to criticize a specific media person, but we agree, both on the new media aspect (use of the White House blog) and on your last point about any blaming of Beck for Chicago's loss of the bid. ↜Just M E here , now 07:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, "common" would assert too much for sure.
I would rather see a paragraph summarizing it in general with mentions of specifics over a bulleted list. I don't know if it will be possible since they will more than likely be trading barbs for awhile.07:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I bet the WH will decide to stop mentioning Beck by name, based on the recent history of when Obama himself (as was likewise considered unusual) had uttered the barb against Limbaugh -- which may have been repeated by Gibbs, I can't remember. However, thereafter, the WH corrected course and didn't name Limbaugh specifically in any defenses of policy or ideas after that. In fact, I'll check and see if this tit-for-tat got contributed to Limbaugh's blp and if so, in what form. BRB. ↜Just M E here , now 07:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Here 'tis, such as it is: Rush Limbaugh#"Leader of Republican Party". On March 4, 2009, Limbaugh challenged President Barack Obama to a debate on his radio program. Limbaugh offered to pay all of Obama's expenses including travel, food, lodging, and security.[2] On March 6, 2009, Limbaugh told Byron York of the Washington Examiner that his ratings for his radio show had significantly increased during the feud between him and the Obama Administration.[3] ↜Just M E here , now 08:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Just a thought, but wouldn't this sort of information be more appropriate on the Barack Obama page? ObserverNY (talk) 12:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ObserverNY, I understand your concern, I think, whether in this instance the reaction of the Obama Administration to Beck has bee proven to be of importance to or within Beck's career or not. IAC, so far what has been included, information-wise, in this thread has just been "heads up" links but no proposals of text, yet were I, for one, to contribute text to the article w/re the Beck Show - versus - White House tit-for-tat it would be based on reports in the legacy media that would establish its notability w/re Beck, such as, say, referencing Beck's reactions or acknowledgement of the White House's mention of him (moreso, per se, than how Beck's piece on Jarrett was reacted to by the Administration). ↜Just M E here , now 18:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Beck spoof website

Too lazy here to check the archive to see if it was already known previous to this piece on the subject in Adweek that the spoofer is an Isaac Eiland-Hall. ↜Just M E here , now 19:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It's in there, up in the archives and history. That user outed himself here when he posted to apologize for so many people trying to link to his little website. He claims he started all this mess "to help the meme grow". L0b0t (talk) 20:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
The spoof has been discussed many times on the talk page (though not Mr. Hall) but deemed not notable for inclusion by the glennsturbators. (e.g., I posted this on Sept. 11, 2009: "The rape/murder hoax is starting to get wider coverage. [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. Its incendiary, so it will likely take more time to establish itself on Beck's page (if ever)..."). Then it was on politics daily on 9/17[9]. AdWeek is definitely a step towards mainstream coverage. --Milowent (talk) 21:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I had never heard of Glenn Beck until I saw the internet story in the UK. I came to this page to find out who he is! I guess that shows the story is significant at least. Fig (talk) 10:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
There has been a step towards mainstream coverage as mentioned by Milowent. As it looks now, it is still tabloid trash and inclusion might cause a weight issue due to the percentage of sources actually mentioning it. ACORN coverage > rape satire coverage but there is some coverage so the idea of inclusion shouldn't be completely shelved.Cptnono (talk) 11:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Unless and until there is an actual lawsuit and that lawsuit is covered by reliable sources, the "satire" has no place whatsoever in this article. The only thing notable about this whole situation is the theory that tort action cann be brought on the basis of a URL alone rather than the content of the website but until action is filed (and covered by reliable sources, which Gawker, Boing-Boing, Hotair, Politicsdaily, and Thefirstpost most certainly are not) there is nothing here to report. This is a general purpose encyclopedia not a place to list every stupid thing subject utters and certainly not a place to list stupid things that people say about the subject. L0b0t (talk) 12:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
If we do include anything (and I don't think we should yet), I think it should be conservative and encyclopedic. Something like "Beck has also been the subject of online satire, which resulted in claims of defamation and a lawsuit filed against the website owner." I can not see us repeating the domain name or the meme. Morphh (talk) 19:02, 01 October 2009 (UTC)
Beck HAS filed suit with the World Intellectual Property Organization in Geneva (strange that he chose socialistic Europeans over American justice) against the website in question. I'm still unclear as to why the minutiae of most notable public figures' lives is considered notable, yet there are "editors" of this article that feel it's somehow 'stupid' to mention such an issue as this. If *I* were someone wanting to learn more about Beck, I think the website and it's implicit critique of Beck's style of "if he didn't do it, why doesn't he deny it" and "prove to me that you aren't working with our enemies", is VERY relevent and would make for a MORE balanced article. Beck seems to have followers of his that deem anything critical of him as 'trivial' and 'stupid'.Cinemageddon (talk) 23:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
No, no he has not. WIPO is not a court, no one can "file suit" with them. Beck's representatives have engaged in WIPO's domain name dispute arbitration process. This has nothing to do with any feelings about "American justice", it's just the first stop on the trademark infringing domain name resolution train. While there have been a couple attempts (this on included) on the talk page to actually discuss this rationally, the vast majority (if not the entirety) of the attempts to include the info in the article have been nothing more than WP:POINTY efforts to get the accusation itself edited in verbatim. This behavior has been tiresome and very annoying to those of us here to actually improve the encyclopedia. The accusation that the article is being censored by "followers of Beck" is unfounded, unwarranted, and demonstrably incorrect. Why is inclusion of this meme so important? How is this meme more worthy of inclusion than the Richard Gere gerbil meme that has been consistently censored from his article (and had coatrack articles deleted)? Again, if a lawsuit is filed it might be notable as IIRC it could set a interesting precedent about URLs themselves being damaging (rather than the content of the web page itself). Until then, inclusion would be giving undue weight to a position held by a tiny minority. L0b0t (talk) 00:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
WIPO is not a court?! I guess it depends on your definition. Has Gere ever filed a suit or complaint, either in a court, or 'arbitration process'? As far as trademark infringement, if that is the claim Beck is going with, then that is quite notable in itself, as no one, not even the most moronic user of the internet, will confuse the URL in question with Glenn Beck's trademarked name. That is what an infringement claim boils down to, you know. I suggest you read Beck's submission to WIPO, as well as Marc Randazza's response. If you TRULY feel that you are here to "improve the article", how can you honestly feel including such an issue detracts from the quality of it? Wikipedia has REAMS of trivial internet meme articles, yet this one, which has consumed so much time and emotion on Wikipedia is somehow the focus of a 'tiny minority'? I know some editors here are focused on "defending the honor of Confederate soldiers", and such. Perhaps they should examine their OWN neutrality.
This experience has been my most disheartening I've had to deal with on Wikipedia. I signed up very idealistically about contributing to the body of human knowledge, but instead have to argue with shortsighted zealots that have a chip on their shoulder. I personally don't care one iota about Beck, I just thought it was interesting and relevant. I mentioned this controversy weeks ago, and was promptly reverted because it was 'stupid'. I simply thought it was interesting and may be of interest to those that looked up Beck's name.
For a site that has no problem devoting hundreds and even thousands of words enumerating in excruciating detail the plot points of Japanese anime, Simpsons episodes, etc; the inclusion of a minor sentence or two seems to get some 'editors' all worked up and upset. Guess what, people are going to learn the facts about Beck through other means than your preciously guarded Wikipedia article. And more than a "tiny minority" have SERIOUS concerns regarding his method of discourse. The 'satire' website addresses those concerns, and if you can't see the relevance of that, then have fun defending the honor of Beck against the "tiny minorities".Cinemageddon (talk) 00:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Please no personal attacks. You have to understand that a biography of a living person is treated differently on Wikipedia than other articles. It's not a minor sentence or two - it's major, as major as it gets. We have to be very careful with topics like this, which borderlines on a defamatory change. It is probably one of the most restrictive and heavily enforced areas of policy. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment. We've discussed this issue several times on the talk and the consensus has been not to include it at this point. Morphh (talk) 1:14, 02 October 2009 (UTC)
(ec)Again, if there is an actual lawsuit that stems from this and it is covered by reliable sources, then there may be grounds for inclusion. As of yet, no coverage in reliable sources has been presented and, as I stated above, all of the previous attempts to insert the claim, just tried to insert the claim verbatim (that Beck has been accused and never denied the accusation), never any context, never any back story, and certainly never any proper sources. As for notability of trademark infringement, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Trademark differs from copyright in many ways, one of which is that mark holders have to actively defend their mark against dilution or they lose their monopoly, so disputes over infringement (even disputes that to a layperson seem "moronic") are fairly common. Also, you seem to be mischaracterizing slightly, here is the relevant section, nobody called you or your edits stupid, in fact, you were told (politely, by 6 different editors) the same thing you are being told in this thread. As of now, lacking coverage in reliable sources, there is no place in the article for the information you wish to include. I'm sorry your rose-colored glasses were knocked off while you were trying to idealistically contribute, I truly am but if this has been your most disheartening experience here, you got off pretty easy; check out the collection of lamest edit wars. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 01:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Hey, guys, both Adweek and Ars Technica (see eg piece here) fulfill the requirements at WP:RS (are not self-published nor fringy). ↜Just M E here , now 03:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Per multiple comments above it is not just RS. As I mentioned, I am not completely against it but would like to see things that have a signifigantly higher amount of coverage get inclusion also.Cptnono (talk) 03:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
(@ Cptnono): Fair enough. ↜Just M E here , now 03:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
If the rape-hoax was about O.J. Simpson, it would be in his article with all these sources at this point. Obviously Richard Gere and the gerbil is not making a political point, though it keeps cropping up here anyway because people can't believe there isn't an article on it. The same thing will keep happening with Beck.--Milowent (talk) 16:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Most of the sources are not reliable and the ones we have are not sufficient to put in such contentions material. Material that has been stated to be defamatory by Beck's lawyers. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high quality references." Morphh (talk) 16:51, 02 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh come on. A number of the sources cited (Adweek and ars technica as another editor just noted above) are perfectly reliable for the information reported, and, in fact, no one is denying that the key facts out there about the hoax, and Beck's steps against it (which generate the most coverage) are accurate. Reporting on both side's moves is not defamatory. The real reason its not in the article, and not being covered by most major news outlets, it because its unseemly. We should just be honest about that. Thus, when googling ("glenn beck rape") in the news, people are finding the non-RS sources (like this [http://www.examiner.com/x-19545-Anchorage-Liberal-Examiner~y2009m9d10-Did-Glenn-Beck-rape-and-murder-a-young-girl-in-1990 hatchet job] (#3 in google news, #5 in google in general) because they top the searches. As a result, arguably the rumor is spreading farther than it otherwise would.--Milowent (talk) 18:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
NPR has the story now. So at some point very soon we're going to have to abandon this "reliable sources" canard and start genuinely discussing the matter. Gamaliel (talk) 20:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
LOL, NPR even references that its not on wikipedia. I await the claims that NPR is not a reliable source. Its quite clear that the legal case is highly notable.--Milowent (talk) 20:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
So because an antagonistic source comments on a lie it makes the lie more noteworthy? I don't understand the logic. Bytebear (talk) 21:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh give it rest, you don't want to understand, Bytebear, I already know that. EVERY source is antagonistic if they report on this story, right? The notability lies in much more than the hoax, due to the legal proceedings which it has now generated at this point. I am not going to edit the Glenn Beck article anymore because its fruitless, and frankly, I'm think he's too much of a basket case. Also, btw, the brief the domain holder filed is hilarious, full of cites to wikipedia about internet memes like Leeroy Jenkins, even Gere and the gerbil. Don't let the folks participating in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Raptor_Jesus_(meme) know they've been left out!--Milowent (talk) 21:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Nice. If you can't discuss an issue like an adult, don't bother. Start a false rumor, get a lot of people to report on it (none of them reliable and most of them antagonistic) and then call it notable. Give me a break!. Oh, and maybe you should review WP:CIVIL before responding. Bytebear (talk) 21:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Citing WP:CIVIL should be like Godwin's law, frankly. I can discuss the issue with you with some color because you are an adult and I respect your intellect to understand the color. We both know this isn't about a false rumor, its a parody that is a commentary on Beck's own style. "Getting a lot of people to report" is the dirty reality that creates notability on anything, from Paris Hilton to Nostradamus.--Milowent (talk) 21:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Parody is commonplace. Should we include the SNL Skit, or the various mentions on John Stewart? What makes this more noteworthy than those? Bytebear (talk) 21:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Bringing a legal or pseudolegal action against the parodist in front of a world governing body is not so commonplace. Gamaliel (talk) 23:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
And you have a third party reliable unbiased source to back up the notability? Bytebear (talk) 23:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
You mean besides the many links already posted to this page? Gamaliel (talk) 01:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
That's on a blog at NPR (so not sure where that falls), and it doesn't reference that its not on wikipedia. It states "Before you run off to check Wikipedia about the alleged incident, there's no truth to it whatsoever." Morphh (talk) 21:05, 02 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, you have quoted it accurately. I didn't intend to mislead. They probably are reading this thread. --Milowent (talk) 21:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Since we're now getting some additional sources, I've asked for some guidance from User:Bigtimepeace, who has helped us in the past with guiding content. I removed an addition of the meme until we have gained some agreement for inclusion and wording. I don't think we need to repeat the domain name or the particular satire allegation to describe the existence of the online satire and lawsuit, but that is something we'll have to discuss. Please keep a look out for better sources (most reliable sources) that report this, since it is such contentious material for a BLP, it would be best to have the highest valued sources to support inclusion. Morphh (talk) 19:24, 03 October 2009 (UTC)
If neither the domain name nor satirical allegation is included, then the addition would be meaningless. The entire point of Beck's filing the complaint was over the name of the website and the purported defamatory allegation. The information may be potentially offensive, sure, but that's essential to why it's notable. I contend that it is the place of Wikipedia to catalog as neutrally as possible the notable information for each entry, not to boil out "contentious material" with an eye toward appeasing someone's hypothetical interest in not having demeaning-but-true information repeated about them. Wikipedia is not Glenn Beck's PR secretary, and I object to your removal of properly-sourced, neutrally-worded facts from this article. If you don't like the phrasing, you are free to re-write it and wait for the most acceptable version to win over the editing gestalt, but it is, to be quite frank, not your place to remove sourced and notable information that makes you squirm. These censorious impulses are inappropriate. --Ewok (talk) 20:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
First rule of BLP - "Do No Harm". Having a source is not grant for inclusion. There are many requirements for a BLP, weight being one of them. Particularly with something like this. It's not your average criticism, it is described as defamatory, so we have to be extra cautious. We're discussing it.. so give it a little time to gain consensus. This is one of those things we need to work out on the talk before we include something in the article. I may start an RFC. Morphh (talk) 20:39, 03 October 2009 (UTC)
Rumor website parody of Glenn Beck

I boldly I moved ObserverNY'sa paragraph about the site, that had been contributed to this blp, over to its own article space, "Rumor website parody of Glenn Beck," since I believe Eiland-Hall's creation is notable in its own right. (Yet, this despite that Beck's legal actions against its domain name may or may not be a notable aspect of Beck's career or image?) Can anybody think of a more encyclopedic name, since the most obvious name would itself be a BLP vio, I think? Btw, if ObserverNY [Edited: EwoktheMoid] or another Wikicontributor were to expand the article, might it save it from "redirection" or deletion? :^( ↜Just M E here , now 20:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

JHMN - THAT wasn't MINE! In fact, I don't think I even ever commented in that section! ObserverNY (talk) 20:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
Whups -- mea culpa! ↜Just M E here , now 20:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking last night that a quick single line with the SNL and Daily Show lines would be appropriate. Not sure if it deserves a paragraph but its own article makes it easy since we have wikilinks.Cptnono (talk) 20:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Cptnono, actually, the article isn't about parodies of Beck (in the plural: which article btw would not be a bad idea) but is instead about a single parody website. (Note that I chose the new article's ambiguous title cos the website itself has a domain name that itself arguably constitutes a BLP vio(?); ne'ertheless, my title of the actual article that was newly created is simply awful.) ↜Just M E here , now 20:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Huh? You must have misunderstood. We already mention goofs on this article so adding another may not upset the balance anymore. A devoted article does not screw up this article so I don't care if that one is about the one satire or several.Cptnono (talk) 21:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
(A little slow sometimes but -- ) got it. ↜Just M E here , now 21:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I've also posted a few questions to the Bio of Living Person Noticeboard; see here. ↜Just M E here , now 15:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I was meaning to do that myself to get some outside opinion on how best to deal with this topic. I also left a message for Bigtimepeace to perhaps give us some guidance. I agree that the Beck V. Eiland-Hall would probably be a better name. If we move the article, it should automatically put in a redirect. It seems the notability lies in the law aspect, not necessarily the meme or satire itself. Morphh (talk) 16:13, 04 October 2009 (UTC)
I'll make a couple mentions at the main article. Just to reiterate, if someone added a line like "in 2009 an internet meme began... satire... yada yada" in the paragraph detailing recent prominence and SNL I would be much less against it. I assume a good source + a single line would certainly alleviate concerns for many people but a line at all might still come across as too much weight to others.Cptnono (talk) 02:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I suggested something similar above when we received some high quality sources. ... "Beck has also been the subject of online satire, which resulted in claims of defamation against the website owner." Morphh (talk) 12:40, 05 October 2009 (UTC)
An editor contributed a paragraph on the subject, after which I replaced it with something close to Morphh's proposed line, as a summary (containing a Wikilink to the article on the WIPO arbitration case).↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 14:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
The Colbert parody is trivia. He has also been parodied on SNL and probably by countless other comedians. It isn't reliant. The other incident led to a lawsuit, and deserves a link to the lawsuit article (but adding references is probably overkill since the reader can get all the details on the lawsuit article, which is well written by the way. Good job there. Bytebear (talk) 19:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
In reading the section on parody, I think we are really abusing the sources. The content currently says, "He was also parodied in an impersonation by Jason Sudeikis on Saturday Night Live.[84] "Finally, a guy who says what people who aren't thinking are thinking" was a quip from The Daily Show's Jon Stewart.[85]" but both sources only mention the parody in passing as a larger point. Stossell's whole essay is about how what Beck says rings true to the American people. I would much rather have the content of that source fleshed out with what Stossel observes about Beck rather than being used to cherry pick some pseudo notability of the parodies about Beck. Currently, the article is taking the trivia from the references and highlighting it, but ignoring the real message of the authors of the sources. Bytebear (talk) 19:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Every parody and joke doe snot belong simply due to the fact that it will be an exceptionally long list. I felt that way about SNL and Stewart but someone went for it. I don't think it is a huge deal but we might need to limit what is being included. I think the rape thing should get a mention. It should be a line with a wikilink in whatever section regarding his recent popularity. It could also be moved right after the racism line since the website's rebuttal relates to it according to one source. I think that might be cherry picking/synthy without more, though.Cptnono (talk) 23:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
I'll add it to "See also." I personally don't believe this arbitration matter rises to a level of sufficient notability in Beck's public reception to be mentioned in the text there yet. (Its secondary sources are much more meager, for example, than the Beck - The View controversy, which isn't mentioned but probably should find its way toward some kind of mention. "Beck - The View" has multiple media mentions -- an NPR broadcast, 20/20's John Stossel, Time, Entertainment Weekly, The Independent of London, Salon, The Week, and on, while the Beck - Eiland-Hall arbitration is but mentioned in but, really, The Boston Herald and an NPR blog.)↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 14:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Hehe... I said snot up above. I don't mind a quick line about the rape thing in the prose. I also am not against the View since it did recieve so much press but we do need to watch out for turning it into a list or a random collection of silliness.Cptnono (talk) 16:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

"Political Views" wrt upcoming H1N1 vaccine?

I believe he has expressed his opposition to the upcoming H1N1 vaccine. Stonemason89 (talk) 01:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Great, find a reliable third party source, please. Bytebear (talk) 02:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
How about this: [12]
"That stance contrasts sharply with his statements on a show Sept. 29, when he said his inclination was to attend a “flu party” where people deliberately expose themselves to the virus. (The thinking behind that unorthodox idea is that in this way people will strengthen their immune systems — what they see as a sort of natural vaccination.)

“People just feel in their gut, ‘I don’t trust these people any more’, ” Beck said Sept. 2 of the government and its representatives. “They think our government could be so incompetent that they don’t have any clue as to what they are doing.”" Stonemason89 (talk) 02:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't like the unprofessional opening description "Conspiracy-theorist-in-chief." It's just unprofessional and diminishes the reliability of the source. It's also a blog (The Vote Blog), which fails again on reliability. In fact, in reading the blog, it looks like just another hit piece to try to reveal the supposed hypocrisy of Beck's various positions. I have a hard time considering this and other blips that pop up in the blogosphere notable since they lack any kind of mainstream coverage. Bytebear (talk) 02:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Here's a piece by Discover magazine. --> (link)↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 22:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

NJ elemetary school's Black History Month performance

...YouTube highlighted by Beck. (News report: Counter protestors at school)↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 15:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Glenn_Beck/Archive_8&oldid=1136767051"