Talk:Arguing with Idiots

Tone
I changed the tone of the article a little, it seemed to be drifting to the right a little. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.116.48 (talk • contribs) 14:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Whether to the right or left, the article is just an infomercial. Can you imagine reading an advert like this in an actual encyclopedia?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.249.28.234 (talk) 21:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Cleaned Up
I've cleaned this up a little but, placed in an infobox, and put an external links. Jzxpertguitarist (talk) 21:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

#1 NYT Best Seller
This should be mentioned in the article.PokeHomsar (talk) 17:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Criticism
We have a couple of NPOV issues with this section, primarily it does not present Beck's point of view and provides no context for the statement, which is required by our WP:NPOV policy. I also question the weight given and utilizing a criticism section with regard to WP:NPOV. Morphh  (talk) 18:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I resolved the article structure issue. There was no need for this sub-section heading.  It is easily included under the neutral heading of "Reception".  Morphh   (talk) 19:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Since no work was done on this and the criticism there was based on unreliable sources, I removed it for now.  Morphh   (talk) 3:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I added the Media Matters media matters criticism because the criticism is backed up in the media matters article. I also went back into the book to make sure the section was valid, I'll include the page number to the source. CartoonDiablo (talk) 22:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

If you are going to put in this biased criticism, then you should at least set up the context of what he ACTUALLY said, to at least make it somewhat NPOV. And since ThuranX can't abide the context being inserted, I deleted the whole thing.  Josh  ua In  gram   00:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Top Ten Bastards
The list for the Top Ten Bastards was very messy. So I put a wikitable to organize the list. Jzxpertguitarist (talk) 22:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Why are we giving a section to this. Seems like WP:UNDUE weight particularly without any context.  I listened to the unabridged audiobook and don't even remember this.  It certainly wasn't anything prominent in the book.  Do we have sources that would make this somehow a significant thing to mention?  Morphh   (talk) 23:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Probably not online, but I specifically remember that being in the book, as I have reas the whole thing. Jzxpertguitarist (talk) 20:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't doubt that it's in there, but the book is 326 pages. What about this half a page makes it important enough over the other 325 1/2 pages to give it a section and detail it out?  We barely list the chapters of the book, but we're listing 10 bastards?  With that, I'm not even sure I would give a section for each chapter, but a summary of each would certainly be more significant than cherry picking this list, unless we have reliable sources that note the list as significant for the book.  Morphh   (talk) 21:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * IN DEFENSE OF CAPITALISM (Giving the Free Market a Fair Shake)
 * THE SECOND AMENDMENT (Ammunition to Defend Your Rights)
 * EDUCATION (Readin', Writin', and Futility)
 * AMERICA'S ENERGY FUTURE (Cars, Corn, Carbon, and Controversy)
 * UNIONS (When is America Finished Paying Her Dues?)
 * ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION (The Chapter Americans Just Won't Write)
 * THE NANNY STATE (Saving You from Yourself, One Right at a Time)
 * OWNING A HOME (Waking Up from the American Dream)
 * ECONOMICS 101 (Smaller Government, Bigger Wallet)
 * US PRESIDENTS (A Steady Progression of Progressives)
 * UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE (Why a Paper Cut May Soon Be Fatal)
 * THE US CONSTITUTION (Lost in Translation)


 * If we're going to include the list, we should at least include some context as to why. It makes no sense to just display the list.   Morphh   (talk) 23:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I started to add the comments, since it seems void without some context or meaning, but then I thought that might be a copyright violation by reproducing portions of the book. thoughts...  Morphh   (talk) 23:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Whoops! I can't spell, and I can't count past five. I'm worthless.  Josh  ua In  gram   04:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Art 1, Sec 9, Cl. 1
Is anyone willing to argue with a straight face that Beck didn't blow this one?Jimintheatl (talk) 18:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Blowing it or not is nothing you or I should be concerned with. You can not insert the content presenting your opinion.  It is his POV and for neutrality, it needs to be included without bias.  Morphh   (talk) 19:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Jim, it appears you are doing WP:OR. Where is a source saying this? Soxwon (talk) 20:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you read the Constitution, or anything other than Glenn Beck?  Beck may be entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.  He is flat-out wrong on this and it is stunning that you can defend his silly interpretation.  It's relevant because he is constantly touting the Founders and the Constitution, but he completely misses the point of this Const. Clause.  It's not even arguable.Jimintheatl (talk) 20:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Your opinion is your own, you don't have a WP:RS saying such, therefore it consitutes WP:OR. Soxwon (talk) 20:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * OK.  If you can read, try this: http://teachingamericanhistory.org/convention/summary.html

In particular, look at August 24 and 25th. Here's a summary;

Heard a report from the Committee of 11 on Slave Trade Article VII, Sections 4, 5, and 6 (no interference with slave trade, capitation taxes in proportion to census, no navigation acts without 2/3 vote in each House). Committee recommended prohibiting interference with slave trade until 1800, keeping Section 5, striking section 6 and permitting a tax to be imposed on migration. Agreed to reconsider debt provisions and interstate commerce clause (Article VII, Section 1).

Took up Article IX, Sections 2 and 3 (controversies among states, controversies arising from conflicting land grants). Agreed (8 - 2) to strike both sections. Took up Article X, Section 1 (Executive). Agreed on one Executive but defeated four different methods of electing the President including by the people (9 - 2) and by electors (6 - 5). Took up Article X, Section 2 (Executive powers and duties). Ordered adjournment at 3:00pm for the future.

Saturday, August 25	 	Approved (10 - 1) debt provision. Defeated (10 - 1) motion to include common defense and general welfare clause in Article VII, Section 1, Clause 1.

Took up Article VII, Section 4 (slave trade) (see also July 23, August 8, 21, 22, 26, and 29).

Agreed (7 - 4) to change from 1800 to 1808 the prohibition on Congress (New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Virginia voting against). Approved (7 - 4) "The migration or importation of such persons as the several states now existing should think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Legislature prior to the year 1808."

Madison stated, "twenty years will produce all the mischief that can be apprehended from the liberty to import slaves." He also "thought it wrong to admit into the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men."

Approved import tax not to exceed $10.00 per person.

Approved Article VII, Section 5 as reported. Postponed Article VII, Section 6.

Continued on Executive powers in Article X.

Defeated (6 - 3 - 1) motion allowing appointment to Federal offices by State Executives in Article X, Section 2.

Good luck. I;ll cross my fingers.....
 * * sigh* I agree with you Jim and don't doubt his interpretation is wrong if it's as wacky as the bit of Common Sense that I could slog through. However, you still need a reliable source saying that Beck is misinterpreting the source before you can say it, otherwise it's WP:OR. Soxwon (talk) 20:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * We already have the criticism in there regarding this section. It's not a matter of lacking the pov that he misinterpreted the clause.  It's a matter of POV balance, and not stating an opinion as fact, regardless of a reliable source.  To this point, the statement "criticized the book for praising Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 of the Constitution" is opinion regarding "praise" and needs to be rewritten to reflect that.  Morphh   (talk) 20:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Just so I'm following you: if Beck says the Earth is flat, we cannot say he is wrong unless an RS specifically refutes him? Where is the opinion that is objectionable?  The thing may need to be rewritten, but the essential point is that Beck is dead wrong about the Constitution here.Jimintheatl (talk) 21:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but we need a WP:RS saying that, our interpretation is not considered authoritative. Soxwon (talk) 22:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Later in Arguing with Idiots, Beck writes: "Article 1, Section 9 had allowed twenty years of further slave trade, a length of time that many Founders hoped would be sufficient for the South to wean itself from the horrendous practice. But even after the importation of new slaves stopped in 1808, the South was so dependent upon slavery that it was unwilling to let it go." [Arguing with Idiots, Page 294] It's not our place to say Beck was wrong, but if you find a reliable source, we can state their opinion that Beck is wrong, which is what we have already done with Media Matters and Keith Olbermann (although Keith's opinion is from an unreliable source and should be removed).  The only thing we can do on Beck's pov and balance is to just provide the context and statement from Beck regarding the particular statement, without opinion as to it being correct or incorrect.   Morphh   (talk) 23:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Jim, let me ask you a question. Have you actually read Arguing with Idiots? I don't mean, "I watched Keith Olbermann talk about it," or, "I saw the Media Matters assessment of all his lies," I mean, have you literally read the book? Have any of you? JOSH  UA IN  GRAM  02:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I listened to it as an unabridged audio book (long commute). Morphh   (talk) 2:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, here I sit with the actual book, having read it twice. This is my RS, the book itself. Let me try to describe this to you. In this specific chapter, he has little excerpts of the Constitiution with a small paragraph after it. It is the whole constitution, just cut into specific sections. It is supposed to look like he cut the Constitution into pieces, with the pieces taped onto the page with scotch tape, and he highlights a specific phrase. In this specific part, he has the following: '''Section 9. The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person'''. Now, he has the words "not exceeding ten dollars for each person." highlighted. His response, to this specific phrase, is as follows: "That's right, the Founders actually put a price tag on coming to this country: $10 per person. Apparently they felt like there was a value to being able to live here. Not anymore. These days we can't ask anything of immigrants--including that they abide by our laws." Now, I realize that that's not what Keith Olbermann or Media Matters wants you to think, but this is what Beck actually said, straight from the book, so this is pure and without my input. Looking at it that way, it certainly doesn't look like he was wrong to me. Jim, do you still think he blew this one? JOSH UA IN  GRAM  05:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Please tell me you're joking.... It's not a establishing a "value on being able to live here." it was a tax on the slave trade.Jimintheatl (talk) 17:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Section 9 says, "The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person." Note that it says, "The migration or importation of such persons. I'm wondering how "migration" doesn't apply to people that...migrated here? I am not disagreeing that this was a tax on the slave trade, what I am saying is that Beck is correct in saying that immigrants were charged $10 a pop for coming here. JOSH  UA IN  GRAM  17:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * To your point, Beck also discusses it's involvement in the slave trade on Page 294. Morphh   (talk) 18:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. I mean, is it not theoretically possible that he was talking about both the migration tax and the slave tax? JOSH  UA IN  GRAM  18:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it's not even remotely possible. There was no "migration tax."Did you bother to look at the Constitutional history; this provision was about the slave trade, period.Jimintheatl (talk) 18:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if there was ever a "migration tax." The point is, the Founders allowed the States the option to tax immigrants. And you cannot say that no states ever imposed that tax, because that's not true. JOSH  UA IN  GRAM  19:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You'd do well to stop reading Glenn Beck and start read the Constitution and its history. It is errant nonsense to say that this provision allowed the states the option to tax immigrants; it did no such thing. Jimintheatl (talk) 20:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, let's do some reading. Section 9. The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person. Okay, where specifically does this clause not authorize the States to tax immigrants? Is it in the phrase, "The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person," or is there some factor that I'm not seeing? Because, I have to say, I'm not seeing the part that prohibits the States from imposing a tax or duty on migrant or imported persons. Please point it out for me, as I am too ignorant to see the invisible words. JOSH  UA IN  GRAM  20:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow..... agree with your assessment, but I'll try anyway.  Beck said that the provision demonstrates that the Founders "felt like there was a value to be able to live here."  But the provision was specifically debated and adopted regarding the slave trade; it had nothing to do with "the value of living here," it had everything to do with the value of the slaves, or, more specifically, with the debate on whether slavery was to be allowed in the US(result: it can't be outlawed, but can be taxed).  There is NOTHING in the debate to support Beck's assertion that the $10 tax was based on the US being a great place to live.Jimintheatl (talk) 20:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And you can prove that? You can conclusively prove that there was, how did you put it? "NOTHING in the debate to support Beck's assertion that the $10 tax was based on the US being a great place to live." Then prove it, and I will concede the point. JOSH  UA IN  GRAM  21:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You're asking me to prove a negative now? Try reading the debate. I can't do your reading for you.Jimintheatl (talk) 21:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not asking you to prove a negative, I'm asking you to prove your own statements. If that includes proving an unprovable statement, then you probably shouldn't have said it, don't you think?

And you need to stop calling me an idiot. Seriously. If, according to you, I'm not entitled to my own opinion, and/or entitled to challenge your opinion, without being ridiculed or attacked, then maybe you should read WP:ATTACK. I realize that I made personal attacks on you in the past, but not for your opinions. I made personal attacks on you for your need to unilaterally remake this article to what makes you feel better, without first discussing your changes with the other editors of this article first. I still contend that it is not okay to do that, not without proof, and you still have no proof of your own assertions. If I'm the idiot here, then I hate to think of what that makes you. JOSH UA IN  GRAM  21:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * First, I never called you an idiot. You called yourself ignorant.   Second, of course you're entitled to your own opinion; but you are not entitled to your own facts, and in this case, your opinion is dead wrong.  Third, I never unilaterally remade this article.  I tried to tweak the existing criticism section to clarify that his critics had gone after Beck for a dopey(and flat wrong) reading of the Constitution.  Fourth, I don't think you understand what "proving a negative" means.Jimintheatl (talk) 23:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * First, what was the intent of your edit summaries if not a mocking of the person you are responding to? And there is a tremendous difference between being ignorant and being an idiot. Second, I'm not the one touting facts that I am not willing to back up. Third, this article is not long, and you were changing the entire tone of two separate sections in an article with a grand total of three, other than references and external links. That's a pretty good portion. Fourth, I understand what "proving a negative" is. That's why I don't make arguments based on facts that I can't back up. (Which, by the way, which facts did I make up or get wrong? The way I see it, Beck read the Constitution, as it was written, and made a conclusion. When I read it, I came up with the same one. Oh, and didn't you say that you agreed with my assessment? "Wow..... agree with your assessment, but I'll try anyway." That's sounds like even you came to the same conclusion!) Do you understand "backing up your own arguments"? You might want to look that up. And, the next time you make an argument, bring some support. JOSH  UA IN  GRAM  00:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "There is a tremendous difference between being ignorant and being an idiot." Once again, I agree with your assessment, as I agreed with your earlier self-assessment.  So do we have consensus.  But what about the article?Jimintheatl (talk) 05:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Uh, maybe try reading the next line? And I'm glad that you agree that I don't have the knowledge to see invisible words, but it's kind of sad that you left the implication that you can... JOSH  UA IN  GRAM  13:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Assuming Jim is correct, the changes by him to the content is still inappropriate based on our NPOV and WP:OR policies. The media maters criticism (which is a questionable WP:RS in itself) provides the view that he misinterpreted the constitution and we then present what Beck wrote.  Since I listened to the audio, recorded by Beck, I can tell you that he says things in a very joking way - he's an entertainer.  We can tell from later statements in the book, that he did not lack understanding on the clause - he knows what it's about and it's obvious the silly point he was trying to make on immigration.  This was not an area where he spouts facts to debate the "idiot" providing sources and such.  To state as fact that he is wrong assumes that he's trying to provide an accurate interpretation of the clause, which it doesn't appear to be - it was the lead to a punchline.  In any case, we have three editors (a consensus of the editors involved) that disagree with the the changes.  At this point, these changes should not be included.  Movement to include them would first require a discussion that satisfies the concerns with regard to policy.    Morphh   (talk) 2:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. There is no doubt that he was simply making a joke. (You might wonder why I just spent so much time arguing as though I thought he was serious...well, it was pretty funny that someone actually couldn't catch that it was a joke, and I thought it would be funny to string him along. Of course, the invisible words might have confused him...) And as we have a consensus, there is probably no need for the protection anymore. Of course, that doesn't mean that certain people will actually care that there is a consensus, but then it will be vandalism, and 3RR won't apply anymore. JOSH  UA IN  GRAM  13:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Consensus? For what exactly?  Given that one editor has just done a 180 degree shift in his position, I'm not sure what consensus you're seeing....Jimintheatl (talk) 19:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The consensus we are talking about (it's pretty clear from Morphh's statement above, but I'll repeat it for you), is this: '''Assuming Jim is correct, the changes by him to the content is still inappropriate based on our NPOV and OR policies. The Media Matters criticism (which is a questionable RS in itself) provides the view that he misinterpreted the constitution, and we then present what Beck wrote. To state as fact that he is wrong assumes that he's trying to provide an accurate interpretation of the clause, which it doesn't appear to be - it was the lead to a punchline. In any case, we have three editors (a consensus of the editors involved) that disagree with the the changes. At this point, these changes should not be included. Movement to include them would first require a discussion that satisfies the concerns with regard to policy. Morphh  (talk) 2:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC) ''' Does that clear it up for you? JOSH UA IN  GRAM  19:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand that is Morph's position.  It now appears to be yours as well, I think, unless you are joking.   Soxwon agreed with me that Beck was wrong on the facts, but he had a sourcing concern.  So I don't see where three editors have adopted Morph's position, unless your two opposing positions are being counted as two editors.   In any case, there does now appear to be consensus that Beck was wrong on the facts, but Morph (and for the moment you) seems to be saying that he was only kidding.Jimintheatl (talk) 20:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The consensus is that your comments about whether or not Beck was mistaken should not be included. That's me (1), Morphh (2), and Soxwon (3). Is that a little more clear? J  DIGGITY  SPEAKS  20:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, the consensus is that Beck wrote down, committed to print an incorrect Constitutional interpretation; the question is whether he knew it was incorrect.  Soxwon says it was incorrect, I say it was incorrect, Morph says it was incorrect but Beck knew it was incorrect and Joshua seems to be blowing in the wind(one minute Beck is absolutely correct, the next he's just a rodeo clown).  This is really a minor edit, but it amazes me how hypnotic Glenn Beck can be....So. if we agree that his expressed interpretation is wrong, how are you interpreting his intent?Jimintheatl (talk) 01:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm cool with this: Beck was criticized for a Constitutional misinterpretation(everyone, even Josh, I think, agrees that the stated interpretation in his book is wrong.  What is needed now, it seems, is a RS showing that he knew it was wrong.Jimintheatl (talk) 01:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering why it is so important that we make sure everyone in the world knows that he "misinterpreted" the Constitution. Do you understand the concept of a "joke"? And do you understand the concept of, "not the humongous deal you think it is"? Find an RS, or don't find an RS, it really doesn't matter. At the end of the day, it is enough to say that he was criticized, put down exactly what he was criticized for saying, and let people make their own judgments. If we go around and point out every single time someone is wrong, you're going to be busy for the rest of your life, and violating WP:NEUTRAL in two ways: one, the articles will no longer be neutral, and two, by spending time writing about excessively insignificant views and actions. Seriously, all this is is us wasting our time, focusing on a grand total of 45 words out of a book with at least 50,000 words.  J  DIGGITY  SPEAKS  02:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Great, we have consensus that Beck's written material offered an admittedly false Constitutional interpretation. Please provide a RS showing that Beck knew he was wrong and/or was joking.Jimintheatl (talk) 02:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, for the last time, the consensus we have is that the article should be left as it was, before you started pushing your biased point of view on it. Of course, after looking over your talk page, I am not surprised to see that you had to change it back to the way you want it, despite the input of the other editors. Do you feel better about the world now that you have made such a tremendous difference? J  DIGGITY  SPEAKS  02:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Great, we have consensus that Beck's written material offered an admittedly false Constitutional interpretation. Please provide a RS showing that Beck knew he was wrong and/or was joking.Jimintheatl (talk) 02:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, for the last time, the consensus we have is that the article should be left as it was, before you started pushing your biased point of view on it. Of course, after looking over your talk page, I am not surprised to see that you had to change it back to the way you want it, despite the input of the other editors. Do you feel better about the world now that you have made such a tremendous difference? J  DIGGITY  SPEAKS  02:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, my initial edit was relatively minor, and now seems to be accepted(that the interpretation was factually inaccurate). I think Beck partisans have overreacted, and I admit that the minutiae is probably not worth the effort, but it's been amusing.02:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)~
 * Don't remove anymore comments from this article without a good reason, outside of "you didn't like them." J  DIGGITY  SPEAKS  02:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Per consensus: Beck offered and was criticized for an an incorrect Constitutional analysis.  Everyone agrees that his interpretation was not correct,  Everyone agrees he was criticized for it.  If you want to change your mind again,return to your original position and say Beck offered a legitimate constitutional interpretation, go ahead.  Otherwise, it is consensus that Beck was criticized for misconstruing the Constitution.   Which is not the same as saying that he did, FYI.Jimintheatl (talk) 02:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

For those of you that aren't as into revisionist history as Jim seems to be, here is the actual consensus: Blowing it or not is nothing you or I should be concerned with. You can not insert the content presenting your opinion. It is his POV and for neutrality, it needs to be included without bias. Morphh  (talk) 19:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC) Jim, it appears you are doing WP:OR. Where is a source saying this? Soxwon (talk) 20:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC) Your opinion is your own, you don't have a WP:RS saying such, therefore it consitutes WP:OR. Soxwon (talk) 20:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC) * sigh* I agree with you Jim and don't doubt his interpretation is wrong if it's as wacky as the bit of Common Sense that I could slog through. However, you still need a reliable source saying that Beck is misinterpreting the source before you can say it, otherwise it's WP:OR. Soxwon (talk) 20:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC) We already have the criticism in there regarding this section. It's not a matter of lacking the pov that he misinterpreted the clause. It's a matter of POV balance, and not stating an opinion as fact, regardless of a reliable source. To this point, the statement "criticized the book for praising Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 of the Constitution" is opinion regarding "praise" and needs to be rewritten to reflect that. Morphh  (talk) 20:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC) Later in Arguing with Idiots, Beck writes: "Article 1, Section 9 had allowed twenty years of further slave trade, a length of time that many Founders hoped would be sufficient for the South to wean itself from the horrendous practice. But even after the importation of new slaves stopped in 1808, the South was so dependent upon slavery that it was unwilling to let it go." [Arguing with Idiots, Page 294] It's not our place to say Beck was wrong, but if you find a reliable source, we can state their opinion that Beck is wrong, which is what we have already done with Media Matters and Keith Olbermann (although Keith's opinion is from an unreliable source and should be removed). The only thing we can do on Beck's pov and balance is to just provide the context and statement from Beck regarding the particular statement, without opinion as to it being correct or incorrect. Morphh  (talk) 23:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Here we go, to Morph, not Josh: if Beck is joking, then how do we know, and how do we know when he is is telling the truth(as he sees it)? Josh thought he was telling the truth, argued strenuously that the states could impose a $10 immigrant tax, until he finally, I think, realized that no one else was adopting his position.  This is a big problem, in my eyes, with Beck, he throws out Barack Obama, Bill Ayres, Van Jones, Anita Dunn, Mao, Che, Free Press, ACORN, Cass Sunstein, splat, random quotes, oh my God, look at he patterns, look at the patterns, I'm just asking questions,,,,,and objective truth no longer matters........ I'll admit, Beck is  entertaining as hell, but he does not present a coherent case.  Take our friend Josh, who accepted Beck at his word and believed that the Constitution valued living in the USA so much it imposed a $10 immigrant tax.  It is wrong to permit Beck to expllit the gullible, and such manipulation has no place in any encyclopedia. Giving Beck a pass by saying Oh he was just kidding around(w/o definitive proof--and, to the contrary, we have Josh's fervent belief) establishes a bad precedent: can we no longer take political pundits at their word?

The consensus is that you should leave your original research and opinions off of this page. So, per the consensus, what you are doing is vandalism, and will be reverted and reported as such. J DIGGITY  SPEAKS  03:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC) I would like Morph and Soxwon to weigh in here. I'm not sure either would feel comfortable having Josh speak for them, as he has done an about-face on the issue. Both Sox and Morph have acknowledged that Beck misconstrued the Const. prov.(his intent is what is undetermined) Mind readers need apply.Jimintheatl (talk) 03:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to read Jim, we both said that our opinions don't matter, putting it like that is WP:OR. Soxwon (talk) 05:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Concur, consensus with regard to our opinion with him being incorrect or not is irrelevant. The consensus applies to including or not including the content.  It is the consensus that we should not include Jim's changes that state Beck misinterpreted the section as a statement of fact, but to present the criticism and what Beck stated without bias and our WP:OR opinion.  No reliable source is required for the position that Beck was joking, the onus is on the person trying to add unsourced content. (We're not trying to add the statement that Beck was joking).  There would need to be a much larger stink, with a response Beck suggesting a literal meaning, and multiple mainstream media rejections of his interpretation.  Even in that case, it would be more neutral to note the rejection by all those sources, than to make a statement of fact.  Let the reader decide as NPOV policy states.  (Also note that the threaded discussion above is broken up and does not represent the flow of discussion).   Morphh   (talk) 13:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In case it wasn't horribly obvious, I also concur with Morphh and Soxwon. Regardless of our opinions, we have an obligation to make this page as neutral as possible. The paragraph should read like this (Morphh and Soxwon, let me know if you concur on this as well):

Keith Olbermann and the watchdog group Media Matters, criticized the book for praising Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 of the Constitution. In the specific section of his book they refer to, Beck argued that "the Founders actually put a price tag on coming to this country: $10 per person. Apparently they felt like there was a value to being able to live here. Not anymore. These days we can’t ask anything of immigrants — including that they abide by our laws."

This is the most neutral way to put it, in my opinion. You have the people criticizing him (with links to exactly what they said, so there is no confusion as to the issue at hand), you have a link to the exact clause that they are criticizing him for (without a Wikipedia declaration that that specific clause protected the slave trade), and you have Beck's actual, word-for-word statement. No opinions, no negative or positive statements about the book, or Beck, or his critics. People can follow the links if they want to know more, just like Wikipedia should be. I'm going to go ahead and change the page to say this. Morphh or Soxwon, if you don't concur, feel free to change it back, and we can talk about it some more. By the way, Morphh, I just wanted to let you know that I wasn't trying to take anyone out of context, I was just trying to pull every statement that had one of you saying that your personal opinions didn't matter, and neutrality did. If it came off that way, I apologize to you, and to Soxwon. And as for whether or not I agree with Beck on this one, I don't think Beck meant this literally. I think he meant to use it to illustrate a point about how today's society is entirely too tolerant of illegal immigrants. I will say that I agree with that sentiment. If you are breaking the law, whether you are speeding or murdering someone, you should be punished. If that means you leave the country, too bad. If you want to come here legally, please come and stay for as long as you want, just do it legally. J DIGGITY  SPEAKS  15:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what the US constitution says and frankly I don't care. However I concur with Morphh, Soxwon etc that it doesn't matter what any editor thinks the constitution says. It only matters what sources say. And as several people have also said, if reliable secondary sources say he misinterpreted the constitution then it would be appropriate to say sources have said that, however it would not be appropriate to quote it as fact. Nil Einne (talk) 15:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

shows imposition ny New York State of a "head tax" and found unConsitutional at the time (circa 1882). Since then, Congress has, indeed, imposed a "head tax" on immigrants. The New York impost was not on "slaves" and appears, indeed, aimed at all immigrants. Nor was the US the only nation with a "head tax" -- Canada in 1913 charged $500 for a Chinese person to enter. Such taxes were, indeed, common, and not specifically tied to slaves in most places. Massachusetts as early as 1692 restricted immigration of "paupers" and the like. states that high imposts on Negroes were made in order to deter the slave trade, and not to facilitate it. Thus the entire question does not admit of simplistic answers, other than Mr. Beck was wrong to imply we do not have current immigration taxes. Collect (talk) 12:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Full-protected against dispute
Okay, stop edit warring, folks. Discuss the issues here on the talk page. Consider this your WP:3RR warning; if further warring or reverts happen, the user(s) will be blocked. tedder (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Expansion
What are some ways that we can expand this article without, a) making it look like a promo, and b) violating some kind of copyright law? Any constructive ideas? JOSH UA IN  GRAM  18:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Rather than using the book itself as a source I would suggest using a review. Beck's website refers to the review by David Forsmarck in FrontPage Magazine which can be found here:  .  While the review is generally positive, leaving in the comments by Media Matters and Olbermann would preserve balance in the article.  However the book is unnotable, I cannot find any mainstream publication reviews or even other reviews in conservative or liberal media, and it does not appear to have had any influence beyond Glenn Beck fans.  The Four Deuces (talk) 05:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * While I would contend that any book that hits #1 on the NYT list for more than one week is fairly notable, I see your point about the reviews. Only bloggers and such are talking about it. (outside of Olberwomann and Media Whiners ...I mean, Olbermann and Media Matters.) But maybe there is another part of the book we could expand? Something outside of just the chapters and the criticism? J  DIGGITY  SPEAKS  05:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see how we can. Articles are supposed to rely on secondary sources and should not give more prominence to stories than they have received in those sources.  People who want to know more can always follow the link to the website or buy the book.  The Four Deuces (talk) 06:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I see your point. I just wish the article wasn't ten times shorter than the talk page. It looks bad.. J  DIGGITY  SPEAKS  15:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Olbermann and Media Matters
We cannot say that Olbermann and Media Matters "criticized the book for praising Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 of the Constitution," without explaining the basis of their criticism. There is no need to inform readers which interpretation is correct and we lack RS to state which one is correct. Readers can follow the link to the clause and decide for themselves. Also, Media Matters should be mentioned before Olbermann. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't mind that, as long as the phrasing makes it clear that this is MMFA's and Olbermann's interpretation, rather than WP:OR. Soxwon (talk) 18:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Concur. J  DIGGITY  SPEAKS  19:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is a proposed phrasing:
 * Both Media Matters and Keith Olbermann criticised Beck for praising Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution which they said prohibited Congress from outlawing the slave trade before 1808 and capped taxes on the slave trade at $10 per slave. Beck had said that the clause meant that the Founders "felt like there was a value to being able to live here" and lamented: "Not anymore. These days we can't ask anything of immigrants -- including that they abide by our laws."
 * The Four Deuces (talk) 19:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, it doesn't seem to quite flow. How about switching Beck's interpretation and MMFA's and Olbermann's so we know what we're criticizing before we get to the criticism. It would read something like:

"Both Media Matters and Keith Olbermann criticized Beck for praising Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution. Beck had said that the clause meant that the Founders 'felt like there was a value to being able to live here' and lamented: 'Not anymore. These days we can't ask anything of immigrants -- including that they abide by our laws.' However, Media Matters and Olbermann maintain that the clause prohibited Congress from outlawing the slave trade before 1808 and capped taxes on the slave trade at $10 per slave."
 * Soxwon (talk) 19:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That sounds good. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't like the word "praise" in there as phrased, stating that it as fact. It didn't look like praise to me, it looked like humor criticizing illegal immigration policies and enforcement.  If we state "praise" than we need to show that it is MM opinion that he praised it.  Also, this is incorrect: "Beck had said that the clause meant".  Beck did not say that this is what the clause meant.  He commented on the clause, that's it.  I prefer that we just quote exactly what he said (like currently written) and not add such suggestive language. The Olbermann reference is a blog, and is considered an unreliable source.  I think we should remove Olbermann from the sentence until we find a reliable source for including it.  I think we should also include Beck's later statement regarding the clause for context.   Morphh   (talk) 20:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

(out) It is clear from the context that we are reporting the opinions of Media Matters and Keith Olbermann. The problem with qualifying the term "to praise" is that it would imply that Beck was denigrating the constitution, and his book was a work of satire. The Olberman reference is actually from his television show and is relevant to the reception the book received. The best sources for critical review of the book would be constitutional scholars and failing that reviews by mainstream literary critics, but unfortunately they do not exist. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Ya, I don't think Youtube or blogs that carry a video from places such as youtube qualify as reliable sources, even if they are presenting a show. The copyright is also questionable.  I do agree that it is relevant - but I would like a reliable source for it.  I don't think qualifying "praise" would imply that Beck was denigrating anything.  The suggestion that he praised that clause is an opinion.  I think it would be best to just leave that word out, it doesn't add anything to the criticism but creates a wording issue as I stated.  Perhaps saying "... criticized Beck for a statement, on Article I, Section 9, Clause 1", otherwise we need to qualify that it is MM opinion that he was "praising" it - like MM criticized Beck, stating that he praised Article I,...    Morphh   (talk) 2:12, 01 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The Olbermann clip comes from Countdown with Keith Olbermann and transcripts are available online for several months, You can probably obtain earlier transcripts by writing to them.  I do not see any copyright problems with reporting people's opinions.  If you want to change the word "praise" it seems fine to me.  The Four Deuces (talk) 02:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the transcripts, while a primary source, would be much better than the blog for sourcing the Olbermann's criticism. We should replace it with the source you presented.  I also don't have a problem with reporting peoples opinions.  My complaint was that praise is not reported as opinion.  So we can either rewrite it as opinion or reword it. :-)   Morphh   (talk) 13:12, 01 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I added that the criticism regarding "praise" (MM) and "endorsing" (Olbermann). I updated the ref to the transcript, instead of the blog, for Olbermann's criticism.  I added Beck's later statement to put context around his position regarding the clause.   Morphh   (talk) 14:43, 02 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you look at the section again. It could be interpreted that MM and KO accused Beck of supporting slavery when they actually accused him of misrepresenting Clause 1.  The Four Deuces (talk) 16:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The titles of the articles are "Countdown: Worst Person --Glenn Beck-- Slave Trade Supporter or Idiot?" and "Does Glenn Beck support the slave trade or is he just an 'idiot'?". What are your thoughts on better wording?   Morphh   (talk) 17:26, 02 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That is ironic language. Clearly Olbermann thought that Beck was an idiot.  The Four Deuces (talk) 17:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The article's statement that the Const. clause in question "praised" the slave trade was false; I edited it.  I'm OK with saying that KO and MMfA criticized Beck for "praising" that clause, but it would be more accurate to say they criticized him for misinterpreting it.Jimintheatl (talk) 18:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Until you are willing to talk about edits before you do them, I don't think anyone here cares what you are okay with. Everyone, if I'm wrong, feel free to correct me. J  DIGGITY  SPEAKS  19:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

After looking at Jim's unblock request, I wonder if maybe he has a small point...the phrase, "...criticized the book for comments, which they suggest..." Perhaps we should be a little more specific? Suggestion:

Keith Olbermann and the watchdog group Media Matters for America criticized Beck for his comments concerning Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 of the Constitution. In the chapter titled The U.S. Constitution: Lost in Translation, Beck wrote, "the Founders actually put a price tag on coming to this country: $10 per person. Apparently they felt like there was a value to being able to live here. Not anymore. These days we can’t ask anything of immigrants — including that they abide by our laws." Media Matters and Olbermann claimed that this comment from Beck praised and endorsed the slave trade. However, later in the book, Beck called the practice horrendous and described how the clause further extended the legalization of the slave trade: "Article 1, Section 9 had allowed twenty years of further slave trade, a length of time that many Founders hoped would be sufficient for the South to wean itself from the horrendous practice. But even after the importation of new slaves stopped in 1808, the South was so dependent upon slavery that it was unwilling to let it go."

Does that look better or worse? J DIGGITY  SPEAKS  20:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Neither of the sources claimed that Beck praised and endorsed the slave trade. They said that Beck praised a clause that endorsed the slave trade.  And you cannot quote Beck to show he opposed the slave trade because that violates WP:SYN.  The Four Deuces (talk) 21:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the current wording is fine. It does not claim that Beck praised and endorsed the slave trade - it suggests that Beck praised a clause that endorsed the slave trade, just as The Four Deuces states.  Quoting Beck to show he opposed the salve trade does not violate SYN, the material is sourced to the same Media Matters article and it is on the same clause being criticized.  MM even states "Beck acknowledges the provision he praised protected the slave trade." tying it directly into the criticism.  As far as Jim's request, no one is suggesting the clause praised the slave trade.  It was saying that Beck was critized for praising the clause that protected the salve trade.  In any case, the current version was clarified so as not to be misunderstood as perhaps that last version could have been.  Morphh   (talk) 22:24, 03 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I guess it's fine. I'm just tired of the people that want to POV the crap out of articles. I suppose that there is no prevention for this kind of thing. J  DIGGITY  SPEAKS  23:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry I did not notice that Media Matters mentioned Beck's later comments on Clause 1. The section now appears to accurately reflect the criticisms and is properly sourced. (Version 323743409)  I would suggest however that Media Matters should be mentioned before Keith Olbermann because they are a better source and they receive greater mention in the section.  The Four Deuces (talk) 23:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Reordered MM & Olbermann. With regard to Beck's later statement, if it's too long, I would be ok with removing the quoted text, so long as we keep his description.  Morphh   (talk) 0:40, 04 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I would leave it the way it is. Paraphrasing Beck's comments could distort the meaning.  The Four Deuces (talk) 01:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

AGAIN?!?!
Apparently, Jimintheatl is back with his version of the article, which was repeatedly rejected by the majority of editors on this page. Does anyone wish to change their minds about their previous decision? (For the record, I don't. I think it's as good as it's going to get as-is.) Also, I'm not sure Tiger Woods qualifies as an "issue discussed," since there is a grand total of twenty words about him in a list. However, it's not POV or anything stupid, so I'm not all that worried about it. J DIGGITY  SPEAKS  04:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Why is this being brought up again? It was considered WP:OR before and is WP:OR now. Soxwon (talk) 19:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Who freakin knows. All I know is this is going to be a problem that I take to an administrator if it happens again. J  DIGGITY  SPEAKS  20:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

LITTLE MISTAKE: The uniform
Quotation: "... played by Beck dressed up in the uniform of a Russian Commissar."

Sorry, this is wrong.

The uniform Beck wears on the cover of the book isn't Russian. And so it can't be the uniform of a Russian (better: Soviet! - this is also wrong) Commissar. It's a German sergeant's (German: "Unteroffizier") uniform (German:"Dienstanzug") of the Transmission and Signal Corps (German: "Fernmeldetruppe") in the German Army (German: "Deutsches Heer"). But: Not the hat and not the medals. This stuff isn't German. Maybe Russian, maybe not. An PDF-information about uniforms and dress codes in the German Armed Forces:  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.106.202 (talk) 15:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC) Now that the explanation is over, I have a few other things to address. So, because I agree with you, I'm not an idiot? Are you serious? Your statement above is toeing the lines of civility and personal attacks, and that kind of crap is not welcome by most people here. Have you considered the possibility that the Soviets had a uniform similar to the one Beck and/or the German's used? Or is that just crazy? Or, more to the point, have you considered reading the rules that Wikipedia has set up? And yes, a serious source has said that this is a Soviet uniform, and that would be Beck himself. You know, the writer of the book? The guy who's idea it was to use the uniform in the first place? But, of course, what does he know compared to you? He only makes $23 million a year. He can't be that smart. J DIGGITY  (U ¢ ME)  21:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC) However, that does not change the fact that your claim is still original research. I believe you are correct. I really do. However, we can't make the statement that he is wrong about the uniform based on the fact that it looks like a german uniform. Here is an excerpt from the original research guidelines:
 * Beck might have gotten his uniforms wrong (which is likely, since I think he was going more for effect than accuracy), but he called it a Russian Commissar uniform, so that was his intent. We have to go with what the sources say, and not what we think. You could very well be right (I'm certain you are), but until a reliable source says the same thing you just did, it's original research, and that isn't allowed. Find a source and we will change it. J  DIGGITY  (U ¢ ME)  17:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't call this "arguing with idiots" because you have said that you are convinced that this is a german uniform jacket. So obviously you aren't an "idiot". But why are you "certain" that I'am right and don't change it? - You read the German armed forces information brevier, didn't you? And this told you, that Beck wears a german uniform. And this official brevier shouldn't be a serious source? Than I don't know what is "serious" in your eyes. I know your "argumentation" from the german wikipedia discussions. The first problem is: You are not arguing. The second problem is: No serious source called this uniform a soviet commissar's one. So better you have to go with that what the sources say: nothing about the uniform. You don't have to change, you better delete it. That's all. Or you have to tell us your "serious" sources. You "follow" the wikipedia rules, knowing they lead you wrong. This is one of the causes that nobody takes wikipedia for serious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.34.166.79 (talk) 18:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I will try to use a simpler explanation: You don't have a source that says specifically that Beck's uniform is a german uniform. You have a picture, yes, and you are probably right. However, until a reliable source reports on this, it is original research to make the claim that it is a german uniform . (If that is not simple enough for you, you might want to give the rules the old once-over.) I'm sorry that the rules were set up in a way that is inconvenient to you. If you want someone to blame, find the administrator that made the rules. Your source is a good source, but it does not specifically reference Beck's uniform. Yes, it might have a picture of a uniform that is similar, or even identical, to Beck's, it really doesn't matter. Until you have a source that says, specifically, that Beck is wearing a german uniform, the claim cannot be made.
 * Beck himself, maybe making $23 billion a year, can't be a more serious source than an official brevier of the german department of defense is. "Specifically" about german uniforms. I think there is nothing more to say. When these are all your arguments and all your sources, it is very evident who is right. For everybody. It doesn't matter how do you and a lot of others (in german wikipedia this is the method of arguing of the left wing authors, because they have no other) understand this rules. Right is right.
 * Short: Maybe it's not conform with the wikipedia rules, to write that this IS a german uniform jacket, because there is no specifical source. Ok. But it is also wrong to write that this IS a soviet one. This is obviously wrong. This is too easily proofable. And no source, exept the book the article is about, says this. To argue scientifically correct, there must be another one.
 * And sorry! - I think this is caused by my bad english: It was NOT my intention to insult you! (Not an excuse: German is a more directly language than english. And for somebody who's english is seldom used, it is nearly impossible to translate the meaning correctly. Translating the words is hard enough for me.) Now I understand that my words could be understood as an affront. Please, excuse me for that! --78.34.166.79 (talk) 21:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ceterum censeo: As an former german army officer in rank of a captain, I am shure that I know much more about german uniforms, than Beck (and 99% of the world) does. And shurely I do not earn $ 23 Million a year - not in ten years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.34.166.79 (talk) 22:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If it was not your intent to insult or attack, I will take you at your word. (And, if I may say so, your command of English is impressive for a second language.) And I also appreciate the straight talk. I am so used to idiots that just want to discredit people that they will look for the smallest little thing to pick at that I sometimes forget that there are actually people that just want the truth to win out. I guessed wrongly about which you were, and you have my apology.


 * Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions.

(P.S.- Unless the German version of the left-wing is the exact opposite from the American, I am decidedly not left-wing. Not trying to come off mad, I just found that amusing.) J  DIGGITY  (U ¢ ME)  23:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I assume this is for legal reasons, but I am not certain. The short version is this: you may be right, but you are not a reliable source. This is not a slight against your observational abilities. This is so people can't walk in and make unsourced and unfounded claims. Sometimes (i.e., right now), this rule is counterproductive and can really piss people off. I get that. However, this is the rule. If you can find a published source that points out this error, I would be happy to insert that into the article (you are, of course, free to insert it yourself). Until then, however, we can't just ignore the rules, because then the people that do want to come in here and fuck with the article for personal reasons have all the leverage they need. And besides, can you absolutely say that there was never a Soviet Commissar uniform that looked like the uniform Beck is wearing? I'm asking for informational purposes, as I have zero knowledge of any kind of uniforms outside of the U.S. Military. Certainly not to patronize you.
 * Yes I am shure: It is not a soviet/russian uniform jacket. 100%. - Neither the hat. 99%.
 * FWIW (and it may not be worth much) this source and some others describe it as an East German military uniform (see File:Nva-ehrenwache.jpg). This source describes Beck in the Photo as "striking his best Werner Klemperer pose and, for some unexplained reason, dressed in an East German military uniform." (see this photo of Werner Klemperer as Colonel Klink). Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you read the source? There, they are discussing the question IF Beck's uniform is eastern german or western german. This is no "source". The answer is given on that page: western german. (Watch the photo of the german airborne Hauptfeldwebel (mastersergeant).) And Beck's uniform jacket has not the epaulettes in the rank of an Oberleutnant (lieutenant 1st class). It is the rank of an Unteroffizier (sergeant). Also it is not the whole uniform, wich is german. It is only the jacket which is german. The "source" is not serious. - I think this kid's stuff is not so important. Now I am sorry that I had started this. For an extra information: Oberst (Colonel) Klink is wearing an uniform of the Luftwaffe (air force), not of the Heer (army) with the old epaulettes of the Wehrmacht and Reichswehr (German Armed Forces, 1919-1935-1945), not of the Bundeswehr (german Armed Forces, since 1956).
 * Both sources I mentioned say, "... dressed in an East German military uniform. The first source mentioned is Michael C. Moynihan, Oberleutnant Beck ist Arguing With Ze Idiots!, Reason Online, August 24, 2009. That article includes a number of blogish reader comments, one of which says, "Sorry, it ain't an East German uniform jacket, it's a West German one. ...". However, while the Reason Online article is arguably acceptable as a reliable source, the blogish comments thereon are not (see Wikipedia's verifiability policy, "Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Posts left by readers may never be used as sources."). Additionally, this might be instructive. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC) --82.113.106.98 (talk) 02:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This is to much. I am a former German officer of the army. I know all german uniforms. It's not that hard. It is NOT an eastern german uniform of the NVA, Nationale Volksarmee. It is one of the Bundeswehr. And this "blogs" you mentioned are obviously no serious source. This is a serious information: [BMVg-Uniformbröschüre: http://www.bundeswehr.de/fileserving/PortalFiles/C1256EF40036B05B/N264JEZ8237MMISDE/BMVg_93_A5+Brosch_INTERNET_neu.pdf?yw_repository=youatweb] .--82.113.106.94 (talk) 18:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not a former German officer and not an expert on military uniforms, but I have read Wikipedia's verification policy. Of the sources I mentioned, this one is a short book review article in Reason Online, written by a senior editor of Reason magazine and Reason.com, which says, "... for some unexplained reason, dressed in an East German military uniform." I don't know whether or not he mada a mistake in saying that, but I do know that this senior editor of an apparently reliable source did verifiably say that in a published article. That same article includes a reader comment saying, "Sorry, it ain't an East German uniform jacket, it's a West German one. ...". That comment can not be considered as coming from a reliable supporting source, but the content of the main article can be (at least AFAIK without running a question about Reason Online through WP:RSN). Did that senior editor of Reason make a mistake there? I don't know&mdash;such mistakes are made from time to time, even in reliable sources. Such mistakes can be called into question by mentioning contradictory assertions made by other sources of equal or better reliability.
 * Remember the lead sentence of WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth&mdash;that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." and, from WP:NOR, "Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions." Please don't argue that your personal experiences trump my sources&mdash;cite sources which support alternative interpretations or assertions (See WP:DUE).
 * I didn't argue. I tried to tell you, that I am tired to argue anymore. The fact is, you will quote sources you believe in. The problem is that what you believe. Believe me or not: An german army officer needs only two seconds to recognize that this uniform as a western one. Not NVA, not Wehrmacht or Reichswehr. - Bundeswehr. If you guess you are right and I am wrong: Change the article and quote the sources you like. I think I was and will be the only german (former) soldier or officer who read this article. So it doesn't matter really. Truth or not - who cares.
 * Re this, which you offer as a "source of serious information", I see some uniforms similar to the one Beck is shown wearing on pages 8-10 there, but they look like they are made from different textiles and have other differences. I see that as similar in weight to this, which I mentioned in passing above and which shows a uniform superficially similar to the one Beck is shown wearing and identifies it as "East German Officer Uniform ". Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? The jacket is an Unteroffizier of the signal corps (transmission). An official brochure of the german department of defense is no source? How childish is that. i is obvious by taking a look at the brochures indicated page. as for barnes and nobles contradicting it... so thats a reputable source then?--Tresckow (talk) 23:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * (Only for imformation: It's precisly page nine of the BMVg's brochure.)Didn't you recognize the different colours? How could you say this sources are similar in weight? - Sorry, but this all is not worth to loose a word anymore.--82.113.106.194 (talk) 14:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that this tiny point has been argued well past the point of usefulness. You and I have both offered sources showing pictures of uniforms which have some similarities to the one shown on the book cover. The uniforms pictured on page nine of that source appear (to my eye) to differ from the uniform on the book cover in color and possibly in textile type. Your unsupported identification of the service branch associated with those uniforms differs from some of the identifications (e.g., East German Officer Uniform) which I've seen reported for the uniform on the book cover. The source I offered shows a picture of a uniform which (to my eye) is superficially similar to the uniform in the picture on the book cover, and which is identified by the offered source as, "East German Officer Uniform". AFAICS, neither source is a good one for establishing that the uniform pictured in the source is the same uniform pictured on the book cover. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What if we just say German Uniform. Does it matter?   Morphh   (talk) 21:46, 07 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It was not my aim to discredit Glenn Beck. I am neither left wing. In my eyes all the left-wing people are the same. In the U.S. or in Germany - that doesn't matter. They are not able to see their own long-term-interests and they are not sensible(?) or couraged enough to see that there are a lot of interests in the world which are directed against them (and ourselves). I was searching for the differents between american (palaeo) conservative and neoconservative and german (palaeo) conservative and what could be german neoconservative (this doesn't really exist) in the future. Maybe a special german version of libertarianism? Is that the same as "neocon"? I don't think so. Where are the (historical) differences and where the same interests? So I discovered Glenn Beck and I found the article about "Arguing with Idiots" and saw the german uniform. That's all. It is not a holy war for me. It is enough for me that you guess, I am right with that point. (I could write a little book about german uniforms with a little passage about Glenn Beck's uniform. Than we have a source ... :-)) . I don't think that this is important to judge the book. Not important for a serious reader. But who is serious in this world?
 * There is no need for your apologize! It was only a reaction I understood very well. I would have reacted in the same way. - Happy new year from Germany! Or: Ein frohes neues Jahr! ((talk))--82.113.106.198 (talk) 17:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Guys, THIS IS A WEST GERMAN UNIFORM, I am waering it, and everyone who is or was in the German (East or West) Army sees the HUGE difference. I dont know the rules of wikipedia, but I feel offended by this cover. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.21.74.159 (talk) 00:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

What's so special about including citations?
Is it necessary to say "The last 25 pages are citations of the various facts he uses to support his positions, from hundreds of sources, along with websites and links to various pieces of information", considering that a lot of books have citations/endnotes/references/bibliographies? It seems a bit like the article's trying to say "Beck provides references to prove he's not making stuff up". --AdamSommerton (talk) 02:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Old argument revisited
I'm nominating the current text by Keith Olberman and Mediamatters be deleted per WP:COATRACK. I calculated it and 47% of the article is dedicated solely to a relatively minor mistake in the book. To quotes excerpts from WP:COATRACK:

An article might have a disproportionately large "criticism" section, giving the impression that the nominal subject is hotly contested by many people, when in fact the criticism is merely selected opinions. This, too, gives the reader a false impression about reality even though the details may be true.

In this case the criticism- while not in its own section- takes up nearly half the article. WP:COATRACK says:

When confronted with a potential coatrack article, an editor is invited to ask: what impression does an uninitiated reader get from this article?

and with this article how is the reader not to assume the book is replete with errors when half the article is devoted to pointed out errors? Thus I'm moving to remove such content until the time has come(if ever) when this article is much larger and such text only takes up a smaller percentage of the article. Ink Falls   23:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem is that this is a very poor book and has received almost no attention, despite the fact it was a bestseller. Coverage of books should be based on reliable secondary sources.  While Olbermann's show is not a very good source, it is one of the few sources that reviewed the book.  The best course of action would be to merge this article into Glenn Beck, and then provide a brief mention.  But if you want a full article then it must rely on secondary sources and that means the Olbermann review.  If anyone can provide any other review then that should be considered.  TFD (talk) 03:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree -- if you want an article on a subject, you can't then cherry pick what reliable sources to use; if all of the reviews were dismal, the article should reflect such. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 11:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * True dat.Jimintheatl (talk) 11:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * What books by politically conservative or right-wing authors would get a good review from Media Matters or Olby? The problems here is WP:UNDUE both as to the reviewers chosen and the particular (rather hard to follow as worded) "Article I" criticism. Just glancing briefly at a Google search I noticed a good review from, as one might expect, National Review. Perhaps that one and/or another could be used to balance the "dead on arrival" reviews now in the article, if, indeed, those predictably negative reviewers should be used at all. Badmintonhist (talk) 14:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I cannot find any reviews by US conservative reviewers, including the National Review. You may be referring to the unsigned promotional description at the "National Review Book Service" that sells the book on line.  TFD (talk) 15:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd be much happier if we could find some positive reviews to balance the section, rather than cut this. Morphh   (talk) 16:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * There's no requirement to whitewash or "cut" bad reviews if there isn't a counterbalancing good review. WP:NPOV doesn't mandate that every opinion must be balanced with a countering opinion, it only mandates that we present facts relative to their weight as a whole.  It is possible that there may be general agreement that this book just sucks -- if so, the Wikipedia article should reflect that.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

What is everyone talking about?
"There are no reviews out there" they said. I googled "Arguing with Idiots book review" and my first click was here. Didn't read the whole thing, but here's a good excerpt: Beck covers all the bases in the book, from defending Capitalism to the nanny state and universal health care. Twelve chapters cover the bulk of the disputes between liberal/progressive/socialists and libertarians and conservatives. This is no dull, academic recitation of facts either. Using his inimitable style, “the fusion of entertainment and enlightenment,” Beck infuses this book with humor, satire and cutting sarcasm that keeps the reader chuckling and giggling while simultaneously stimulating them into the occasional “Amen, brother” ejaculation.

Beck plays the Interlocutor and schizophrenically plays the “Ideeot” foil for his analysis and debunking of the common stupidities of the well-indoctrinated lumpen proletarian. “So not only do you not want to penalize oil companies, you actually want to help them make even more money by letting them slaughter innocent polar bears and arctic seals,” whines the Ideeot. Whereupon Beck proceeds to shred the vacuous argument in detail. This is the specious-claim/authoritative rebuttal format of the main text of the book, and it’s a very effective way of demonstrating the idiocy of the Left’s propaganda by using their verbatim nitwit arguments against them.

Here, here are some more.(god finding those was easy) Ink Falls   21:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The first reference is from a "a Gazette-sponsored online-only columnist". The second review is from Family security matters, which published an editorial recommending the appointment of George W. Bush as president for life and advocated removing all Arabs from Iraq.  The third reference is not a review but a promotion of the book by an on-line site that sells it.  None of these meet standards of notability or reliablity.  Where is the review in the New York Times?  TFD (talk) 04:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Gazette source looks fine to me. There is no notability standard for RS - that policy is for creating an article.  Note that we're pulling negative reviews from Media Matters, so we don't have high quality sources on either side at this point.  I think we'd be fine to include the opinion of an editorial review, so long as we attribute the review.  Morphh   (talk) 11:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You might also check-out reviews from the Brooklyn Rail and the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review  both of which would be preferable to the automatically  negative reviews Beck would get from Media Matters or Olbermann. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Those two reviews seem fine. As for the Gazette, While blogs are acceptable, WP:Weight would require us to give little or no attention to it.  TFD (talk) 18:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, didn't notice it was a blog. I had followed your link above and not Ink Falls, so I agree with you here.  Morphh   (talk) 18:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review "review" isn't really a review. It's a singular comment about the cover picture and a generic statement from the publisher, and that his fans will love it.  No critical commentary or other information that constitutes non-trivial coverage.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it is pretty threadbare. There is a fairly long, if rather flip, review of the book in David Horowitz's conservative FrontPage Magazine that might be used. Badmintonhist (talk) 04:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As you might imagine, I don't have any copies of FPM handy. Is it available online?  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe it can be found here. Soxwon (talk) 22:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice job, Badmintonhist. Thanks.Jimintheatl (talk) 13:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The changes are an improvement. However I would suggest putting the Brookline Line review first because it is much closer to a traditional independent book review than the others.  TFD (talk) 16:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Belatedly, I agree with this reasoning and the change which has already been made. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Is not this book quite fanatic? Too much on the right - politically, without real facts.. By the way, who (what kind of person) could buy this book? Are there so many conservative members of Tea party in U.S.? Well, it reminded me lot of Michel Moor in same way but from the opposite political spectrum. Also bestseller..90.180.174.151 (talk) 07:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Uniform
Please look at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Army_dress_uniforms_of_Bundeswehr. There you can see, this is the uniform of a german sargeant. (rank can be checked on the wikipedia pages of the Bundeswehr and the Nationale Volksarmee. Only one detail shows for sure, which uniform you can see there. The west german sargant does not have a lacing around the collar. So, if this would be a east german uniform, there would have to be a white lacing. An example of the uniform of an east german sargeant you can see at http://media.photobucket.com/image/nva%20unteroffizier/iannima/NVA%20Slides/MilHonAK74a2.jpg. There you can see the white lacing around the collar.

It is right, to look for references, but wikipedia should show the truth, not what a notable person meant to be the truth. So if we discover a reference to be clearly wrong, we should show the truth, not, what someone thought to be the truth.Thw1309 (talk) 00:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Please see
 * Wikipedia's policy on verifiability, the lead sentence of which reads, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.";
 * The Due and undue weight section of Wikipedia's policy on Neutral point of view;
 * The Synthesis of published material that advances a position section of Wikipedia's policy on No original research.
 * The article should report what reliable sources say. If sources differ, due weight considerations apply. What Wikipedia editors believe to be true is not considered to be a reliable source, regardless of how solid that belief is. What Wikipedia editors are able to conclude by putting together bits of information from hither and yon is unacceptable synthesis. I've re-edited the relevant portion of the lead on this, adding a clarifying footnote and citing a few supporting sources. Improvements are welcome, both to what I've written and to the sources I've cited. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I've just reverted this edit, which would have added a note with unsupported editorial observations about the specifics of the uniform.

Pages viii and ix inside the book contain a slightly zoomed-out copy of the cover photo which shows a bit more of the uniform. The cap is show, and has a hammer and sickle cap badge similar to the one shown here. The cap itself looks very similar to the "Russian Militia Officer Uniform Visor Hat Cap" shown here except that the portion immediately above the visor is colored black and has what looks like a silver or silver-gold colored cord, and the aforementioned cap badge is placed above that part of the cap -- on the front part of the crown where the exampled cap has a different insignia. Also, he's wearing what appears to be a Jubilee medal "60 Years of the Armed Forces of the USSR" (see the Orders, decorations, and medals of the Soviet Union article). One row of ribbon decorations is fully visible and another row partially visible (six visible ribbon decorations in all), but I have not tried to identify them. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC); copyedited to de-garble, fixing errors due to netbook keyboard glitches and lousy proofreading Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 one external links on Arguing with Idiots. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101206114302/http://www.caffeinatedcritics.com:80/2010/05/arguing-with-idiots-by-glenn-beck.html to http://www.caffeinatedcritics.com/2010/05/arguing-with-idiots-by-glenn-beck.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110128162020/http://www.caffeinatedcritics.com/ to http://www.caffeinatedcritics.com
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718094812/http://markepstein.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/8135_130102208187_36400348187_2398740_4463798_n.jpg to http://markepstein.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/8135_130102208187_36400348187_2398740_4463798_n.jpg
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100212165857/http://frontpagemag.com:80/2009/10/12/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-of-glenn-beck%E2%80%99s-idiots-by-david-forsmark/? to http://frontpagemag.com/2009/10/12/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-of-glenn-beck%E2%80%99s-idiots-by-david-forsmark/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090924103538/http://www.glennbeck.com:80/bookczar/ to http://www.glennbeck.com/bookczar

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)