Talk:Beck University

Non notable material
I removed some non notable material from the article. Not sure if the current article warrants a reception section at this point. Anyways,--Tom (talk) 13:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Stop deleting entire sections, which were the work of numerous editors. Your solitary dissent does not trump the collective efforts of other editors.Jimintheatl (talk) 14:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The "material" in the reception section, especially partisan sources, doesn't seem all that notable, especially given the current state/detail of the article. Has the "school" been covered by NY times, washington post, ect, they could be more useful it seems. --Tom (talk) 14:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow. Either hell just froze over, or I'm still asleep, because I have to agree with Jim on this one. If you are going to delete an entire section that isn't obvious vandalism, you should first discuss it on the talk page. However, I also have to agree with Tom. Why exactly is it so important to some people to put every negative thing they can find in certain articles? So Beck is doing this for money. Who cares? I don't know anyone that works for free at every job they have, unless unemployed or working in prison. So the grand Keith Olberwomann found something to say about this. Why is that so important? Is someone spending too much time worshiping....I mean, watching Keith? Just because it comes out of a progressive's mouth doesn't always make it notable, Jim. J  DIGGITY  (U ¢ ME)  18:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * They make money in prison. Just not much. Threeafterthree did not break any rules by blanking it. WP:BRD should have been followed but Jim has obviously not learned from his previous block and probably should recieve another for edit warring. You know better.
 * Content wise, this is a contraversey section which is frowned upon. A cute section title does not change that. Trim the negative reactions if they are receiving undue weight (again you should know better) and consider working it into another section less grouped together. Controversy sections can work so if it stays as a section it needs to be handled with care.Cptnono (talk) 18:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Here are the citations/sources currently being used for the reception section: --Tom (talk) 18:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Introducing Glenn Beck University
 * mediamatters
 * Mother Jones
 * Keith Olbermann
 * I don't see how using derogatory names and unsourced labels in regard to BLP subjects, or stating how much time other editors worship said BLPs, are very helpful in improving this article. Akerans (talk) 19:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your opinion. J  DIGGITY  (U ¢ ME)  21:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The intro/main body of this article is in large part PR-style stuff. The general, mainstream (er, lamestream) reaction has been huh? or WTF? or worse.   If a Beck U article is warranted, including the reaction is warranted.  This is Beck's attempt to correct/rewrite history; he sees his effort as historic, talks about it in grandiose terms---so public/media response is expected and necessary.Jimintheatl (talk) 02:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and Captain Finger Wag can tut-tut at someone who gives a flip.Jimintheatl (talk) 02:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Do not continue to be rude. You know thee is little tolerance.
 * Potential overuse of primary sources and inappropriate tone do not justify the inclusion of other material. It simply means both issues need to be addressed.Cptnono (talk) 02:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Jim, I'm wondering to whom/what you refer when you say, "so public/media response is expected and necessary." I saw no public response added by you, and, quite frankly, what public response? The thousands of people that have signed up for Beck U? The thousands that have participated so far? And since when does Media Matters and Keith Olbermann comprise the only media response to something Beck says? Once again, you have to put both sides out, or no sides. You have to put the positive out with the negative.
 * And "Captain Finger Wag"? That's just the best comeback ever. You should apply for a job at Media Matters or Huffington Post. J  DIGGITY  (U ¢ ME)  05:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You haven't exactly been civil yourself, J Diggity, since you yourself referred to Keith Olbermann as "Keith Olberwomann" during this discussion. Stonemason89 (talk) 16:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, because calling a guy that does a liberal/progressive opinion show by an insulting nickname in a discussion about the man is the epitome of incivility. Someone call the administrators! Block me for incivility before someone gets hurt!!! J  DIGGITY  (U ¢ ME)  22:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * JoshDiggyDoggIngrawhatever--when did you develop a sense of humor? My world spins/freezes over as well.....  Thanks, I guess.  FYI: I don't have cable and don't watch Keith O or Glenn B, but the interwebs are kinda cool fer lookin at stuff.Jimintheatl (talk) 01:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Dude, I've always had a sense of humor. I don't always use it, but it's always there. J  DIGGITY  (U ¢ ME)  19:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * (1) I'm using "public" in the broadest sense. (2) The section in question is not a controversy section except insofar as Beck is a person who courts and creates controversy.  The founding of a "university" by Glenn Beck will of course raise question, comments and eyebrows.  Just consider the man and his whole rewrite/reclaim/restore history schtick/stick-in-the-eye to established academia.  A generic/PR-style "Beck U was founded on....Courses include....the school's motto/mascot are...." doesn't do the subject justice. (3) This is not a BLP.Jimintheatl (talk) 17:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I refer you all to this page, in the hopes that in the future you don't be a dick... Hanrendar (talk) 04:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Now the info is in but the sources are broken. The similarity to Trump's thing is not that big of a deal and isn't really needed. Is the Olbermann thing even sourced (citeepisode would work). COATRACK does apply and that is what it has turned into. The POV concerns have already been explained. BLP could apply since it appears the reasoning to insert this info is to defame a living person even though the article is about his thing and not him specifically. Marknutley has brought up issues in edit summaries (one of the sources was a blog and another was not to Mother Jones)See no reason not to remove it for now and reintroduce it when it is fixed. I would remove it right now but expect Jim to just revert. Although that would be fine since he would just be reported for edit warring another solution would be preferred. Any objections to its removal from anyone else, suggestion on how to specifically fix it, or will someone just fix it?Cptnono (talk) 05:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Jim has again reverted. There is a talk page and it should be used. Even worse, he is doing it in a way that does not offer sources. Cptnono (talk) 03:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Okeedoke, Capt Tsk-Tsk, what now?  The wholesale deletions of the contributions of several editors (w/o talk page  engagement) were the violations of consensus.  My last restore omitted Olbermann portion and restored the sources.  What now?  You seriously ready to argue that the establishment of  a "Beck U" is a bland/non-responsive topic(e.g., Joe's School of Dance and Finger-wagging?)?Jimintheatl (talk) 02:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No. Your reverts were not with consensus. If you read the admin's decision the other way then you will simply be reported again if you revert after the protection is lifted. So if you really want to discuss this, we need to figure out where the material should go, which sources are acceptable, and how much weight to give it. You have also been reported at Wikiquette alerts for continuing to alter my user name after being asked to not be rude. You need to stop acting like this if you actually want to participate and improve Wikipedia.Cptnono (talk) 02:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been trying to stay out of this, but I guess I should add my opinion. I'm ok with the first sentence, but don't believe the example course titles are overly relevant and add large bias (contributing to coatrack), but I'm fine with saying in a neutral way that Mother Jones criticized and satirized BeckU.  The second sentence should not be included - it's a personal attack against Beck and a violation of BLP.  I'd be ok with combining the two groups (and sources) in a summary for a sentence that plainly states something to the effect that BeckU has been criticized by progressive organizations, without going into personal attacks on Beck or the particular satire (class titles, etc).   Morphh   (talk) 3:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps something like this: Morphh   (talk) 17:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * this looks good to me. Thanks.Jimintheatl (talk) 18:19, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You can`t use media matters for BLP information, just about everything in that link is a BLP violation. The Mother Jones ref is to a blog. I do not believe this source can be used either for information about a BLP mark nutley (talk) 18:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think a source in itself can be a BLP violation. A source is defined by the WP:V policy, so it's either an WP:RS or not. BLP adds the requirement that contentious material should not be poorly sourced. So I guess we could debate that, but we're not adding anything overly contentious about Glenn Beck here. BLP applies to Wikipedia and how we write and source the content, not how that source presents the material. I think the Mother Jones blog would fall under WP:NEWSBLOG and be acceptable in this case. Morphh  (talk) 18:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * A source can of course be a blp violation. The mother jones blog probably does pass muster, media matters does not. It is critical of beck, not the university. It is not a source which ca nbe used for a BLP mark nutley (talk) 19:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * A piece mocking it just doesn't seem that important and I see no reason to include it unless we want to drive traffic to the story/blog/whatever.Cptnono (talk) 19:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * True, a case for WP:UNDUE could be made here. Morphh   (talk) 19:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize how lazy editors (me too of course) were being until I did a quick news searchThere is tons of info. Why would we even use Mother Jones when The Wall Street Journal did a satire piece? I still think the tone is innapropriate but my point is that there are write ups 1000x better than Media Matters that go into fine detail. Time and Daily Finance ar just a couple. So maybe the best next step is to ditch the questionable sources and find reception information (not necessarily criticism to make a point) and other stuff in sources that are not going to cause a problem and actually say something about the subject. And if we do use sources that are biased we certainly shouldn't mirror their tone. I think the whole reception section should be scraped until something with some substance is provided and editors Jim actually focuses on improving the article instead of trashing Beck. Beck does it too himself, Jim, he doesn't need your help.[[User:Cptnono|Cptnono] (talk) 09:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Cptnono, are you exempt from your own insistence that users be addressed by their full usernames?Jimintheatl (talk) 02:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And if, as you say, Cptnono, there is "tons of info," doesn't that indicate WP:NOTABILITY? Jimintheatl (talk) 02:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You can say "Cpt" "Nono" "CNN" "dude" "you" or whatever that is not an intentionally rude comment. If you don;t want to be called "jim" then that is fine and I will stop. I never said anything about the full name but unneeded alterations so stop playing games and be happy that you were not actually banned for two months.
 * Yes, Beck University is notable and should have a page. Criticism might be out there too but it needs to be addressed in a manner compliant with the MoS and neutrality standards. So again stop playing games. Your sources and draft were not good enough so try again with a renewed interest in improving Wikipedia and not scandal mongering or making a point.Cptnono (talk) 06:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And I take back the lazy comment (well besides for me) since someone did use the Time and Daily Finance sources at the top of the news search. Most of the others are blogs and stuff but those two are pretty decent so good work to the editor who did those.Cptnono (talk) 01:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have added a line about Barton since two of the better sources we have make mention of the controversy. See how I did that without giving it an independent subsection? Speaking of sections, some of the better university articles have the crest in its own so I figured I would add "courses" in place of "academia" and one for the crest. See the MoS at the University project for some info. A History section probably isn't warranted at this time. Also to improve tone and neutrality, I removed the R quote from Beck. This seems a good way toimprove the article without adding a controversy section.Cptnono (talk) 02:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have added a line about Barton since two of the better sources we have make mention of the controversy. See how I did that without giving it an independent subsection? Speaking of sections, some of the better university articles have the crest in its own so I figured I would add "courses" in place of "academia" and one for the crest. See the MoS at the University project for some info. A History section probably isn't warranted at this time. Also to improve tone and neutrality, I removed the R quote from Beck. This seems a good way toimprove the article without adding a controversy section.Cptnono (talk) 02:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Removal Why
I have removed various things from the article for wp:blp and wp:coatrack breachs. Please do not reinsert this content mark nutley (talk) 22:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

YouTube
These videos are against one of the 5 pillars of the project (policy: Neutral point of view) since they turn the page into an attack page. You should read WP:ELNO which is part of the External link guideline. Note that links to be avoided included: "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article", "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material" (it is obviously a parody and not factual information), "Links mainly intended to promote a website." (looks like promotion of that uploader), and "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority." (this is surely similar to one person's blog). Furthermore, it there is nothing in WP:ELYES or WP:ELMAYBE (same page) condoning the use of such links.

Also, it should be mentioned that your edit summary shows a gross disregard for the bold, revert, discuss cycle. You should have opened up discussion instead of reverting. You need to consider that these could be viewed as an attack on a living person and need to be removed in accordance with our strict standards on inclusion of material regarding such biographies. You also have proven that you cannot stay neuteral and if you continue I will seek your block from editing this article.Cptnono (talk) 22:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree, these videos are inappropriate for the article and do not meet the requirements for inclusion.  Morphh   (talk) 0:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Shield
Has there been any mention anywhere of how much the shield resembles that of Princeton University? It's rather striking, is it intentional? RobHar (talk) 18:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

So Princeton now has some kind of legal trademark copywrite on school sheilds? Excuse me? I think these ivy league elites are just jealous and scarred about all the students who are being enroled and being graduated at a conservative university. And yeah, its totally a real university Robhar. Maybe if you didnt spend all your time judging people who you dont think are good enough for you then you'd know that. Mardiste (talk) 21:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow! You appear to be the one who is doing the judging here. RobHar (talk) 23:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I have seen one secondary source that mentions the similarity. Not sure which one it was though.Cptnono (talk) 22:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Almost every university employs a book in some fashion, a cliche for schools, colleges and universities. The pointed segment, called a chevron, is also quite common in coats of arms, so it is impossible to know if it is coincidence the two use similar emblems or if Princeton's arms were used as a template. Someone that was in on the design process would really need to comment. Note that the U.S. Army's heraldry department also employs a very similar design and colours to Princeton, see File:IOHCOA.png, but they are completely unrelated.


 * And no, Beck University is not a real university, Mardiste. There are certain legal requirements that must be met in order to achieve legal university or college status, which Beck University does not meet. It is a name only, just like how Burger King is not really royalty. 173.24.117.126 (talk) 22:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Controversial?
Why is Barton called "controversial" for his views in this article? Controversial to whom? Certainly not to his readers. Very subjective; seems to be a bit of well-poisoning, too, in my humble opinion. -- 98.170.244.175 (talk) 04:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The citation calls it "famous" which seems like a stretch. I changed it to known for. --Threeafterthree (talk) 05:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Unaccredited Institution
I've categorized this as being an unaccredited institution much the same way Trump University is. 50.136.74.20 (talk) 20:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)