Talk:Glenn Beck/Archive 11

Civic religion...Kathleen Parker...natural law...
Some theological commentators have gently critiqued Beck's so-called civic religion, which is sort of a complicated critique that I'll side-step for a moment to instead approach Beck's religious pronouncements from what Kathleen Parker said in the WashingtonPost (if one can get past her sneering tone) and what a number of other commentators have said about there sort of being some "recovery from addiction" aspects to Beck's religious quest. When I read that Beck said on the 11th in Anchorage:"Find God. If you don’t find God, that’s cool, too, as long as you understand self-regulation. I’m far too weak for that. If it weren’t for my wife and my faith, I don’t know if I would be alive today."--I couldn't help but notice in Beck's words a fomulation of religion that is less straight-up Christian evangelism than it is a more broad-based self-helpism. ...Although, again, maybe his inclusive language here is simply his stiving for basic ecumenicalism, as well. Still, as many commentators have recently pointed out, Beck's 9-12 Project's primary principle is also belief in God. Yet, note that the 9-12 Project also contains this proviso whereby members may opt out from their sustaining some particular principle or another as long as they accept the vast majority of them. Which reminds me of how 12 Step programs have individual flexibility concerning their concept of "a Higher Power," as well. In any case, Beck based his nine values and twelve principles on the book The 5,000 Year Leap, and Leap, written by the theoconservative Cleon Skousen, has a distillation of 28 principles, out of which its first four happen to be, in my rough paraphrase (1) natural [divine] law (2) personal virtue/morals (3) community morals through working to elect leaders that hold to virtues and morals (4) encouraging religious observances, since without religion public morals cannot be maintained. In a way, can it be said that the premise of Beckian theoconservatism is that belief in God/being religious is good because such belief is effective in helping people be good and act altruistically?--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 08:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Selected commentaries: --Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 17:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Washington Post, Amarnath Amarasingam, Aug. 31: "Ever since sociologist Robert Bellah wrote Civil Religion in America in 1967, the concept has become one of the most widely debated in the sociology of religion. Many scholars suspected that American civil religion would decline in the face of individualism and secularism that they said was on the rise in the United States. Anyone who watched Glenn Beck's Restoring Honor rally this past weekend would have to disagree."
 * 2) Tikkun, Valerie Elverton-Dixon, Aug. 31:"The event was a dangerous entanglement of the American civil religion and Christianity. In the chapter on civil religion in Jean Jacques Rousseau’s treatise “The Social Contract”, Rousseau rehearses the history of humankind when “man had no kings save the gods, and no government save theocracy.”  That theocratic impulse still lives in the desire to believe that a divine power is watching over the nation for its protection and for its prosperity.  When a nation comes to believe that it is chosen by God for extraordinary favor, then it begins to worship its founders, its national documents and its monuments.  There is talk of hallowed ground, of holy places, spaces, days and sacred songs.  ... Beck hit the various notes of the civil religion, praising God and pointing to the various war memorials, saying that the fallen had given their lives for the American experiment: “An idea that man can rule himself.” He quoted from the Gettysburg address, calling it American scripture.  He made the Moses connection, saying that God was able to save a nation through a man with a stick.  He said: “America is great because America is good.  We as individuals must be good so America can be great.”  He spoke of the power of one man and one woman to change the world, and he challenged each one to “pick up your stick and stand.” Beck encouraged his audience to trust in divine providence, to learn who God is, to ask what more one can do to make the country better, to tithe 10 per cent of one’s income,  and to tell the truth and nothing but the truth.  He spoke of a nation who is on God’s side and standing for what is true in churches, synagogues and mosques.  He said: “God is the answer.” These were familiar themes for people of faith.  However, it was all infused with prayers in the name of Christ and witnesses to Jesus.  I do not remember a speaking role for anyone who was not a Christian.  This omission turns the civil religion Christian in ways that make the nation Christian and Jesus the God of America.  Such is not and ought not to be true for the good of both Jesus and the nation. Moreover, there was no overt link to public policy, though a call for a return to prayer in school and condemnation of abortion by Alveda King, niece of Dr Martin Luther King Jr, received warm approval."
 * 3) Douthat: "A Beck admirer could spin 'Restoring Honor' as proof that left-wing fears about the Tea Partiers are overblown: free of rancor, racism or populist resentment, the atmosphere at the rally resembled that of a church picnic or a high school football game. But a suspicious liberal could retort that all the God-and-Christ talk and military tributes were proof enough that a sinister Christian nationalism lurked beneath the surface. (I’m sure The New York Review of Books has already commissioned an essay on that theme.) ... Beck’s “Restoring Honor” was like an Obama rally through the looking glass. It was a long festival of affirmation for middle-class white Christians — square, earnest, patriotic and religious. If a speaker had suddenly burst out with an Obama-esque “we are the ones we’ve been waiting for,” the message would have fit right in.
 * 4) National Catholic Reporter,  Michael Sean Winters, Aug. 28: "[T]here is something creepy in the cult worship of Mr. Beck. I half expected him to give a five hour speech announcing a new five-year plan for the economy. His simplistic, self-contained understanding of history, and especially of the Founding of the American Republic, is but a hop, skip and jump from the simplistic, self-contained understanding a Marxist would espouse: The premises and the conclusions are different, but the style and the invitation to group-think are astonishingly, and frighteningly, similar."
 * 5) Chuck Colson in The Christian Post, Sept. 4: "[Beck] told Bill O’Reilly that America is a 'symphony.' So those who raise...issues, like signers of the Manhattan Declaration, are insisting on playing their 'clarinets' to detriment of the country. It grieves me that Beck has taken this position, particularly because it’s out of step with his own church. The Mormon church has been a great ally in the fight to defend marriage. Which leaves this question: What 'God' are we supposed to 'turn back' to? As Moore [evangelical theologian Russell Moore] put it, the answer Beck gives, is, 'at best, a generically theistic civil religion.' And that’s what the Restoring Honor rally was: an appeal to civil religion. And that’s OK. Civil religion has its place. But it’s never to be confused with the real thing. Glenn Beck is stepping into a leadership vacuum, and for that I applaud him. But folks, that means it’s time for Christians to become leaders ourselves."
 * 6) Russell D. Moore, The Christian Post, Aug. 30: "It's taken us a long time to get here, in this plummet from Francis Schaeffer [intellectual "father of the religious right"] to Glenn Beck. In order to be this gullible, American Christians have had to endure years of vacuous talk about undefined 'revival' and 'turning America back to God' that was less about anything uniquely Christian than about, at best, a generically theistic civil religion and, at worst, some partisan political movement. Rather than cultivating a Christian vision of justice and the common good (which would have, by necessity, been nuanced enough to put us sometimes at odds with our political allies), we've relied on populist God-and-country sloganeering and outrage-generating talking heads. We've tolerated heresy and buffoonery in our leadership as long as with it there is sufficient political "conservatism" and a sufficient commercial venue to sell our books and products. Too often, and for too long, American 'Christianity' has been a political agenda in search of a gospel useful enough to accommodate it. There is a liberation theology of the Left, and there is also a liberation theology of the Right, and both are at heart mammon worship."
 * 7) Religion News Service's Adelle M. Banks, Sept. 1: "'"Most evangelicals are friendly toward the idea of American civil religion and I think Beck's call sort of fit into that stream of history,' said Stan Guthrie, editor at large for Christianity Today. ... Randall Balmer, professor of religious history at Barnard College, said...said [Beck's] efforts to draw evangelical attention could end up creating exactly what Falwell's [Black Robe Regiment charter member Jerry Falwell, Jr.'s] father envisioned--a powerful coalition of politically conservative evangelicals, Catholics and Mormons."
 * 8) First Things, Joe Carter, Aug. 30: "There are probably a number of legitimate perspectives that First Things could offer on Glenn Beck’s recent rally in Washington, D.C. As an evangelical who is allergic to civic religion, my take is likely to be extremely unpopular. I am a fervent believer in the need for Christianity to take its natural place as the prophetic voice in the public square. But something about Beck’s approach rubbed me the wrong way."
 * 9) Get Religion, Mollie, Aug. 30: "[I]t was just tons of people coming together to talk about faith and values. It was the biggest civil religion event I’d seen since the 2008 Obama campaign. I’m highly sensitive to civil religion, seeing as how I am working on a book about it. ... When I watched this Reason [TV] video [of the rally], I heard much more civil religion. About how “our faith has driven us to become the greatest people the world has ever known”; “Faith is in short supply. To restore America, we must restore ourselves. We must rediscover the values and principles that the Founders established. We must restore the faith that once guided us.” It’s faith language, but without any doctrinal specificity, a lowest-common denominator deity (if such a thing is possible). Now, while I’m no fan of civil religion myself, this language parallels a lot of the language you hear from any successful American politician."
 * 10) The Washington Post, moderate Baptist ethicist Robert Parham, Aug. 31: “Fox News host Glenn Beck muddled biblical references with fragments of American history, recreating a pottage of civil religion that says America has a divine destiny and claiming that a national revival is beginning. ... Beck only uses the Bible to point toward the idea of a God-generic. He does not listen to the God of the Bible who calls for the practice of social justice, the pursuit of peacemaking, the protection of the poor in the formation of community. Beck has little room for God's warning about national idolatry and rejection of fabricated religion."
 * 11) Time, Alex Altman, Sept. 2: "David Neff, editor-in-chief of Christianity Today, said evangelicals are wary of partnering with a vague God of civil religion.... [T]he relationship between evangelicals and members of Beck's Mormon faith is improving—no small change when one group traditionally considers the other a cult and rival for overseas missions. For the last dozen years Richard Mouw, President of California's leading evangelical school Fuller Theological Seminary, has led groundbreaking conversations with Mormon leaders to bridge theological rapids.  Wheaton College, IL, the evangelical flagship, and Brigham Young University developed an annual spring break dialogue trip in 2007. ... But even Salt Lake City does not seem to want to muddy political-theology waters in this case—post-rally the Mormon church as been noticeably silent. If this keeps up, two of Beck's target audiences may be harder than anticipated to reach."
 * 12) The Atlantic, Chris Good, Aug. 28: "It's a history-driven narrative about personal redemption, religion, and American identity. ... A recovering alcoholic, Beck applies a moment-of-clarity, will-surrendering ethos of rehab and religious discovery to everything he touches, including politics on his TV show. It's all an epiphany--and it's all forceful and immediate. America is falling apart, and it needs to be saved. Beck is a level five hurricane of gnostic dualities, and his faith and life experiences seem to inform that worldview heavily. 'Find out what you truly believe,' Beck implores the crowd. 'When the storm comes up and your ship is being tossed, you gotta rely on something.'"
 * 13) Michelle Goldberg, The Daily Beast, Aug. 31: "Perhaps the most remarkable thing about the 'Restoring Honor' rally is its establishment of Glenn Beck, a Mormon, as a major leader of the Christian right. ... In my 2006 book, Kingdom Coming, The Rise of Christian Nationalism, I tried to describe the worldview of the Christian right--its belief that the United States began as a Christian nation, blessed for its piety, before sinking to unimaginable lows as secularism gained ground. ... [Beck] rew heavily on the work of David Barton, a revisionist Christian nationalist historian and staple of Christian right literature. ... There’s not much new in Beck’s ideology. A lot of it is familiar from the John Birch Society, a group founded in the 1950s by rabidly anti-communist businessmen given to elaborate conspiracy theories and religious fundamentalism. ... According to Jan Shipps, one of the country’s foremost historians of Mormonism, when Jerry Falwell was organizing the Moral Majority, he initially made a place for Mormons, but other members were so upset that he basically rescinded his welcome."


 * Very interesting commentary and thorough research, though I'm not sure to what end. Some of your commentary above seems to run afoul of our prohibition against original research and synthesis of thought...  Are you advocating for a change in structure to the article?  Is there a proposal for a new section or expansion?  Sorry if I missed the main point; I'm just trying to understand how this relates to the Wikipedia article.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What is Beck? evangelist? religious leader? in a class by himself? What tensions does whatever-his-role entail? One tension is the intellectual argument, sanguine or wary or in between, with concern "civic religion" aspects of Beck's "godly" advocacies--per the majority of above commentary. Usually, wary of original research when documenting current events, we create quote farms in article space, selectively letting commentators speak for themselves. With time, parameters of once-current events become crystalized in secondary sources and we can switch to plain prose with a few well selected references especially to observers that summarize the general gist of the commentary out there for us. But what the above is, is a quote farm here on the talk page. When and if some reliable source observationally crystalizes the tenor of what these commentators are saying, I hope to create a line, paragraph, or subsection saying what they said.  Or, I may do the quote farm thing in the article itself, in the mean time. Either way, we've   plenty of time. Beck seems set to remain in this track for a longer haul, I venture to guess .--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 00:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I can agree with your "quote farm" logic.  Ironically, the quotefarm template you reference explains that quote farms are inappropriate for an article.  I think asking rhetorical "what is beck" and then positing answers as rhetorical questions is beyond the scope of Wikipedia (as is trying to answer such questions).  We should simply report what other reliable sources state about Mr. Beck, with due weight, neutrally reflecting all viewpoints, in compliance with WP:BLP.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * My reference to quotations is very unclear so I'm crossing it out and trying again: Wikipedia tends to quote commentators a lot when covering current events; later, Wikipedia can instead reference secondary sources that summarize what commentators have said. The second state of affairs is preferred but remains impossible until such sources materialize. See wp:Recentism: "Recentism, in the...sense [of] established articles that are bloated with event-specific facts at the expense of longstanding content, is usually considered one of Wikipedia's faults. [...Yet a]ny encyclopedia, even Britannica, goes through rough drafts; new Wikipedia articles are published while in draft and developed/improved in real time, so rapidly developing drafts may appear to be a clutter of news links and half-developed thoughts. Later, as the big picture emerges, the least relevant content ought to be and often is eliminated." (And, of course, what status Beck should be thought to hold within the politically conservative faith-based community must await such crystalizations in the sources as well. (Incidentally, my in-a-class-by-himself question paraphrased the Southern Baptist Convention's Richard Land's response when asked about Beck's status within theoconservatism by the Washington Post's Michelle Boorstein: "Asked who would be considered conservative Christian leaders today - with Graham in his 90s and the recent death of Jerry Falwell - Land said that "leaders are leaders because people follow them. Obviously, Glenn Beck is a leader. He's in a category by himself. He's not a minister, he's not a politician.") (Then there's this quote: "[Beck's] not as much of a political activist like a Ralph Reed, or a candidate of the Pat Robertson type. He's an entertainer, first and foremost, which makes him a unique figure. ... It's a very natural fit for a devout Mormon to lead this kind of God-and-country movement."--Richard Ostling)--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 02:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 06:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hodgson, I see what you are trying to do and believe it has merit. I also appreciate your collection of materials which potentially could lead to beneficial article additions. Some of the above material I believe could be relevant to the "Religious Beliefs" section which requires expansion; although we would need to ensure that we focused on Beck's personal beliefs, and not solely other's interpretation of them.   Red thoreau  -- (talk) 03:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree -- I didn't mean to come across as disparaging or discouraging. My only intent was to discern to what end your thoughts are intended, and ensure that we remained focused within core policies and guidelines.  Also, point well taken with regards to the recentism lag in sourcing.  :)  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * USAToday: "folks with the most favorable views of Beck (Republicans, 55%, Evangelicals, 48%) only 45% say he could lead a religious movement, says Robert Jones, CEO of Public Religion Research Institute."--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 04:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding mentions of Paine
A couple of editors should really quit mentioning Thomas Paine in relation to what sort of ideals make a libertarian, to in turn decide whether or not Beck should be listed in category "Libertarianism in the United States." Paine, had he lived today, would not have been considered a libertarian by Beck, but a progressive.

From Paine's The Rights of Man:
 * "It is painful to see old age working itself to death, in what are called civilised countries, for daily bread... pay to every such person of the age of fifty years ... the sum of six pounds per annum out of the surplus taxes, and ten pounds per annum during life after the age of sixty... This support, as already remarked, is not of the nature of a charity but of a right."

Sounds a lot like social security.


 * "Pay as a remission of taxes to every poor family, out of the surplus taxes, and in room of poor-rates, four pounds a year for every child under fourteen years of age."

Sounds a lot like welfare.

From Paine's Agrarian Justice:
 * "There could be no such thing as landed property originally. Man did not make the earth, and, though he had a natural right to occupy it, he had no right to locate as his property in perpetuity any part of it."
 * "Create a national fund, out of which there shall be paid to every person, when arrived at the age of twenty-one years, the sum of fifteen pounds sterling, as a compensation in part, for the loss of his or her natural inheritance, by the introduction of the system of landed property."

Doesn't sound like socialism at all. Sounds a lot like the sort of communism Beck opposes, especially considered with the following portions of The Age of Reason:


 * "The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries, that have afflicted the human race have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion."
 * "Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is none more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory in itself, than this thing called Christianity. Too absurd for belief, too impossible to convince, and too inconsistent for practice, it renders the heart torpid, or produces only atheists and fanatics."

Paine was writing in a time when it wasn't unusual for a government to tell you what religion you had to follow, far from our era where the Surgeon General kindly points out you have an increased chance of cancer from smoking. "Don't oppress me, mate," isn't full out libertarianism.

And if we are to take Paine to be a model of libertarianism, we should also consider these two bits from Common Sense:


 * "It is of the utmost danger to society to make it (religion) a party in political disputes."
 * "Mingling religion with politics may be disavowed and reprobated by every inhabitant of America."

Paine would have been opposed to Beck's Restoring Honor rally, particularly Beck calling Americans to turn to their faith in God, "turning our face back to the values and principles that made us great." Paine would have cringed at Beck saying "The message I feel I'm supposed to give you is get behind the shield of God.""

I honestly don't care if the article is or is not put in the Libertarianism category or not, but mentioning Paine in the argument is a mistake. Just because Beck appears to have not actually read Paine is no reason to assume that Beck is less involved with Libertarianism. I mean, after all, he says he likes MLK, but says that ministers mentioning the social gospel are Nazis; he says he is a Christian, but (being Mormon) believes that Jesus was one of many of God's sons (along with Lucifer, who wanted to just forgive humanity for their sins instead of only alowing those that performed good works within a particular religion in to heaven) and that God only became God because He was a good Mormon on some other God's world. That Beck identifies as a libertarian, and is not hated by absolutely everyone else who identifies as a libertarian is enough to include him.

TL;DR: Beck and a modern Paine would be quite opposed in their political and social views, enough that Paine cannot be brought up as justification for Beck being a libertarian. That Beck is apparently ignorant of Paine is not enough justification for the encyclopedia (which remains neutral) to say he isn't a libertarian any more than the encyclopedia can say he does not follow MLK or Christianity. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:SYNTHESIS
 * tl;dr
 * Cptnono (talk) 22:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Libertarianism
Since Beck is described as conservative by most and only self-described as a libertarian, I suggest that the tag NOT be added. Soxwon (talk) 03:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Cats are for navigation and are not necessarily labels. There are enough sources that the navigation could be useful. And since it is self-described (in some ways) it should not be a BLP violation. You both need to stop dit warring and one of you two should have opened up a talk page discussion earlier.Cptnono (talk) 03:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Joanna Brooks and Beck
Balancing the Mormon beliefs section--or with a hope to try to, somewhat--led me to google Joanna Brooks's and Beck's names and I came up with an interesting tidbit concerning a group of Mormon academics' desire to impanel a group of participants to talk about the pundit. Brooks, author of "'Bringing The Hammer Down': Glenn Beck Doesn't Speak For The Mormons I Know," was to appear in Salt Lake City on August 7, 2010, at the group's meet up, along with Robert Rees, who had just published a rebuke of Beck here, and a playwright (Eric Samuelsen.....who'd been honored with an award from the Association of Mormon Letters in 1999). Anyway, the meet-up's program ended up announcing the discussion like this:"Panel. GLENN BECK: LIKELY MORMON OR UNLIKELY MORMON? Abstract. Glenn Beck is presently the most famous--and possibly the most infamous--Mormon in America. He is better known than President Monson or Steve Young and is more popular than Harry Reid or Mitt Romney. Some see Beck as a populist prophet of the coming apocalypse while others consider him the most dangerous man in America. This session looks at Beck’s identification with Cleon Skousen, the John Birch Society, and the Tea Party; his meteoric rise as a right-wing media maven; his role in American media and politics; and his representation of Mormon principles and values....." The thing was, they first had Brooks, Rees, and Samuelsen, but needed somebody who actually liked Beck. So, they put out a feeler on their Face Book page and were finally able to dredge up a Boston area LDS blogger to fulfill the role of "a speaker willing to represent a pro-Glenn Beck position." This blogger, David King Landrith, posted back, "I don't know a lot about Glen Beck, but I'm a staunch Republican, I've watched him occasionally, and I really don't see what the big deal is about him. So I'd be willing to learn a lot more about him (e.g., read his books, find his stuff on YouTube, etc) if it would contribute to the panel." The meet-up organization's rep replied, "We're trying to have multiple viewpoints represented on the panel--not just a one-sided Beck critique. And yes, the pro-Beck or Beck apologia might not be as popular a stance to represent. Kudos to anyone willing to take that on." And eventually Landrith got the gig. In any case, my point with all this is that I think it might be worth while to locate statements from observers of Mormonism that are at least reasonably neutral about Beck, if possible, to balance with Brook's none-too-subtly critical stance. (Sorry for this post's length!)--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 01:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I found a source that said the three anti-Beck panelists were eventually supplemented by not only by Landrith but by Kathy Boyce Hemingway, a retired educator from Oregon, both of whom defended Beck.--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 18:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

White Horse Prophecy
Dana Milbank writes that Beck is directly using the White Horse Prophecy. Should this be moved into the text (rather than used indirectly in the box)?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dana-milbank/post_996_b_749750.html

Hcobb (talk) 21:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Blog no thanx The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, there is WP:NEWSBLOG. Dana Milbank, writing there, is writing as an opinion columnist. The cited article says, "Adapted from Tears of a Clown: Glenn Beck and the Tea Bagging of America, released October 5, 2010 by Doubleday.", linking to this web page at amazon.com. The Product Description for Milbank's book from which the article was adapted says, "... Milbank describes, with lacerating wit, just how the former shock jock without a college degree has managed to become the most recognizable leader of antigovernment conservatives and exposes him as the guy who is single-handedly giving patri­otism a bad name."
 * WP:NEWSBLOG would also apply to this source, currently cited in the article re the White Horse Prophecy and re other points. The author of the cited piece is credited as e.g., "Joanna Brooks, religious scholar", but it does not seem to me that the cited piece is a work of religious scholarship. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hcobb: I think mention of the putative Joseph Smith prophecy can be moved to the text, if handled right. Why don't you give it a try? Wmitchell: While Brooks (along with being interim chair of the dept. of English and Comparative Lit at San Diego State University) is a scholar of American literature, religion, and culture, I'd agree that that partuclular piece isn't devotional--an area Brooks does occasionally dip a toe into: for example, on her "Ask Mormon Girl" blog--so much as it's her informed opinion about various LDS-theologically tinged cross currents she sees within Beck's conservatism.--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 02:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * For more context:
 * Mormon apologetics "wiki" on the "White Horse Prophecy".
 * Response by Utah newspaper commentator Doug Gibson, editorial page editor, who happens to be Mormon, at the liberal, Ogden, Utah Standard Examiner: "Milbank can write, and I want to read it [Milbank's Tears of a Clown]. ... [But, by way of his HuffPo piece 'Mormon Prophesy Behind Glenn Beck's Message,'] Milbank, intentional or otherwise, has spun a yarn worthy of the man he hopes to make a bunch of money off."--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 05:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment
Since I've created a (near-to-)one-man wall-o'-text on Beck-Mormonism, I'm tempted to put my comment in this talkpage subsection in a scroll up bar. Anyway: Just thought I'd opine that although Milbank references Brooks, who, as an LDS scholar, ironically can sorta get away with referencing the Mormons' essentially canonizing the American founding documents and the longstanding Mormon meme and related folk belief about upstanding Mormons someday playing some kind of role in keeping the American system afloat somehow...but, since the White Horse Prophecy nowadays is a popular anti-Mormon meme, Mormon ears are sensitive to the topic. (See, for example, the politically liberal editorial page editor Doug Gibson of the Ogden, Utah, Standard Examiner's, op-ed linked above.) So Milbank's bringing the topic up--with perhaps a game plan of making Beck's audience of politically conservative evangelicals uncomfortable with Beck?--requires exponentially more dexterity than Brooks herself would need to apply for Milbanks not to appear to be engaging in some slight shading of anti-minority religion "baiting," as it were. (--That's just how these things work. See Dr. Laura, comma, the N-word.)--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 14:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Philip Barlow (who's quoted in our BLP) tells NPR's Guy Raz that the WHP is obscure among LDS but the phrase "hanging by a thread" is much less so."'...Very few [LDS] would be able to explain what it [the WHP] actually refers to. That phrase, [Constitution hanging by a thread] Latter-day Saints would have heard of.'"Barlow adds that Beck argues for a politically conservative POV by "drawing on this element that runs through Mormon consciousness." Or, as the NPR paraphrases the professor, "Using the parlance of one's church does not a secret conspiracy make." Geez, What's next? If Christians become a minority, would referring to the Sermon on the Mount be talking in code? ...say, as when Dr. Martin Luther King made biblical allusions? Would a Jewish commentator's using language familiar among Jews as credited to Maimonides or else the talmud be talking in code? Answering my own question, I think if a Jewish commentator mentioned in passing the religious concept of Jews' "being a light to the nations" (the Gentiles)--or else, say, the eschatological doctrine that The Nations (Gentiles) one day were to come to nurture the Jewish people and facilitate their return to the Near East--it would be fair to specifically source these ideas in whatever Jewish religious thought/writings. Of course, one should be careful about making such talk come acress as breathless : "The Jewish commentator was sending out a SECRET code!--one meant to RALLY JEWS! (blah blah, lol)..... That said, I don't perceive Milbank's coming across in his WHP references as overtly "anti-Mormon" and IMHO his desire to educate the general public about Mormon terms Beck has used seems to have responsible/benign motivations. --Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 14:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The WHP has usually been an inside-group meme among Mormons. For example, recently at the blog By Common Consent, John Mansfield offers this observation, and the next comment by likewise well-known Mormon blogger john f. references the WHP--that is, it's thrown out there anytime a Mormon is thought to be championing the US Constitution or American principles of liberty, either in a semi-serious/semi-jocular complimentary sense or else in a mockingly derogatory one of "And this guy actually thinks he's a fulfillment of the WHP or something!" For a current example of this latter meaning, see current US Senator from Utah Bob Bennett's son and former campaign manager, Jim Bennett's statement from the other day reported in the Salt Lake City, Utah, Tribune, where he said about Mike Lee, the Republican nominee for the US Senate from Utah: "Mike Lee would wave the Constitution in your face and make it sound like he was the fulfillment of the White Horse prophecy. As someone who is a Republican and LDS, that bothered me."--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 17:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

edit semi-protected page: reference link broken
One of the reference links on this Glenn Beck article is broken. Number 22 to Jamie Lawson's article at LDS Living magazine should be changed from:

http://www.ldslivingmagazine.com/articles/show/325

to the current link:

http://www.ldsliving.com/story/5768-glenn-beck

Thanks.

Kenslew05 (talk) 18:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Done. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

(1) Tears of a Clown (2) Jello Belt politics
Reviewed at Basil & Spice:"More importantly, by linking religion ('I believe in God and He is the Center of my Life'), patriotism ('America is good'), and secularism ('I work hard for what I have and I will share it with who I want to. Government cannot force me to be charitable {includes Socialist 'share the wealth' schemes}'), with End Times issues (common to Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and Mormonism), and through supporting a few acolytes such as Sharron Angle, Michelle Bachmann, Christine O'Donnell, and Sarah Palin, Milbank believes Beck has corralled the interest of a large segment of the population and given birth to the Tea Party. (Others might give the latter honor to CNBC's Rick Santelli after his 2/2009 outburst calling for a 'Tea Party' reaction to the administration's mortgage bailout plan.) Finally, Milbank worries that Beck's rhetoric unwittingly provides the 'push' that some unbalanced individuals need to take action, and cites several instances were people were killed after the perpetrators watched Glenn Beck. (To be fair, Milbank also points out that Beck is anti-violence, even in support of his issues.)"Seems a well-written precis of Milbank's Beck bio.--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 21:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC) Wrt the LDS component of Beck's audience: Mentioned in passing in a quote by scholar Jan Shipps (at the end of this piece by Delene Goldberg of the LV, Nev., Sun) is that Beck--and the other LDS conservative voices to which Beck harkens--help move his co-religionists "right" as much as the reverse.--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 20:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Introduction is insufficient
The current lead section of this article is completely devoid of any mention of Beck's "notable public disputes". Per the MoS, "the lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article... including any notable controversies." I'm starting this section to invite a discussion regarding the proper way to present this material, giving it proper weight. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Suggestions?Cptnono (talk) 22:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Stu
In the spirit of Wikipedia's request "how to improve an article", I would suggest the article should have some mention about Glenn's radio show producer Stu, because way back when Glenn was in Tampa I remember he remarked about how things finally "clicked" for Glenn when the two of them got together. I was dissappointed when I didn't find it mentioned in the otherwise very thorough article. 76.108.123.151 (talk) 21:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "[Glenn] remarked about how things finally "clicked" ... when the two of them got together" Well that's a little interesting I guess.  Do you have a source for this?  Also, are you sure its notable?  Honestly, who cares if things clicked for Glenn when the two of them got together?  Was this relevant do you think?  ~a (user • talk • contribs) 22:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a biography article about Glenn Beck -- unless we have some very strong sourcing (read: multiple sources independent of Beck) indicating that this person is significant to the story of Beck's life, inclusion of "Stu" is the epitome of coatracking. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * wp:COAT, pertaining to "tangentially related, biased subjects," might apply to tangentiality, but I don't see any bias; and, per wp:NNC,"'Notability guidelines are only used to determine whether a topic can have its own separate article on Wikipedia and do not govern article content. The question of content coverage within a given page is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies.'"The relationship of Stu with Glenn--being Glenn's colleague and friend during Beck's Morning Zoo gig in Connecticut and moving down to Tampa to produce Beck's new talk radio show--seems a factoid reasonably germane to Beck's blp. If sourced, add the info.--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 21:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Arichnad was referring to the concept of notability (lowercase n, think "significance") and not the Notability Guideline. My point is simply that we need multiple sources independent from the Beck empire to indicate that Stu is significant enough to mention in Beck's biography (and this isn't just some attempt to bootstrap an otherwise-insignificant person into Wikipedia).  Familiar with Beck as you may be, WP:V demands more than factoids generally only known by fans.  ;-)  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, OK. 1st, wp:NNC not only, yes, is on the wp:N page, but also specifically concerns, does it not?, whether things should be considered notable enough--with a small n--for inclusion within an article; 2nd, in point of fact, Beck's producer, Stu's, blp is here; 3rd, in further point of fact, I in no way, shape or form am a fan of Mr. Beck's, although I'm no polemicist of the left by any means, within my contributions on Wikipedia. (IRL [in real life], for example, I think Jimmy Carter was/is right on in matters of war and peace/economics and social programs more so than Mr. Reagan....)--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 20:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That article does not have a single secondary source unfortunately. Anyone come across any yet? There are sources that mention the guy though. Cptnono (talk) 20:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

✅ In the subsection mentioning GlennBeck.com (with GlennBeck.com's "About" page as its source, per wp:ABOUTSELF)--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 02:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

This article is largely improved over the version I commented on a while ago. There are still areas that are weak. These are areas where Mr. Beck seems to be rooted in a religious practise or a philosophical experience, but further study suggests he departs from these roots substanially. These are places where he becomes controversial. The article states Mr. Beck is controversial but substitutes conflicts, legitimate or not, with others for a discussion of the controversies that follow him.

I think this article needs to take on the controversies. Yes, he got into several court battles about his rights around his image and copyrights. Yes, he took on political battles. Mormans might act in these ways.

He also used his emotionalism toward a member of congress to suggest that member of congress might be a terrorist simply because that member is Muslim. I'm not sure Mormans would act in this manner, at least not publically. His emotionalism is often based on negative feelings of fear and anger, not something I hear alot from my Morman friends. The controversy that he stirs up negative feelings in others from his high profile is legitimate and this article ignores it.

The article also notes Mr. Beck has made some political study. Largely these studies appear to come from a fervent cold war anti-communist writer from the 1950s and from a modern day conservative jewish attorney. From this he seems to think he can make reference to the exodous and suggest he might be a modern day version of Moses.

Here he stirs up two significant controversies. First, he angers many jewish people who wonder what right Mr. Beck, from his Roman Catholic upbring and current Morman faith, has in presenting himself as any authority on the exodus. Jewish people often see his appearing to equate himself with Moses as highly offensive. This controversy remains ignored in this article.

Lastly, he we have a man who is highly emotional, appears to equate himself with Moses, and has a history of mental illness. The article simply states Mr. Beck has a diagnosis of Attention Deficity Disorder, but does not go into any relevant material. The reference section takes the reader to an article where Mr. Beck says he takes medication, but the article does not mention it.

This ommission is fundamental in the articles inability to describe Mr. Beck as who he is rather than simply address his image. His admission he has this disorder and takes medication assists us in seeing he has some concern for his effect on others. It supports that he is in a form of recovery. It also undercuts the argument that he is a "crazy man" and diminishes stigma against the mentally ill.

It also reduces his larger than life image and might reduce some of his impact on others. That might not be bad regarding these other controversies. When Mr. Beck encourages fear of Muslims and when he angers jews for suggesting he may be a modern day Moses, he does a disservice to others. If this article took on these controversies directly, we might see the positive and negative aspects of him as a person. We might then be better illuminated.

As it is, this article remains more of a poster of Mr. Beck's image than a discussion of him as a person. Simply that the article presents a neutral poster is not enough. By dealing with the image only the author reveals a hidden bias toward his subject. His subject is in the business of projecting and image and this article remains largely on turf favorable to Mr. Beck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.6.211.30 (talk) 17:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Robotman26, 26 October 2010
I'd like to add various protesters to the list of Glenn Beck's opposition. there have been individuals and groups that gained notable attention in actively protesting him.

Robotman26 (talk) 06:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The Glenn Beck article is protected from editing from IP and new users. If you wish to edit this article yourself, you need to wait 4 days and contribute 10 edits to other articles. If you have a specfic suggestion for this page and don't want to wait 4 days and 10 edits, feel free to re-use the template making a detailed proposal for your edit such as: "Please change X to Y", or "Please add Z after A. Thanks, Stickee (talk)  08:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You'll also want to discuss that on the talk page as criticism for a BLP has a higher standard. Being notable, does not equal being part of Beck's notability or that it has sufficient WP:WEIGHT to be considered a major protest in his life.  Keep in mind that this is not a tabloid.  Morphh   (talk) 12:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Idealogical Influences
The following sentence should be removed because of undue weight: "Beck was criticized however by an array of people, including Menachem Z. Rosensaft and Joe Conason, who noted that Dilling was a proud anti-semite and Nazi sympathizer." Strde (talk) 02:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not what WP:UNDUE is about ("Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint."). Undue weight would be saying that everyone except Glenn Beck believes he is the second coming of Hitler.  I'm gonna revert any attempts to remove that sentence. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Audience violence
The Christian Science Monitor ran a story a month ago, "Did Glenn Beck's rhetoric inspire violence?", about alleged attacker Byron Williams. I came to this article to find something about it. In the process of hunting down this story, I found stories about Charles Wilson, Richard Poplawski, and several others. I'm curious how editors will handle this information, and what type of edits have been proposed to cover this subject. Viriditas (talk) 05:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "Since then, alleged attacker Byron Williams has said in jailhouse interviews that he wanted to “start a revolution.” He says Beck was not the direct cause of his turning violent. " (from the source you provided). How about you come up with a draft line or paragraph and we can go from there. The fact that he has been linked might be worth of mention if there are enough sources but it needs to be clear what is what since it is a BLP. Do you have sources for the others? Cptnono (talk) 06:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the delay in responding. Would it be ok to move this discussion to The Glenn Beck Program?  For now, it seems a better fit than this article. Viriditas (talk) 00:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

ADL
Is this stuff noteworthy and if so is there secondary RS for it and how much space does it deserve?Cptnono (talk) 20:26, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Endorse Op Finish editsJimintheatl (talk) 19:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it probably could be included but certainly not in its current form. Sourcing entirely from the Jewish organisations that have made responses to Beck's commentary just doesn't cut it. Find some independent mainstream news sources (there are many, e.g The Guardian) and add some context, i.e what Beck actually said rather than focusing entirely on the criticism, and it will be a lot closer to acceptable. wjemather bigissue 19:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I doubt Jimintheheat or OP are going to try but if anyone wants this in they should propose a dradt. It has been problematic so that is the next best step forward. Any attempts to readd it without seeking consensus will lead in a cute edit warring report.Cptnono (talk) 07:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Honors
It looks like the only source cited for whatever award he received at Liberty University is a press-release from the university its self. Considering how many universities and organizations bestow awards, degrees, and honors like this, it is necessary to establish WP:WEIGHT — this means third party reliable sources (Liberty University press releases being first party in this case). For example, many news outlets documented Beck's "Time 100" award, so it is appropriate to include. 173.12.48.254 (talk) 08:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Some other places mentioning it: huffingtonpost.com, salon.com, mediamatters.org, pjmiller.wordpress.com, theexpositor.wordpress.com, enterthecircle.wordpress.com, motherjones.com. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

provable errors in article per glen becks own statements
glen beck is NOT a conservative.

he is a self avowed NEOCON -- as he stated on his show 7 dec 2010.

the article needs to make that change to properly identify beck.

neocons are NOT real conservatives. they are a cancer that is trying to destroy true conservatism to suit their own agenda.

originally ex-democrats, but now including RINOs, the neocons have hijacked the republican party to bring about a one world government for the benefit of a cabal of uber rich businessmen and those who consider themselves part of the chosen elite.

beck may be a mole or a dupe or both but he is not a real conservative. while he talks a good game at times, he makes enough mistakes to show his true colors. while appearing to try to help the people, he appears to be doing the opposite.

208.103.155.175 (talk) 15:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That reads more like a political rant than a legitimate suggestion for change. Please read up on WP:BATTLE and consider rewording your request in light of it, otherwise you'll get nowhere. Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Malia Obama
The article is surprisingly low on bias but I would have to say this appears to be a seriously lacking paragraph which speaks about his off color joke about Malia Obama. It should be noted that his comment went unnoticed and uncriticized until he apologized and the statement that he apologized online is misleading as he also spent the next day's television program apologizing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.152.237.126 (talk) 22:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Pun intended?
 * In the future, please add new comments to the bottom of the page and sign your comments with 4 ~s.
 * I don't think it had much impact on the guy's life. It was an interesting but quick news item. Not sure though and won't oppose it if multiple editors agree that it is a good idea.Cptnono (talk) 04:54, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In the overall context of Beck's life, it seems like a very small incident and would probably be WP:UNDUE weight. Morphh   (talk) 13:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, we're already covering it, so maybe we should cover it accurately. Dylan   Flaherty  15:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm sure it's obvious haven't done much with wiki in years and that wasn't even standard wikipedia. I have to say I think there is concurrence on my suggestion.  Although  maybe it isn't worth noting in an encyclopedia entry I think we should simply change it to make it more accurate.  141.152.237.126 (talk) 23:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Clarification of Time Article quotation regarding Glenn Beck
In the section "Public reception," Instead of just Time magazine, could it list the author (James Poniewozik) of the article as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Izzi Silver (talk • contribs) 23:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Salary
The source cited for Mr. Beck's salary does not state that his salary is $32 million. "Glenn Beck Inc., formally known as Mercury Radio Arts (after Orson Welles' Mercury Theatre on the Air), pulled in $32 million in revenue during the 12 months ended Mar." The important distinction is that Glenn Beck is not Glenn Beck Inc. Furthermore, Glenn Beck Inc.'s revenue and profits are likely to be very different; this is a wildly misleading indicator of Mr. Beck's salary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikificationist (talk • contribs) 23:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Geez, IP, it seems you are absolutely correct! On top of production costs Beck must fund writers and researchers--- (he even has journalist-bloggers on his payroll). Is this all sorted out in some source? Or doesn't Forbes get into that kind of nitty gritty?--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 23:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * #43 Glenn Beck, The Celebrity 100, Forbes.com says, "Pay $35.0 mil", attributing $2M of that to Fox News TV and $10M to his radio show. It doesn't break it down beyond that. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Category: Anti-illegal immigration activists
The person who removed it is right that he's not quite an activist level opponent of illegal immigration like Tancredo, Buchanan, or Malkin, but he's as opposed to it as Rush or Coulter, and they're listed under this category. J390 (talk • contribs) 05:30, 18 October 2010

(Interesting quote): Levin/Beck "sledgehammers," says Nat'l Review's Goldberg
(Hat tip: Conor Friedersdorf, from being featured at AndrewSullivan.com)"'if you’ve got to tear down a house and replace it with another one, you need some guys with sledgehammers and earth movers, those are the people like [Mark] Levin and Glenn Beck, some of those guys. But you also need people who do the fine carpentry and detail work. The way Bill Buckley or George Will or Charles Krauthammer might, or the guys at the Claremont Review of Books.'---Jonah Goldberg (from Webcast conversation with D. R. Tucker -->LINK)"Probably too pithy for a blp, though.--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 07:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Doesn't appear to be any encyclopedic value, and doesn't meet with sourcing or weight requirements. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The opinion of a syndicated columnist and author definitely meets weight requirements going by the abundance of editorials here describing Beck. As for the nebulous term "encyclopedic value", that clearly would depend on how it would be used in the article; it seems to accurately portray a common conservative view of Glenn Beck, so it would be no less encyclopedic than the portrayal of the liberal views of him here. --AerobicFox (talk) 22:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, are you saying you believe a webcast on a political blog both meets WP:RS and WP:DUE? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Your sorry? I happen to think that yes, if a notable person blogs something it does meet RS for their opinions and due weight. If Obama webcasted his opinion of something political, do you think it would not be notable? There is no question that a webcast can meet RS and DUE, the only question is whether this does.--AerobicFox (talk) 23:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I had hat-tipped Andrew Sullivan of The Atlantic. Conor Friedersdorf, the piece's author, is the new senior editor at The Atlantic's site--and is the primary Holidays Season fill-in for Mr. Sullivan there.) Wp:BLP (wp:WELLKNOWN) says, "In the case of public figures...simply document what these sources say. If...incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article.... If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out." Then wp:RS (wp:NEWSORG) says, "When taking information from opinion pieces, the identity of the author may be a strong factor in determining reliability. ... When using opinion pieces it is necessary to attribute the information to the author, and not to assert it as fact." According to Mediaite: "Friedersdorf, a former Sullivan intern, has made a name for himself over the last two years as one of the most promising conservative writers and thinkers. He writes at the American Scene, Forbes, Daily Beast, and the late True/Slant and was involved in the well-thought of, but failed, Culture 11."--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 15:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It is cute but will it really add anything? Maybe if he went into details it would work but over all it doesn't really say much.Cptnono (talk) 06:07, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theorist"...
is probably one of those partisan expression that should really be sourced/quoted to be encyclopedic IMO (as per Ronald Reagan, one person's "terrorist" is another man's "freedom fighter"). IAC here is the full-on white paper on Beck's alleged "take-down" of investor and progressive movement philanthropist George Soros. (I'll admit I don't get it, but then I'm a "social" Democrat.") --Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 00:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Principle of WP:LABEL should probably apply with attribution. The only problem with that is that he might have been called one too many times to want to attribute it to a single source.Cptnono (talk) 03:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Progressive
If the criticism is from someone who differs politically it might be appropriate to note. There are of course a few variables that favor both its inclusion and removal but figured it should be discussed here over more reverting. NOtice that the source used the wording: "The Rev. Jim Wallis, who leads the liberal Christian antipoverty group Sojourners" Cptnono (talk) 06:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Labeling critics is unnecessary and generally discouraged, especially when assigning subjective labels used pejoratively by the subject. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 06:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * When is it discouraged? I understand WP:LABEL for the most part but I don't believe it says anything about critics. This not being under LABEL This is especially true if they do not dispute being "progressive" since it makes it not a controversial label. And yes the label may point to reasoning fr the criticism but that can be both POV and NPOV depending on how you look at it. The NY Times does not have the same neutrality standards we do but they might have got it right. I certainly don;t think we need to over do it ("... is a left-wing progressive group") but using a qualifier seems acceptable.Cptnono (talk) 06:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that the qualifier is reasonable, and especially since I believe the group would have zero objections to it as well(anybody believe otherwise?). It may not be necessary, but it doesn't really harm the understanding of the article. I'm all for adding it unless a compelling reason why it shouldn't be included is pointed out.AerobicFox (talk) 07:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Unless the group specifically self-labels itself, Wikipedia does not assign subjective labels based on editorial opinion. You can see several discussions (and even RFC's) about this topic in the talk page archives of some other politically charged articles (Fox News Channel, Media Matters for America, Bill O'Reilly (political commentator), etc.).  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The Bill O'reilly article seems to support a sentence like this:
 * "a Christian social justice organization widely considered a Progressive organization"
 * --AerobicFox (talk) 22:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Cherry picking one contextual-less example does not nullify WP:NPOV, and if you dig a little deeper you'll notice there are no labels attached to other sources (CNN, FAIR, etc.). Slapping subjective labels only opens the door to an endless battle of viewpoints.  Let's stick to dry facts instead of trying to poison the source.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Cherry picking? The sourced used in the article says it. Do you have links to other related sources? And if the NY Times thought it was appropriate to preface it (or cast some doubt on it) then it might be a good idea.Cptnono (talk) 23:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Blaxthos, that was the first source that I clicked on that you gave me. Not exactly cherry picking. :P Besides the NY Times refers to it as a progressive organization in the ref for this, so it doesn't seem exactly like a never ending battle of viewpoints. --AerobicFox (talk) 23:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem with the label progressive in this instance, is it is a term Beck specically uses on his program as a pejorative to indicate "leftist/marxist/socialist, etc" and using it on a Beck article implies a link between the way it is used to described this group, and Beck's use of the term. This seems inaccurate to me. In this instance I believe liberal is actually much less of a loaded term. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 14:44, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * We are taking it from the source, not him. It does not matter if he uses it as a pejorative. However, "liberal" is in the source so that works out fine by me if progressive is a problem for whatever reason.Cptnono (talk) 02:29, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The issue is the label is used consistently by Beck as a pejorative, so it is reasonable to conclude many people who read the article and watch Beck (and we must assume many Beck viewers do) will be assuming Beck's definition of the term applies, which is very different from how many others use it. I think terms like liberal and conservative, are just much less weighed down by additional meanings and assumptions. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 02:37, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * So you are OK with "liberal" instead of "progressive", right?Cptnono (talk) 02:40, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * So you're afraid Glenn Beck users a fan of Glenn Beck is not going to like people that criticize Glenn Beck? --AerobicFox (talk) 05:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What is a Glenn Beck user?Cptnono (talk) 05:39, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about.--AerobicFox (talk) 06:57, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I think "liberal" is less loaded in this instance than "progressive". But I object to any modifier like that in the first place. First and foremost this is a christian organization, and that is how they should be described. You do not have consensus, so it cannot be included. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 14:14, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The issue aerobic, is Beck uses terms like progressive, in a slightly different way than the common definition. For someone who watches beck, the label will be bound up with the concept he has laid out (that progressives are part of an ongoing historical movement to undermine the country's principles,etc). SO I think it is a loaded term when included on the beck page. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 23:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Update: Criticisms of Beckian civil religion or alleged bent theorizing conspiracies
To the list of criticism (and kudos) compiled and archived -->here and -->here can be added the recent negative assessment of Beckian civil religion -->here, this one a critical opinion by Nathan B. Oman:"'Beck's neo-Skousenism is a distraction and a dead end. His ready use of religious imagery appeals to many religious conservatives, but ultimately it is political and spiritual junk food: tasty to some but without substance and poisonous in large quantities. ...'"--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 19:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC) There have been various reactions to Skousen and/or Beck by some on the middle-right otherwise generally friendly to faith-informed political conservatism, more of the nuanced of them was in the National Review: Mark Hemingway opined (during the run up to the 2008 primaries) that the late author and BYU religion instructor W. Cleon Skousen had been an "...all-around nutjob," Skousen's tome The Naked Communist "so irrational in its paranoia that it would have made Whittaker Chambers blush." Then Hemingway pivoted, "[...T]o be fair Skousen wrote on numerous topics with wildly varying degrees of intellectual sobriety. In fact, [...] Skousen's writings on original intent and the U.S. Constitution in The Making of America are compellingly argued, and to this day are often cited by conservatives unaware of Skousen's more checkered writings. Further, Skousen's scriptural commentaries are still very popular well-regarded within the relatively unradical world of mainstream Mormonism, insofar as Mormon theology can be considered unradical." The Nat'l Review's Daniel Foster--in a post script to a "take down" he wrote about certain aspects of Beck/Skousen he wrote last summer--wrote: "Many readers and a few famous conservatives[...]wrote me in defense of Skousen's 5,000 Year Leap, which by their accounts is a worthy love letter to the Founders and free of the paranoia that marked much of his other work. I have not read it - yet. But I will." Foster's original piece said"[...T]here is much I love about what Beck is doing. Anyone who puts Hayek at the top of Amazon is not without his merits. [...] I’m actually halfway between Beck and Continetti. Like Continetti [Edited: Mathew Continetti, of the Weekly Standard] (and like Jonah [Edited: Jonah Goldberg--like Foster, of the Nat'l Review]), for that matter) I think that the unique political culture of America means that European-style totalitarianism would have a much tougher time gaining ground here. Indeed the very existence of the Tea Party is proof of this. But I also think certain — ahem — neoconservative elements of the right are too quick to reflexively beatify the likes of Wilson and Roosevelt, and too selectively blind to the breathtaking statism they advocated. ¶ But then things get weirder, as Continetti spells out Beck’s ties to a Bircher named W. Cleon Skousen and his world of fringe conspiracy theories[.... I]t is surely this association that is the most potentially damning for Beck[...]. This cuts right to the core of Continetti’s thesis in that piece – that the as-yet amorphous Tea Party movement must lead with free-markets and small-government, not conspiracy theories and doom-saying."--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Believes 10% of Muslims are Terrorists
Suggest adding a 'controversy'section, having just a disputes section limits the range of controversies that can be included in the glenn beck article (and he is a controversial figure so major controversies, not just disputes, must be noted. 2) Beck recently claimed he believes the number of muslims who are terrorists is close to 10%. This was newsworthy enough to be discussed on Fareed Zakaria's GPS (here: http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2010/12/10/gps.witw.glenn.beck.cnn?hpt=T2). 3) Am I the only one who suspects this article was crafted mainly by pro-Beck editors. The "disputes" section is an obvious attempt to obfuscate his numerous controversies. Suggest major, major reworking of entire glenn beck article. No mention of the serpent mounds controversy. No mention of his on air melt-down. No mention of his penchant for conspiracy theories. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 20:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Do not attack other editors by assuming they are doing something like that. 2) Controversy'section are frowned upon so the info needs to be neutral with a neutral section header. 3)start your comments at the bottom of pages not the top. Cptnono (talk) 20:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. But I've been reading this article for some time. The bias is clear. Hide behind whatever pretend-editorial rules you want to. I've worked in an editorial office. Omitting major controversial statements by a figure, and instead pushing them into a category called 'disputes' implies both sides are equally valid. That isn't neutrality, that is the golden mean fallacy. Neutral would be describing objectively how controversial the statements were, how true they were, and how they were received. Do not take that tone with me as though you were a real editor. I maintain there are serious problems with this article and it is obvious they stem from the bias of the editors involved. I suppose you will just have me banned though to shut me up, instead of addressing the problems I've addressed.

Serpent Mound needs inclusion (it is a known hoax, he tried to present as legit. on Television). Melt-down needs inclusion (it went viral and was mentioned on a number of news sources). His use of bad logic and penchant for conspiracy theories need mention. His logic is flawed in many instances (that is fact, not opinion), and he uses it to promote convoluted conspiracy theories.

Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 20:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You need to stop making those accusations. You need to provide sources.Cptnono (talk) 21:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia, where amateurs beat up professionals. Nothing about the crazy rules stops us from reporting Beck's less glorious moments, so start with getting links to reliable sources. Dylan Flaherty  21:59, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

1) I haven't even edited the actual article, I am just raising legitimate concerns on the discussion page. I have noticed when I viewed it as a reader, that there are major omissions in terms of controversies, and that the article appears structured to help keep these controversies from ever being on the page. The serpent mound controversy is well known, and it is a proven hoax. It should be on there. He made factually inacurate statements about the mounds on his program. This is not opinion, it is scientific fact. The Serpent Mound tablets are hoaxes, and he put them up on his program as legitimate. I can tell you as a former history journal editor, his statements were incorrect. But I guess until fox news or CNN covers that fact, you won't allow his factually innacurate statements to be labeled as such, because that would be "POV". I guess if someone claims that the sun revolves around the earth and no major news outlet comments, we can't point out falsity of the statement?

Here are some links to the issue: http://dancingfromgenesis.wordpress.com/2010/08/18/glenn-beck-show-081810-phoenicians-hebrew-block-style-writing-lost-civilizations-archaeology-archaic-epigraphy-serpent-mound-ohio-great-pyramid-giza-slope-angles-navition-astronomy-censored-native-a/

http://savageminds.org/2010/08/20/glenn-beck-archaeologist/

Conspiracy theories:

http://www.pfaw.org/press-releases/2010/12/the-violent-consequences-of-glenn-beck-s-dangerous-rhetoric

http://blogs.jta.org/telegraph/article/2010/11/15/2741750/glenn-beck-and-the-limits-of-soros-bashing

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/glenn-beck/transcript/george-soros-warns-fox-news-dictatorship

http://www.opednews.com/Diary/Glen-Beck-s-Guy-W-Cleon-by-Steve-Klingaman-101209-910.html

I already posted a direct link to the CNN coverage of his Muslims are 10% terrorist statement and it is a matter of public record since he said it on film and on the air for his radio program. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 14:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

But to the topic of this discussion thread. Here are links regarding his statement that 10% of muslims are terrorists. Would anyone deny this statement is controversial, and would anyone deny it is unsupported by available evidence?

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/fareed-zakaria-calls-out-glenn-becks-math-skills-on-muslim-terrorist-claim/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/06/glenn-beck-ten-percent-muslims-terrorists_n_792726.html

http://www.newser.com/story/107016/glenn-beck-estimates-10-of-muslims-are-terrorists.html

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201012060007

http://www.wisepolitics.com/glenn-beck-10-muslim-are-terrorists-2655.html

http://www.urbanliteraturemagazine.com/glenn-beck-10-muslim-in-the-world-are-terrorists/2391/

Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 15:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Blah blah blah. You took such a good step in attempting to find sources. But we all know the Earth revolves around Mars. Also, double check what "reliable source" is just because a couple seem off. And if you really really ant something to change in the article, start providing some drafts. Cptnono (talk) 15:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not your pupil, Cptono. I am making valid suggestions. The guy said 10% of muslims are terrorist in his opinion. That is a fact. It was noted on a major program on CNN, and has been the subject of discussion on many of the internet news sites I posted. Plus, it is a factually incorrect statement. A visibly racist statement, and clearly a controversial statement. Further he made historical claims about the serpent mounds that are objectively false. There is no debate any longer on the serpent mounds. You can choose to attack me and ignore these suggestions. Or you can absorb my criticisms to help improve the article. The choice is yours. But don't attack me, when I make a valid observation about the quality of the article on its discussion page (isn't that what the discussion page is all about). Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 16:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What you need as a first step for inclusion in the article are reliable secondary sources which discuss this statement by Beck. Blogs, etc. are generally not acceptable, especially for controversial claims about living people. If such sources are found, the incident/dispute would then be weighed by the editors on this page to determine if it's significant enough for inclusion, and then it would have be worded in a neutral fashion. Kelly  hi! 16:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

And this is the problem with the "Dispute" category. Unless he enters into a public dispute with another major figure, anything extremely unusual, bizarre, incorrect or dangerous he says can't be included in the article...it has to be part of a dispute.

GPS on CNN isn't a reliable source? Or if he says something (as he did about the serpent mounds) that are factually incorrect (and blatant attempt to legitimize the mormon view of history) we can't point that out. He held up a hoax as evidence. It is a noted hoax. Only bloggers picked up on it. It is still demonstrably false. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 22:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking, things that only bloggers pick up on aren't considered notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Kelly  hi! 22:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

SO you don't think its significant that he argued the ancient Hebrews traveled to the Americas and he used the Serpent Mound tablets, a confirmed hoax as evidence? Either way, the 10% of muslims are terrorist thing was picked up by CNN and other news sources, not just bloggers. I agree, we can't call something a controversy if it isn't noted as such by a reliable source, but surely we point out when someone makes a major claim based on something factually incorrect. And surely if it is lighting up the blogosphere, that is worthy of mention. It just seems to me, like there are people here, using policy and their status as veteran editors, to insulate keep out negative facts about Beck's life. Again, I point to the golden mean fallacy. This is a clear case of it. We shouldn't skew articles on controversial figures by turning editing into a consensus building exercise. If we did, how would articles on Pol Pot, or Stalin look? Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 23:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not interested in contributing to this article by the way. I don't want to get wrapped up in one that clearly has been a focal point for partisan disputes. I just wanted to bring problems with the article to users attention. And I thought the statement that he believed 10% of Muslims are terrorist worthy of inclusion. People can heed my advice or not. Have no interest in wrangling with usersDeliciousgrapefruit (talk) 23:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Grapefruit, my take on this is that articles shouldn't be packed full of dirt and shouldn't be dirt-free: they should just report the reality, which tends to be mixed. The issue, as you may have noticed, is that public figures with a fan base can wind up with their articles defended against all possibly negative additions, in direct contradiction to Wikipedia rules about neutrality, reliability and ownership.
 * What makes this more difficult for outsiders is that the rules are strange and, quite frankly, hostile towards expert knowledge. Because we can't tell whether you have a PhD or you're 12, we treat both types of editors the same way, leading to absurd results.
 * Raising an issue and dropping a few links is very unlikely to have any net effect on an article. You have to stick around and work to have them integrated. Dylan Flaherty  02:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

AFAICS, the heading of this talk page section, and Fareed Zakaria's analysis on CNN of a portion of Beck's remarks taken out of context, and most of the discussion about that here and elsewhere, distort and misrepresent the thrust of what Beck said. With a just a tiny bit of surrounding context, what Beck said (per, e.g., the Huffington Post ) was, "What is the number of Islamic terrorists? One percent? I think it's closer to ten percent but the rest of the PC world will tell you, 'oh no, it's minuscule.' OK, well, let's take you at your one percent. Look at the havoc one percent of Muslims causing in the rest of the world. You don't think one percent, half a percent here in the United States of radicals, of people who want to violently overthrow the government, is a problem?" His point was not that he believes that ten percent of the muslim population of the world are terrorists (what he actually said -- offhandedly -- was that he thought the figure is closer to 10% than to 1%), and presenting it as that is misrepresentation. His point was that whatever the figure is, even if it is miniscule, it's a problem -- and that was in the context of a rant about lack of media coverage of this problem which he perceives. There's a link labeled "LISTEN:" on that Huffington Post web page I linked earlier -- take a listen to what Beck actually said, starting a minute or so into the audio, and compare the focus of that with the focus of the discussion about that. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If I understand correctly, we should omit all mention of this because he actually said it was over 5%, not 10%? Dylan Flaherty  06:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This discussion opened with a suggestion about adding content pointing up "Beck recently claimed he believes the number of muslims who are terrorists is close to 10%". FWICS, that point came from media hype over a passing comment which was taken out of context while Beck was talking about something else. Listening to Beck's actual audio, I see that it was a portion of an offhand remark. It seems to me that anyone listening to the actual audio (via, for example, that link I gave to the Huffington Post article) would have a very difficult time coming to the conclusion from what Beck actually said that he believes the number of muslims who are terrorists is close to 10%, or 5%. In fact, he went on to say, "... let's take you at your one percent ..." and went on to develop the point he was trying to make using that figure. In doing that, he said, "... You don't think one percent, half a percent here in the United States of radicals, of people who want to violently overthrow the government, is a problem?" He was talking about the problem, and about under-reportage of the problem. He wasn't talking about the percent of muslims who are terrorists. No, I don't think this belongs in the article. I don't think that it "was newsworthy enough to be discussed on Fareed Zakaria's GPS"  (as is claimed above), I think that Fareed Zakaria's discussion of it is what made this small tidbit of a snippet taken out of context newsworthy$[sic]$. I can't really argue that trumpeting it here would be giving it undue weight because WP:DUE measures weight by prominence, and this analysis and reportage of this tidbit of a snippet lifted out of context has certainly been given a lot of prominence. I do, however, believe that the prominence which it has been given is unwarranted and presents a highly distorted picture. The picture presented is one which sources with POVs differing from Beck's paint of Beck's views and beliefs, not Beck's picture of Beck's views and beliefs. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't your analysis/opinion of the what/why constitute original research? Shouldn't we simply stick to what is published about this incident in reliable sources (both supportive and critical)?  I take your point, and I'm not saying that this has enough weight to be included at all (my opinion is still being formulated), but I don't think that an editor's analysis should be a consideration when discussing if this should be mentioned in the article. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 13:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The quote wasn't taken out of context. GPS played the whole thing, and his statement was essentially that he thought the number of muslim terrorists was close to 10%. Not only is the statement very unusual, and an example of text book racism, it made it onto reliable sources like GPS. Why shouldn't it be included. Again, it seems to be, that there are people rushing to prevent any legit. negative coverage of beck on this article because they support him.

Listening to the audio, he clearly asserted he personally thinks the number is closer to 10%. He agreed to use the 1% number as a point of disucussion (a rhetorical concession). That doesn't eliminate the fact that he stated very clearly he thought the number was close to 10%. He may well have been talking about another issue when it came up, that doesn't change the meaning of the originally statement he made.

Just because a statement is wedged in between other points, and just because someone says I think the number is x, but lets take your number of Y, that doesn't remove the fact that they still said they think the number is X. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 13:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * He never said the number was "close to 10%" he said it was closer to 10% than it was to 1%, not that it matters. As stated above, the actual number has little to do with what he was saying.  That a bunch of hyperpartisan websites like MMfA and HuffPo are making hay out of this is no suprise at all.  Also, in response to an earlier statement, this is not racist.  Islam is not a race.  I must say I find absolutely amazing how quickly a minor statement is taken out of context and then republished into supposedly MSM souces like CNN.  Especially compared to some of the other things that Beck dislikers get so riled up about.  Arzel (talk) 14:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

No, he didn't say closer to %10 than 1%. He said closer to 10%, which means he thinks it is in the vicinity of 10%. If he thought it was 5% he would have said he thinks it is closer to 5%. If he thought it was 8% he would have said closer to 8%. The man specically chose the number 10% as an example, and since he was talking about Islamic Terrorism, it was absolutely related to the topic (not that it matters, if someone is talking about cherries and makes a side comment that he thinks the number of black people who are in gangs is close to 10%, that is still newsworthy). You are right, racism isn't the correct term. It is text book prejudice, possibly bigotry, and absolutely islamophobic. Clearly, the beck fans are coming out in numbers to keep this off the article. Which just reinforces my initial point. The man said it. They are trying to parse the meaning as much as possible. I give up.

This was not a minor statement. This was a significant statement about a religion, and it was noted on major news channels. You can disagree with the meaning of what he said, or dispute what his intentions were. You can't dispute that he said it, and that it was mentioned and challenged by CNN. If he said this about any other group, it would be in the article.

Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 16:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * If you ask me, I wouldn't trust CNN that much on something like that. Of course they would say stuff like that about a rival. − Jhenderson  7 7 7

So now we can't use CNN as a reliable source? Should we only use FOX? This is just more evidence that my original claim about the article being bias, because of beck fans, is true. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 16:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

And they didn't need to say anything about him. He said it himself. He claimed the number of muslims who are terrorists is close to 10%. That is a significant statement. Put the full original quote in (I don't care) "I think the number is closer to 10%". People who want to know about Beck's position on Islam and Muslims, deserve to know about that statement. If you exclude it, you are painting an incomplete picture of the man's attitude and beliefs about the faith. Which is relevant because he talks frequently about religion and faith. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 16:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * No CNN is reliable. It's just that them claiming this, is a opinion. I don't see a big deal of this, really. People seem to take things personally that Muslims are considered terrorists. Even Muslims wouldn't take that personal, to some it's a compliment because they were raised that that's a good thing. Anyways if Glenn Beck said this himself, then I would say it could be reliable. But it's got to be his exact words. −  Jhenderson  7 7 7  16:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

No it wasn't just an opinion. Their interpretation of his words was much more accurate than yours. We can include what he said exactly, which was "I think the number is closer to 10%". That doesn't mean he thinks it is between 1-10%. it means he thinks it is in the 10% range. People can quibble over the specifics, claim it was taken out of context, and try to parse as much as they want. He said it. It was reported on a commentary program on CNN and elsewhere.

Why would you think muslims wouldn't take offense at that? I am sure some wouldn't, but my hunch is most would. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 16:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Because I kind of know a lot about Islam and what they believe. You read the book Qur'an and it will teach you that people that don't believe in their belief should die. Now I didn't mean all, I even used the word SOME in my comment. The only reason why they wouldn't is because in their mind (the radical ones), they wouldn't use the term, terrorist. Now to get out of this subject becuase Wikipedia is not a forum. If you have a source saying that he said it, then it's a definite maybe. I wouldn't revert you. And I never had an interpretation of anything related to CNN's interpretations. ;) − Jhenderson  7 7 7  16:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

My area of expertise is Islamic Terrorism. I know Arabic. You're analysis is off, and belongs under the article on what Muslims believe not what Glenn Beck believes. There are also passages in the Old Testament, which encourage killing of non believers. And likewise there are passages in the New/Old Testaments and Koran, instructing people not to kill. Yes there are Muslims who believe killing in the name of the faith is justified, and there are those who don't. And I am open to discussing the topic broadly under Islam or Terrorism. But no one, would support the claim that 10% of Muslims are actually terrorists.

Why should I get out. I have numerous sources saying he said it, and you are quibbling over what it means exactly. Trying to massage it into a harmless phrase, not deserving of any attention. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 17:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Why are you arguing with people about this. I am not even trying to disagree with you and I did not mention anything to do with the Old Testament. I know the Bible as well but I never talked about that once. I am not biased on any station or any religion, If Fox News explained their own belief on someone who works on CNN, I wouldn't consider it a reliable source either. Yes my statement was off concerning that the main reason why I explained it is because worrying about what he said about Muslims is my opinion is not important enough for Wikipedia. Some Muslims are terrorists and some aren't, everyone knows that. Durr! As of how many Muslims are believed to be terrorists, who cares. That's debatable and shouldn't be so controversial. − Jhenderson  7 7 7  18:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I am arguing because you were debating with me about the the beck quote. YOu went on to assert that you believe the Koran does in fact teach people to kill infidels and you were using it to somehow support beck's position. I mentioned the old testament to demonstrate that violent passages are in most holy books. Doesn't mean they are the core of the religion.

Actually the raw math just doesn't support Beck's claim. And it is worthy of inclusion because it came up on GPS as a major issue, and because it is a very controversial statement. It also is an important part of beck's world view. If he believes the number is in the 10% range, that's important enough to include. I don't see why you are putting up such a fight over it. He said it. That is a fact. It came up on a major CNN commentary show. That is a fact. And this also caused a stir in other places like the Huffington Post. Fact. This is the typical ploy used by partisans to keep wikipedia from including negative facts about their heroes. Wikipedia isn't a political platform. It is a reference source for people who want info. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 18:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * There's no good reason for arguing, at all. And I am not supporting Beck's claim, I am just thinking it's ridiculous to be controversial and important. And I said something that the Qur'an says, big whoop. I am not saying it's good or bad for I don't despise any belief. I am just trying to be neutral and you take everything I say with a grain of salt. Sounds like someone needs a hug. − Jhenderson  7 7 7

Sounds like you are trying to have it both ways: arguing while claiming you aren't. The statement was notable. It was clearly offensive to Muslims. You tried to suggest it wasn't. You tried to downplay the statement. Then you brought up the koran to make your point. Sounds like you are claiming neutrality to keep something negative (and 100% relevant) off the beck page. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 19:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

And what you seem to be arguing is that Muslims should take Beck's claim that about 10% of them are terrorists because "People seem to take things personally that Muslims are considered terrorists. Even Muslims wouldn't take that personal, to some it's a compliment because they were raised that that's a good thing" In your own words. I am not really interested in arguing the finer points of Islam. But I do know a lot about the faith and its holy texts. However, what is relevant here, is that most people would agree, Muslims wouldn't take that as a compliment. Most would be offended. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 19:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I am the one who said that you could put it on there if there is a source of him stating it. So why are you arguing at me. And quit bringing up the Koran like it's your mom. That was stupid of me. I am sorry I brought it up. Will you please stay cool. − Jhenderson  7 7 7  19:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I have already said, I am not going to edit this page. It is the target of too many edit wars, and the product of too much ideological feuding. I am just pointing out some flaws, and things that should be added. I've provided links. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 19:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I am being cool. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 19:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Well I am not sure of how to word it or where you put it and you're right, an edit war might happen. That's why you might want to take it to an administrator if you want it on there. ;)− Jhenderson  7 7 7  20:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Instead I've done this: http://wikipediawatch.wordpress.com/2010/12/13/glenn-beck-page/ Expect future articles on problems with wikipedia articles. Contributors are welcome to send me blog entries. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 20:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I was asked to take a look at this by Jhenderson777 as he thought it might need admin intervention. I don't see anything for an admin to do. Deliciousgrapefruit, leaping straight to the "Beck supporters control his page" meme was quick by any standards. Stay calm, and stick to using reliable sources. Not random blogs, but actual sources with a reputation for fact checking. The reason we don't like mud being flung around willy-nilly and every little controversy going in is not because we're all Beck fans (we're not), it's because we have rules like our biographies of living people policy and our neutrality policy, which includes a note that we must give due weight to issues affecting the subjects of articles. You've not shown so far that the "Serpent mound tablets" thing has any coverage in reliable sources, so there's no way that's going to be included. As for the "10%" thing, propose some balanced wording that takes in the context of what he actually said, and we might be able to have a reasoned debate. Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, another reason to be careful about news spats like this: recentism. We do not want to end up writing about everything that in currently in the news, drowning out all the actual important things in our articles. In a little while we'll have some perspective to judge whether Beck's comments deserve inclusion and in what manner, once they've been analysed in a somewhat calmer fashion than the current blogosphere response. Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree re WP:Recentism. Incidentally, I've stumbled across some comments by Beck about all the hullabaloo over this at . It's not entirely clear to me there, but he seems to say that he based the "closer to 10%" comment on a poll he had seen, apparently a poll by worldpublicopinion.org. I grubbed around a bit on their website and couldn't find a poll asking what percent of muslims are terrorists. I did come up with info on some possibly related polling results from February 2009 at which reported the results of polling on (for example) the percentage of populations in muslim countries who approved of attacks on civilians in the U.S. as, overall, over 8% approval (the range in the table I looked at there was from 4% to 24%. In the article I linked re Beck's comments, there's some confusion over the range which seems to settle down at 10% to 39% -- I'm unable to relate those range figures to the range figures of 4% to 24% which I see in the table which I looked at in the article. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I did present real sources. See my blog for further criticism. Contributors welcome :)Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 23:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Approving of violence isn't the same as committing violence. And there are a number of significant problems with that study, plus studies which reached entirely different conclusions. This is a subject I know a great deal about, and there are misconceptions about it both on the far left and the far right. But honestly it looks to me like the editors here are trying to justify Beck's statement and give it legitimacy, which only amplifies the relevance of my initial points: editor bias is a problem in the Beck Article. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 00:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Consensus appears to be to not include. Anyone mind if we close this discussion out or is it still needed?Cptnono (talk) 00:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Raising issues with a wikipage, and reporting editors that attack you on that page, is wikihounding? Okay. See where this is going. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 00:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Cptono: Your last comment is a perfect example of why consensus is a bad way to build articles. The majority of editors here appear to be sympathetic to beck. I post something that qualifies as a significant statement by Beck, and consensus is to ignore. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 00:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No, there's on wikihounding. I don't know where Jhenderson777 got that impression from. I don't think starting your blog is going to help you, but hey. I see no rush to close this - we can continue with reasoned debate with reference to sources, no? I've not said I oppose all mention of the 10% remark, just that it needs to comply with our policies if it does go in and I'm not sure if it does fit yet. "Qualifies as a significant statement" according to whom? Btw, Deliciousgrapefruit, you do realise that mostly Wikipedia is accused of having a massive liberal-left bias, and that I myself identify as a socialist gasp on my userpage?  Fences  &amp;  Windows  00:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * When the discussion turns into sayibng it isn;t included because others are biased it has run its course. But if you want it open then I see no [problem with it as long as personal attacks are blanked. Enough is enough and since I was giving the reminder to not tell him off in return I am going to do the better thing and simply remove the accusations.Cptnono (talk) 00:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

According to Fareed Zakaria, who is one of the top Muslim commentators on CNN and a well regarded Islamic Scholar. I think his opinion on this is worth something.Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 00:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I realize wikipedia is thought of as liberal. I personally am not liberal, and I am not a conservative. I believe that the structure of wikipedia, lends itself to having seriously diluted content due to leftwing and rightwing partisans duking it out. I have no major issue with Fox News or other conservative sources of information. I do have an issue with not reporting prejudicial statements made by a major news commentator on his biography page. Hey, I think the in this case, there is too much of a rightwing editorial precense. But looking at the wikipedia terrorism articles, the left wing editors are really hindering any meaningful progress on articles. Again, truth and accuracy should be the guiding principles, not consensus. Until truth and accuracy are what shape wikipedia entries, it won't ever be a truly reliable source for anything. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 00:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Zero chance of that receiving any traction. Anyways, take to the Village Pump since this is not the right place to discuss changing something like that.Cptnono (talk) 00:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I was going to say Wikihounding doesn't fully define what's going on. Except for the discussion page portion of it. But you don't seem to be very civil when it comes to discussion some times. And this discussion is getting quite unconstructive. It's getting to be more of a forum where we can debate, and I am partly to blame for it. − Jhenderson  7 7 7  00:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

(PLease don't delete my comments)Perhaps the village pump is the place to discuss Consensus,but the 10% comment certainly should be discussed here. I have laid out clearly why it needs inclusion. I provided reliable sources. Noted it was commented on by a highly regarded commentator (who is also a Muslim). Why shouldn't it be included? Deliciousgrapefruit (talk)

I am trying to be very civil. I just disagree with you on this point, and am advocating for the 10% comment to be included. Again, why shouldn't it be included?Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 01:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, so let's get back to the article. I think it's clear that Beck suggested some unrealistically high percentage of Muslims are terrorists and that this gaffe was picked up on by various reliable sources. What's stopping us from including it? Dylan  Flaherty  01:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) There has still not been a proposal. 2)I am in agreement with Jhenderson and Arzel's reasoning so it looks like there is not consensus to include it.Cptnono (talk) 01:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) We don't need a specific proposal in order to determine whether the topic is to be included.
 * 2) I am in agreement with Deliciousgrapefruit and Blaxthos's reasoning, so it looks like there is a consensus to include it. Hmm, wait, that looks just like your statement. Maybe it's premature to declare a consensus. Instead, you should be speaking of concrete reasons. Dylan Flaherty  01:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense, DF. There is not consensus to include it is not the same thing as consensus is to not include it. I misspoke originally when I interpreted it as the later but my recent comment was clear enough. And although it is not required, a draft would be appreciated and assist in the consensus building process. So far, I cannot think of anything worth putting in but if someone else wants to try that would be fine.Cptnono (talk) 01:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the reasons are solid. Zakaria is a noted commentator, muslim and scholar. He reacted strongly on his CNN program to Glenn Beck's statement. Glenn Beck himself felt the need to respond to Zakaria on his own program. And it also was mentioned in a number of partisan but prominent internet sources like the Huffington post. Adding to that it is very relevant and important information. Beck frequently makes statements regarding religion and terrorism, and questions about his attitude toward muslims are often asked. This being part of the article on Beck, gives a concrete quote from him regarding Islam and Terrorism. Frankly, why shouldn't it be included Cptnono? Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 01:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've already answered that up above.Cptnono (talk) 01:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

No you didn't. It doesn't violate any point of view policy. It was significant enough to be mentioned by a major commentator on CNN, and it is clearly relevant to the article. I see no reason not to include it. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 02:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Right, so this has nothing to do with consensus, as such. In my experience, I've found that consensus is all too often invoked, in either direction, to stop discussion. This is self-evidently counterproductive.
 * What this comes down to is that, if there are no strongly-supported objections, but there are good reasons posited, we should move forward. The next step is to propose specific text. Dylan Flaherty  02:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have removed that last bit after multiple warnings, DG.
 * See 01:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC) where I already answered.Cptnono (talk) 02:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I believe there is a term on wikipedia for that: editor bullying (or some such).

The New York Daily news just picked up the story as well: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/12/13/2010-12-13_glenn_beck_claims_10_of_muslims_are_terrorists_cnns_fareed_zakaria_blasts_him_fo.html

Suggest something to the effect of:

"On his radio program, Beck rejected estimates that 1% of Muslims are terrorists, saying "I think the number is closer to 10%". This prompted criticism from CNN commentator Fareed Zakaria, pointing out that 10% of the Muslim population is 157,000,000 people."Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 02:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Cptono, now you are just bullying me again. I am free to find you answer unsatisfactory. Please stop singling me out just because I reported you. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 02:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * See WP:RPA. If you make a personal attack I am going to remove it. And I am not singling you out and it has nothing to do with you reporting me. Although it was funny since you are continuing to base your argument on people being biased. Please also note the discussion before you made the report.Cptnono (talk) 02:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't make a personal attack. And please stop belittling my positions. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 02:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Moving on, and back to the point. I've made an initial proposal (which I believe needs work but its a start), and there seem to be very good reasons for including it. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 02:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Please let's focus. I'm fine with the proposed text. What location in the article would you recommend? Dylan Flaherty  02:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec)Also, a rebuttal to the reasoning being because of one report on CNN has been provided by someone else. Of course, feel free to make a draft and editors can go from there but repeating arguments is not getting anywhere. And Cptnono (talk) 02:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The person made a rebuttal and I responded. I don't the the argument the poster made was a good enough reason to ignore the GPS commentary on Beck's statement. I made a draft already. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 02:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't see it in all the mess above. Timestamp please? And I don;t believe your response was good enough.Cptnono (talk) 02:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest it go into Political Views, Public Reception or Disputes. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 02:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What specific wording?Cptnono (talk) 02:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Here it is again:

"On his radio program, Beck rejected estimates that 1% of Muslims are terrorists, saying "I think the number is closer to 10%". This prompted criticism from CNN commentator Fareed Zakaria, pointing out that 10% of the Muslim population is 157,000,000 people."

And you are honestly suggesting the Zakaria commentary doesn't belong because CNN is a FOX News competitor? Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 02:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Why don't we start if off in the "Notable public disputes" ghetto? We'll need to pick some citations, first. <span style="font-size:medium; color:#007f00; font-family:Script MT Bold, cursive;">Dylan <span style="font-size:medium; color:#007f00; font-family:Script MT Bold, cursive;">Flaherty  02:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec)03:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC) and 14:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC). Your draft doesn't tell that much about any "notable dispute" save an out of context line and a rebuttal to it. If this blew up into news with multiple RS discussing any such dispute then I could understand. It would need and actually deserve more space that way. Just appears to be a short lived news item that was barely picked up. And there is not consensus still, DF. Since this is a BLP and multiple editors have raised concerns I will remove it. If you want to change/expand on the draft or even open an RfC it wouldn't hurt my feelings.Cptnono (talk) 02:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * An alternative option would be to find additional sources discussing his views on Muslims /terrorism/."Islamofacists" (or whatever he considers them) and add that in the political views section. I assume there is some decent sourcing (some of it might even be "juicy")Cptnono (talk) 02:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how it is out of context. He said it. Zakaria made an issue out of it. Others picked it up, including the New York Daily. I don't see why you are removing it. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 02:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Cptono, another reason his statement and Zakaria's response was important, is because no figure of his stature has so far said he believes the number of muslims who are terrorist to be that large. This is a very major step in the discussion on Muslims and Terrorism. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 02:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Cptono: please tell me how this is not accurate: "On his radio program, Beck rejected estimates that 1% of Muslims are terrorists, saying "I think the number is closer to 10%". This prompted criticism from CNN commentator Fareed Zakaria, pointing out that 10% of the Muslim population is 157,000,000 people."Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 02:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It was already explained to you and after listening to it as suggested by someone else I see it as being blown out of proportion by some bloggers. No one said your line was not factually accurate. It just isn;t important to the overall biography of the guy. Like I suggested, he has said multiple things about Muslims so a paragraph encompassing more than just this incident is something to consider.Cptnono (talk) 02:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

You might not. You aren't the only person who gets to make the call here. Other editors agree with my conclusion. Sure he has said multiple things about muslims. This is, so far, the most radical thing he has said about them. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 02:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Fareed Zakaria is not some blogger. Nor is the New York Daily News. And the huffington post is a major blog, not some minor one like wikipedia watch. By any measure, this is a reaction. It deserves inclusion. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 03:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I might not what? And if you think this is that been then you should listen to right wing radio more. He has said many things about terrorism and muslims so a paragraph on that would be far superior to a couple lines about a small news item. And note that there is still not consensus so yes, I will remove it if you add it.Cptnono (talk) 03:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If you revert it on the basis of this obvious falsehood, I will revert it back and then report you. Don't threaten the fruit. <span style="font-size:medium; color:#007f00; font-family:Script MT Bold, cursive;">Dylan <span style="font-size:medium; color:#007f00; font-family:Script MT Bold, cursive;">Flaherty  03:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

You are being an editor bully on this. This is so clearly a relevant story. I haven't included it, but saying you are going to remove it if I do, doesn't make whole lot of sense. Given that two major news sources covered it, and Beck himself decided to weigh in on the controversy. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 03:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

So you are saying every single editor who happens to wonder in here, has to agree on it for it to make it. This is just silly. I am not going to even bother contributing to wikipedia at all in that case. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 03:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Fruit, since he has not been successful at supporting his view on the basis of policies, we do not need to engage with him further. Consensus gets to ignore the editors who ignore the rules. <span style="font-size:medium; color:#007f00; font-family:Script MT Bold, cursive;">Dylan <span style="font-size:medium; color:#007f00; font-family:Script MT Bold, cursive;">Flaherty  03:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not ignoring the rules. Three editors have disagreed and provided reasoning. This is a BLP and it will start an edit war so it is best to seek consensus through an RFC or other methods. I have also started another discussion based on my propsal to add an entir paragraph on his views on Muslims instead of a single incident. And I am not the one collapsing the page so please do not have a knee jerk reaction to it.Cptnono (talk) 03:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a BLP, but BRD applies. <span style="font-size:medium; color:#007f00; font-family:Script MT Bold, cursive;">Dylan <span style="font-size:medium; color:#007f00; font-family:Script MT Bold, cursive;">Flaherty  03:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * BLP is a policy. BRD is an essay and common practice. Anyways, if you are bold and add it then I will revert so you can discuss it more which is what BRD means.Cptnono (talk) 03:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It also means that, if you boldly delete it, others can revert your error. <span style="font-size:medium; color:#007f00; font-family:Script MT Bold, cursive;">Dylan <span style="font-size:medium; color:#007f00; font-family:Script MT Bold, cursive;">Flaherty  03:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't.WP:BRD. Anyways, this is a BLP which is policy. IF three editors think that adding the line gives undue prominence then an RFC or alternatives should be considered. BLP edit wars seldom end well for those adding the information.Cptnono (talk) 03:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Googling around, I came up with this article at glennbeck.com containing a (radio show?) transcript dated December 13, 2010 - 15:30 ET wherein Beck speaks about all hullabaloo about this. That transcript indicates that Beck's percent number came from a poll. World Public Opinion is mentioned. I looked at their website, and didn't find a poll about what percentage of muslims are terrorists, but I did find a February 25, 2009 article titled Public Opinion in the Islamic World on Terrorism, al Qaeda, and US Policies which gives poll data from some muslim countries. One of the charts of poll results was on the question of whether respondents approved, disapproved, or had mixed feelings about attacks on civilians in U.S. The percentage who approved in the eleven countries listed averaged over 8%, ranging between a low of 4% and a high of 24%. The article on Beck's website which I mentioned gave range numbers of 10% to 39% (it says 4% to 56%, then says that was a different poll, then says 10% to 39%), and I can't relate those numbers to the poll article I looked at. Hopefully, though, that throws a bit of light on this. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I see that the info immediately above duplicates info which I posted in an earlier comment. Apologies for the duplication -- I missed seeing my earlier comment and thought that it must have gotten lost in an unrecognized edit conflict. Anyhow, I found a bit more info about the definition of "terrorism" for purposes of Beck's "closer to 10%" comment, and some clarification re the 10% to 39% range numbers I mentioned above (those numbers include "mixed feelings" respondents as well as "approve" respondents). See this. So, now that we know and can support where Beck got his info, should this be mentioned in the article? Has it now lost whatever weight it previously had? Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe if combined with other info but it just doesn't appear to be a "notable dispute" so giving it its own subsection seems like too much. I also still listen to it as an off the cuff remark with some tone of hyperbole while the main point of his comment was that he thinks a percentage, which even if small, of Muslims are causing trouble. The only reason the math comes into play is because it is a funny and makes a great mocking news story. But we are not news and we have tighter neutrality standards then one guy's program on CNN. Cptnono (talk) 11:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * If Beck actually said it, then maybe it could work on the Viewpoints sections . Frankly I don't care much which way it goes, but doing something is better than to keep debating about it. − Jhenderson  7 7 7  15:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The math comes into play because Beck claimed he thought the number of Muslim terrorists was close to 10%. He was serious and you can't deny he said it. Zakaria's math shows how outrageous the statement is.

Cptono, you are acting like you are the managing editor of this page. It sounds to me that at least half of the editors want this included. And you are rejecting our reasons simply because others have produced responses to them (none of which are very compelling---one users response was muslims should have taken the 10% comment as a compliment because they are raised to be terrorist and the koran instructs them to kill non believers). Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 13:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * This is still going on? I hope you guys had a good sleep. ;) − Jhenderson  7 7 7  15:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't label what you are doing neutrality. Consensus is not neutrality. See Golden Mean. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 17:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Let's please focus on content, not people. We all have our biases, and this does not automatically disqualify us. Editors with very different backgrounds can still work together if they give each other due respect.
 * On the matter of Glen Beck's 10% claim, do we still have anyone who believes we lack reliable sources that confirm he made the claim? If not, I'd like to move on to the next question, which is about how it fits into the article. <span style="font-size:medium; color:#007f00; font-family:Script MT Bold, cursive;">Dylan <span style="font-size:medium; color:#007f00; font-family:Script MT Bold, cursive;">Flaherty  18:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree on moving on to the WP:DUE question but, if there is due weight, there's still no consensus about what, or how much, to say. There are transcripts showing what Beck said (I haven't found one from Beck, but there are quotes from other sources, e.g., HP1, FZ1); FZ1 also covers Fareed Zakaria demolishing a strawman ("A figure made up by Glenn Beck with absolutely no basis in fact", some math, and a narrow definition of "terrorist"); there's HP2, summarizing that and pointing out that Beck said the same thing in a 2003 book; there's Stu Burguiere, executive producer of Beck's radio show (SB1), explaining where Beck got his info (opinion polls not based on FZ's narrow definition of "terrorist"); there's Jon Bershad accepting that (sort-of) but quibbling about narrow vs. wide definitions of "terrorist" (JB1). That covers events and sources, I think. Other sources no doubt exist covering the same stuff. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The DUE thing is why I think other information should b added and I opened up the conversation below. A line about the comment could be in with a few of the sources provided but it isn't worthy of its own section.Cptnono (talk) 22:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not suggesting it go into its own section. I am suggesting it go into his political views, or into disputes, etc. Clearly the guy has opinions on Islam, and a whole section on that could be put together down the road. But it is going to take time to track down his major statements about the religion. I say for now put the 10% thing in another part of the article, and when there is enough stuff for Beck's Views on Islam, we shift it into that. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 13:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Wmithchel: getting into what Beck meant by the word terrorist, is something we should leave for them to say themselves. I will say though, the "narrrow definition" used by FZ is the standard one. And the "broad defintiion" used by Beck appears to be a new defintion to help him backtrack from a very offensive statement.Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 13:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. POV views of WP editors should not be injected into the article. Re them saying for themselves, SB1, linked above, says in part:


 * What is a terrorist? From dictionary.com, definition number one:
 * a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.
 * (note there, "or advocates"). About this, Zakaria said ("... well, the dictionary.com definition of a terrorist includes people who advocate or support terrorism. Of course, the FBI, the State Department and most other organizations define terrorists in the more common sense that they are well, terrorists, but never mind." (see FZ1, linked above). Zakaria wasn't using the same definition of "terrorist" which Beck used. Given that, it's not surprising that Zakaria came up with different numbers than Beck. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

W: You are inserting your own point of view here. We don't know whether Beck was really using that definition intially, or whether he he found that dictionary definition after the fact and used it to backtrack. But most of what I've seen in response in the media has been deep skepticism. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 13:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Also there is a difference between a person saying they believe violence against the US is justified when responding to a poll, and an advocate of terrorism. Beck is clearly bending the meaning of the term to suit his argument, and once again, the beck fans are able to have their way on wikipedia because they know how to use consensus as a weapon. Deliciousgrapefruit ( talk) 13:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? I've been trying hard here to stick to source-supported info and to cite the sources for the info I've presented here. Where is it that you perceive that I have inserted my own POV?
 * If you can cite a credible source arguing that Beck is clearly bending the meaning of the term to suit his argument (either as a statement of fact or as a credible opinion), and feel that point is important enough to be mentioned, feel free to present that assertion &mdash; please try to give WP:DUE weight to sources which differ, though. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is some fun gaming for you: WP:RECENTISM. In the long term view it is not a big story (although we might find out differently if sources are provided down the road sowing continuing coverage) and since Beck has a modified definition that he made, RECENTISM is compounded with a BLP. Disregarding the "long-term, historical view, thereby inflating the importance of a topic that has received recent public attention" and "Articles overburdened with documenting controversy as it happens." is a problem if we are going to give space to the original comment, the rebuttal to it, and then the rebuttal to that. See the section below for an alternate idea.Cptnono (talk) 01:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but perhaps you have me confused with someone who has been advocating inclusion of this point in the article. Re recentism and the content of Beck's assertion, HP1 pointed out that Beck used the same statistic in a 2003 book (I haven't seen the book and don't know whether or not he cited a source there). Also, Cal Thomas said in 2007, "... But even if only ten percent, which is the reigning percentage that most people accept, of the world's 1.2, 1.3 billion Muslims are, in fact, jihadist terrorists, that's more than 100 million people. It's something we better watch out for." (see FN1. I haven't done much grubbing around on the net, but I would guess that other on-point sources exist. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Whatever. Like I said, I am not going to wrangle. The 10% statement deserves inclusion for a variety of reasons, and it is clear becks fans, and possibly his employees, are controlling the content of this page. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 13:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Cptono the idea below is fine, for something down the road (I am simply not going to comb the net for the guy's complete view on Islam right now, as I have a real job to attend to). However, in the mean time the 10% statement deserves to be included somewhere in the article. Why are you so resistant to it? It is a major controversy. It provides insight into his worldview. And it was a statement that muslims around the the country took offense to. I just don't see why you wouldn't want it included. And please, stop trying to convince me you aren't a fan, it is very clear you are. I've been googling you. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 13:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the sources you have provided are short of it being a "major" controversy.Cptnono (talk) 22:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how that is the case. The sources included CNN, NY Daily News, Huffington Post and Beck's own program. It was enough of a controversy that Beck defended his position several times on air. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 14:30, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You guys are getting along like Diet Coke and Mentos together. Sorry I couldn't resist, trying to humor up this thread. − Jhenderson  7 7 7  15:14, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I want to be the Mentos!Cptnono (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Congratulations, you are the Mentos then. ;) − Jhenderson  7 7 7  23:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

PLease stop deleting my comments.Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 21:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

This should be included in the article. I can't see why anyone wouldn't think it relevant or notable. 173.48.16.187 (talk) 17:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)