User talk:AerobicFox/Archive 1

Climate Change articles
I know it is frustrating that NPOV persists on these types of articles. If you need a break, editing a different area of Wikipedia can be a lifesaver (I know from experience). I happen to know that Taskforce Jupiter needs some help. Try stopping on by if you get tired of edit wars..-- Novus Orator 08:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion, although I was kind of hoping there wouldn't be any edit warring. Besides, while some may find editing for project Jupiter relaxing, I would find it driving me mad. Thanks anyway. --AerobicFox (talk) 22:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Carter
I guess I AM a "libertarian" lol in the limited sense that I think it is awfully complicated trying to be an international policeman. For example, Jimmy gets a bad rap being wishy-washy when dealing with the Shah and then the Iranaian revolutionaries. Well, the Shah was no democrat.... In any case, it was Carter that stopped the CIA from offing people (a proscription rightfully continued by Reagan and his successors...till apparently Bush II came up with certain justifications for doing certain things in certain circumscribed circumstances, I think? Which are being reviewed, supposedly by Obama now, or at least O had promised to....

Then it's said that Carter didn't know how to deal very effectively even with a Democratic Party Congress. Whatever. I just like his idealism. I prefer that to Clinton's slickness, I guess.--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 00:06, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know about any of the CIA stuff. I suppose idealistically most people would be for no government, as obviously a society that doesn't even need one would be best, but since that's unrealistic I'm not holding my breath. I actually like Clinton because I think he's sincere about helping others, but I can see why many don't. Liking someone for their idealism is good reason to like them, even if it Carter.AerobicFox (talk) 00:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty much anti-war but accept that there should be militaries and mechanisms where they are given certain objectives to fight for. (So confusing!....lol) But I really shouldn't have said I'm a "non-libertarian," I guess. It's just that I agree with a lot of socialism's means and objectives. Although I don't really believe in nationalisms of any stripe, per se, I still think SOME kind of government is beneficial, I suppose one that preserves as much liberty as reasonably possible, though. Actually, I sorta LIKE the idea of the EU and such international things as the UN and stuff, too. I don't know. My political philosophy, if it can be called that, is pretty amorphous I guess! --Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 00:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of List of common misconceptions for deletion
The article List of common misconceptions is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/List of common misconceptions (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Lol thank you. I actually already responded on the discussion board though before getting this. :P AerobicFox (talk) 08:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk: Glenn Beck
Actually, the country, according to Gallup, is 40% conservative, 20% liberal, and 40% independent. Just thought I'd point that out. PokeHomsar (talk) 07:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you although I'm actually familiar with this, and I would characterize this country as being mostly center-right. Nonetheless I am trying to deflect arguing where a population consisting of people with mostly no ideology fit into on the political spectrum, and also such an argument isn't important here. Thanks for the thought though. ^_^AerobicFox (talk) 07:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, as it stands, there are a view liberal editors on Wikipedia I've gotten into scuffles with. They control certain pages. It pisses me off. For some reason, there's no MSNBC Controversies page, but the FNC Controversies page is longer than the FNC main page. PokeHomsar (talk) 07:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Re:Talk Page
You've accused me of not understanding wikipedia policy despite editing here for 3 years and having over 6000 edits. You then continue to insist on the insertion of an unsourced statement. How, pray tell, do you expect me to react? I admit I was more than a little abrasive, and for that I apologize, but you don't seem to realize that your attitude has been quite insufferable as well. Soxwon (talk) 06:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Soxwon, I apologize for criticizing your understanding of policy, and I will strike if you like, but that was in response to you citing policy against me in a manner that I do not feel was justified. I saw Beck in the past describe in detail what parts of libertarianism he agrees with and what he believes libertarianism is, and I am attempting to clarify for the other editors here, and did not believe this would even be contested.AerobicFox (talk) 07:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What I am getting at is that he may consider himself libertarian, and part of his philosohpy may come from libertarianism but there are more than a few groups out there that don't consider him libertarian at all. THAT is why you need to cite something other than his own words and provide reliable third party citations. Soxwon (talk) 07:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is that there is no reliable way to determine if someone is or is not a libertarian due to libertarianism not having any real clear guidelines. Please link me to those saying Glenn Beck is not so I can review their reasoning, but since libertarianism is a superficial belief system I find it hard to believe someone could objectively state that someone is or is not a libertarian. Since lack of government and individual rights are what Beck believes in most I thought it would be more important to include that in instead of saying he is a full fledged libertarian. AerobicFox (talk) 07:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Aerobic, when prominent libertarians say they do not believe Beck is a libertarian, that is worthy of inclusion. It doesn't mean the article needs to reflect their point of view. But the dispute over Beck's claim to be a libertarian is noteworthy and highly relevant. Our aim in these articles isn't to support or attack Beck's views or view of himself, but to present a total picture of the man. Excluding libertarians who are critical of Beck's claim to libertarianism would provide an incomplete picture to readers. BlennGeck (talk) 15:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is that there is no reliable way to determine if someone is or is not a libertarian due to libertarianism not having any real clear guidelines. Please link me to those saying Glenn Beck is not so I can review their reasoning, but since libertarianism is a superficial belief system I find it hard to believe someone could objectively state that someone is or is not a libertarian.AerobicFox (talk) 16:37, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, our aim here isn't to define libertarianism or say who is or is not a libertarian. Our only goal is to give a comprehensive overview of Beck's political views based on reliable sources. I don't really have a dog in this libertarian fight. But I would suggest you are correct that statements by prominent libertarians or libertarian magazines need to be linked in this case. If soxwon can track down and post the links, I think you should allow his suggestion to be entered into the article. BlennGeck (talk) 21:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with saying :
 * "Glenn Beck considers himself to have libertarian leaning because of XXX. Libertarian leader Y though regards Glenn Beck's political leanings to be more on the YYY side citing A, B, and C as examples of Glenn Beck taking stances traditionally opposed by libertarians."
 * Or something like that. I am not for something like "Glenn Beck considers himself a libertarian, libertarians disagree though.", and I am also- perhaps just too much paranoia- afraid that this may be used as a backdoor to introduce multiple negative comments from various libertarians about Beck that have nothing to do with whether he is a libertarian or not. Please just find the sources and I myself will help come up with something to be included. AerobicFox (talk) 22:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

What you suggest is reasonable. But remember to assume good faith. I am really not trying to insert backdoor criticism of Beck at all. It may come off that way, because I feel like its an uphill battle to get any significant controversies about the man on his wiki article. My aim is to make sure people have a complete picture of the person (the good and the bad stuff). Wiki articles that ignore the extremes of opinion out there about public figures, that eschew the controversies, and delete praises, don't do anyone any good.

I agree with you, a universal statement like "libertarians disagree though," should never be included in an article unless every single libertarian was polled and said they so (and that is never going to happen). However a statement like "some libertarians disagree, or some libertarians take issue with Beck identifying as libertarian" is fine if there are reliable sources to support it. BlennGeck (talk) 15:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Blenn, this page already has more controversies on it then any other BLP on Wikipedia. If you go to a single other page then you will see that there just isn't this sort of stuff added. Obamas article does not mention the word socialist at all, talk about the Jeremiah Wright controversy, or mention the "Ayers controversy". All three of these things are more significant then what you are trying to add, but none of them are mentioned. Meanwhile Glenn Beck's article has dozens of criticisms from sources I have never even heard of, and of no significance.AerobicFox (talk) 16:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

No it doesn't. There are plenty of other articles out there that have controversies in them. Obama's article, by virtue of the fact that he is a major political figure, is more protected (just as George Bush's article is), but siting an extreme case like that (where I believe Jeremiah Wright should be included). Also Wright is mentioned in the Obama article, and he is mentioned in more detail in some of the sub-articles (there are whole wiki articles on Obama's public image, or his religion). I think the references are too watered down, but they are there. What is more, In the Public Image of Obama article there are paragraphs on people thinking he is a secret muslim.

Also, pointing to other articles for not including things they should isn't an argument not to include them in the Glenn Beck article. The man is a controversial figure. In some ways he is deliberately provocative, that is one of the things makes him so popular-he tests the boundaries. To ignore a controversy this significant, doesn't make any sense at all. And I have to be honest it really feels like you are just arguing against it because you don't like it. You haven't sited any valid wiki policy guidelines at all. At this point you are just making up your own reasons. I respond to each of your criticisms with reliable sources and reasons why your criticisms are not correct. And you inevitably shift the goal post.

I am not suggesting you are deliberately doing these things. BUt you may want to reflect on whether your own beliefs are impacting your judgment. By the way, I am a conservative who watches the Beck program pretty much regularly. I don't agree entirely with his theory, but I think he has the broad strokes right. However, I would be willfully blind if I didn't acknowledge that his theory has generated considerable controversy.

And as a final thought, an article on Beck that doesn't include the controversies, isn't an article about Beck at all. That is what makes him great. BlennGeck (talk) 17:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You have absurdly claimed that there is no criticism and controversy in Beck's article, when almost all of it is controversy and criticism. I have included below just the criticism, although there is more, and not the controversy.
 * "And you inevitably shift the goal post. "
 * I have tried to be polite and not respond to this, but you set up strawmen of my arguments, argueing against those, and then when I say to answer my real question you claim I am "shifting my goal post". I have argued one thing, show me the lasting significance.~

I wasn't claiming that there is no criticism in the Beck article. I said a Beck article without it (which appears to be your aim based on the statements you've made) isn't a complete article on Beck. And I said getting criticism included is very difficult.

Well, you have been shifting the goal post. First you ask for reliable sources. I provide reliable sources. Then you ask me to demonstrate they are significant. I prove that. Then you engage in semantic debates about whether the articles really say the debate is significant (they do), and it appears you are both shifting the goal post and intentionally or uninintentionally misunderstanding the content of the sources I post. I have gone out of my way, wasted hours of my own time, to address almost all of your concerns (many of which aren't relvents to the topic at hand). BlennGeck (talk) 19:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "First you ask for reliable sources. I provide reliable sources."
 * Actually I said this "WP:NOTNEWS This seems like one of a great many spats that Glenn Beck gets in to. For comparison I do not see the Anthony Weiner dispute anywhere in this article; is there some reason you believe this is more notable than that one? "
 * And you responded with this:
 * "You may not like CNN, but it is a reliable source, "
 * Actually, I do not see one time where I ever asked for a reliable source. This is entirely fabricated by you and has been stated by you constantly.
 * "Then you ask me to demonstrate they are significant. I prove that."
 * By proving you mean show me standard left wing editorials that call this typical Beck, or the 3 sentence long blog posts?
 * "Then you engage in semantic debates about whether the articles really say the debate is significant (they do)"
 * One article says it is "not unimportant", and you think that is saying significant?AerobicFox (talk) 21:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

1) Actually you did both, which is how we got into the "is it significant" argument. When I proved that was the case, you took issue with the particular phrasing used by just one of the pundits (however its signicance has been noted by many).

2) Perhaps I am confusing you with another poster. However I doubt it.

3) No, I showed you both reliable sources and a range of pundits. It is counted signicant a number of times in a number of ways. When you said you read them and didn't see it, I spoon fed you the Klein piece. Which you then proceeded to misunderstand.

4) No multiple articles describe it as important in a number of ways. And that it continues to be reported on demonstrates its significance. And for the last time, "Not unimportant" means "Important". That is how english works. BlennGeck (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You continue to make this "you ask for RS's, and I gave you RS's" while I don't think I have even said the word reliable, except to say that I am not asking for reliable sources like you are claiming. Please point to me saying "You need RS's" and please point to the source that says "This affects his career". You say I am misunderstanding the source, if you cannot find a source that says what you claim they all do then you are drawing your own conclusions about "what they're really saying".
 * This is not a double negative. If you say something is not one thing, that does not imply it is the opposite. If I say my TV is not big, does that make it small? No, it could be normal sized, it could be huge, it just is not big.AerobicFox (talk) 23:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Except the term unimportant means "not important" and the double negative negates the UN. This is a well known fact of the english language. It is also a pretty standard rhetorical technique among writers to enphasize importance.

Fox, I am done arguing with you. You are the only one raising any objections, and frankly your objections are borderline absurd at this stage. BlennGeck (talk) 00:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "It is also a pretty standard rhetorical technique among writers to enphasize importance."
 * No, it isn't.
 * "You are the only one raising any objections, and frankly your objections are borderline absurd at this stage. "
 * I count differently then. Only you and one other are promoting this.AerobicFox (talk) 05:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is I am a professional writer. It is called an understated affirmation or litotes, and it is something writers do all the time to emphasize a point through the use of double negatives: "Litotes is a form of understatement, always deliberate and with the intention of emphasis.[5] "--from the wiki article on litotes.

Yes you do count different then me. Have a nice day. BlennGeck (talk) 13:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * A litote requires some sort of itonation to differentiate it from a double negative. From our article on double negatives "In Standard Written English, when two negatives are used in one sentence, the negatives are understood to cancel one another and produce a weakened affirmative."
 * While an emphatic "Not bad!" may mean "Really good!", writing down something like "I don't disagree" is a much weaker way of saying "I agree" equivalent to "I barely agree".
 * Being an author of a few books(or just one) does not make you a professional writer, and certainly doesn't mean you understand rhetorical techniques.
 * "Yes you do count different then me."
 * I also use better grammar than you.AerobicFox (talk) 17:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

1) No, a litote does not require intonation of any kind. In speech litotes often employs intonation. But it doesn't have to. This was clearly a case of emphasis being made through litotes.

2) It depends on the context. Double negatives typically do. I took the liberty of showing Klein's writing to four other writers I work with, and they all agree with my assessment. He is clearly using the double negative to emphasize the importance of the event.

3) I am a full time professional writer and a freelance writer.

4) Never said I was an editor. But if you plan on being an editor, know that isn't grammar. That is spelling. BlennGeck (talk) 23:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Now goodbye. It is pretty clear to me, you are arguing because you intend to block any negative content from the Beck page. You've been proven wrong time and time again. So I am done with you. BlennGeck (talk) 23:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * This is your third, of fourth time saying your leaving? By all means go, I have avoided responding to you on several sections in a hope that by letting you have the last word you would leave already.
 * "I am a full time professional writer and a freelance writer. "
 * Ambiguous. Full time professional writing implies someone is paying you to write full time. Being unemployed and with no writing position, and choosing to live off of unemployment benefits and writing freelance would not qualify as "full time professional writing", for example, but would meet such ambiguous wording.
 * "know that isn't grammar"
 * Knowing the difference between then and than isn't spelling, it's grammar.
 * You mean four people you selectively asked told you that you're correct, and that is supposed to sound reliable? The writer isn't using that as an understatement because there is no context for the reader to get the understanding. The writer of that article is anticipating the reader to be like "wut, why does this matter?", and they are parrying that with "This is not unimportant", which they then go on to prove.
 * This is a litotes:
 * Ex:Meteor 3423459 is now headed towards Earth where it could cause catastrophic damage after getting hit by another meteor 23 million miles away. This is not unimportant.
 * This is not a litotes:
 * Ex: Meteor 3423459 has been hit by another meteor 23 million miles away. This is not unimportant. The meteor is now headed towards Earth where it could cause catastrophic damage if it hits.
 * Looking for people that you can make sound reliable on the internet to give you affirmation is a bad substitute for arguing.AerobicFox (talk) 23:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I keep saying I'm done, because I think I am, and then you say something more perplexing or outrageous than before and I feel compelled to respond.

1) That is not ambiguous. I am both a full time professional writer and a freelance writer. I spend my morning hours m-f (8-5) working at an editorial office. I spend many of my spare hours working for papers, magazines, journals and other publishers doing freelance gigs on a contract basis.

2) Nope. It is still a spelling issue. Grammar is more about the structure of language (things like syntax).

3) I selected four other professional writers who are colleagues of mine and we all agree.

4) No, you are completely misreading the author's intent (something you do an awful lot of). He begins the paragraph with "This is not unimportant" and then proceeds to explain why it is important.

5) Yes. it is litotes. And asserting it isn't doesn't make you correct. You don't know what litotes is my friend. Just because the person includes further reasoning why it is important, or doesn't place it at the end of a paragraph doesn't mean it is not litotes. You simply don't know what you are talking about. Trust me on this one. BlennGeck (talk) 00:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * 1)Your writing is a good indication of the low standards needed to write for the public. If you think writing editorials requires an understanding of language then you probably don't understand language in any sort of depth.
 * 2)the difference between "then" and "than" isn't spelling, they have different meanings. You've brought up litotes and syntax seemingly to try to make yourself sound smart. When you can meaningfully extend the meaning of syntax from discussing just writing to other things like a painting(using syntax to describe the relationship between objects, and placement within the picture) then you will actually demonstrate that you have a more than shallow understanding of the words you are throwing out.
 * 3)Not impressed. The fact you seem to need reaffirmation from your colleagues who are more concerned about not directly contradicting a person they work with makes me think you don't understand what you're arguing about. Please explain what their argument is before just saying "It's me and four people at my work place against you". I would be too embarrassed to ever even bring up to a professor that I am spending my time arguing with some random person on the internet about things they do not understand.
 * 4)"they are parrying that with "This is not unimportant", which they then go on to prove."
 * "begins the paragraph with "This is not unimportant" and then proceeds to explain why it is important."
 * Notice any similarities? You cannot make an understatement unless the reader has context. If I say "Ji han Jae is not unimportant in the development of Hapkido", and "Morihei Ueshiba is not unimportant in the development of Hapkido" do you know which is an understatement? No. One of those people is barely important, and the other extremely important, but assuming you aren't familiar with the topic(like the readers of the article) you will be unable to tell. You seem also to not understand that a litotes often does not emphasize the positive. If I ask someone what their girlfriend looks like and they say "She's not unattractive", that is not emphasizing the fact that he thinks she is attractive. "I don't disagree", isn't an emphatic agreement either. All litotes are context specific, and you can disagree on the context, but I'm not interacting with you over your disagreeing since it clearly isn't productive to either of us. Go ahead and get the last word, I plan to follow the advice of WP:DNFTT and just stop responding. AerobicFox (talk) 03:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Then and Than are homophones. They are spelled differently, which in writing is how one knows the difference. And that is a spelling, not a grammar issue.

I'm not going to comment on the rest, you can have the last word there. Let's just say, your argument doesn't sway me. BlennGeck (talk) 13:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I resent the implication that I am a vandal here. I am just a poster with opinions that differ from your own, who takes issue with your arguments. Please don't make assumptions about my motives. BlennGeck (talk) 14:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Criticism
The Washington Post's Howard Kurtz reported that Beck's use of "distorted or inflammatory rhetoric" has complicated the channel's and their journalist's efforts to neutralize White House criticism that Fox is not really a news organization.[38] Television analyst Andrew Tyndall echoed these sentiments, saying that Beck's incendiary style had created "a real crossroads for Fox News", stating "they're right on the cusp of losing their image as a news organization."[38]

In a critique of his live act, Salon Magazine's Steve Almond describes Beck as a "wildly imaginative performer, a man who weds the operatic impulses of the demagogue to the grim mutterings of the conspiracy theorist."[62]

Historian Sean Wilentz has denounced Beck's progressive-themed conspiracy theories and "gross historical inaccuracies", countering that Beck is merely echoing the decades-old "right-wing extremism" of the John Birch Society.[89] According to Wilentz, Beck's "version of history" places him in a long line of figures who have challenged mainstream political historians and presented an inaccurate opposing view as the truth, stating:

Glenn Beck is trying to give viewers a version of American history that is supposedly hidden. Supposedly, all we historians — left, right and center — have been doing for the past 100 years is to keep true American history from you. And that true American history is what Glenn Beck is teaching. It's a version of history that is beyond skewed. But of course, that's what Beck expects us to say. He lives in a kind of Alice in Wonderland world, where if people who actually know the history say what he's teaching is junk, he says, 'That's because you're trying to hide the truth.'[89]

Conservative David Frum, the former speechwriter for President George W. Bush, has also spoken of Beck's propensity for negationism, remarking that "Beck offers a story about the American past for people who are feeling right now very angry and alienated. It is different enough from the usual story in that he makes them feel like they’ve got access to secret knowledge."[20]

In 2010, Matthew Continetti of the conservative Weekly Standard criticized Beck's conspiratorial bent, terming him "a Skousenite."[80]

Beck was criticized however by an array of people, including Menachem Z. Rosensaft and Joe Conason, who stated that Dilling was a proud anti-Semite and a Nazi sympathizer.[101][102][103]

Religious scholar Joanna Brooks contends that Beck developed his "amalgation of anti-communism" and "connect-the-dots conspiracy theorizing" only after his entree into the "deeply insular world of Mormon thought and culture."[90]

on the other hand, have been among those asserting that Beck helps spread "hate" by covering issues that stir up extremists.) What seems to unite Beck's disparate themes, Time argued, is a sense of siege.

Republican South Carolina U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham criticized Beck as a "cynic" whose show was antithetical to "American values" at The Atlantic's 2009 First Draft of History conference, remarking "Only in America can you make that much money crying."[130] The progressive watchdog group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting's (FAIR) Activism Director Peter Hart argues that Beck red-baits political adversaries as well as promotes a paranoid view of progressive politics.[131]

Laura Miller writes in Salon.com that Beck is a contemporary example of "the paranoid style in American politics" described by historian Richard Hofstader:

"The Paranoid Style in American Politics" reads like a playbook for the career of Glenn Beck, right down to the paranoid's "quality of pedantry" and "heroic strivings for 'evidence,'" embodied in Beck's chalkboard and piles of books. But Beck lacks an archenemy commensurate with his stratospheric ambitions, which makes him appear even more absurd to outsiders.[133]

In June 2010, investigative reporter Alexander Zaitchik released a critical biography titled Common Nonsense: Glenn Beck and the Triumph of Ignorance, with a title mocking Beck's work, Common Sense.[134] In an interview about the book, Zaitchik theorized that "Beck’s politics and his insatiable hunger for money and fame are not mutually exclusive", while stating: "Beck’s true religion is not Patriotism, Mormonism, or Conservatism. His true religion is cross-platform self-marketing ... According to Beck’s worldview, there’s no inherent contradiction between his sophisticated instinct for self-promotion, his propagandist rodeo clown act, his self-image as a media mogul, and his professed belief system. I think he actually believes that God wants him to make a ton of money and become this huge celebrity by fear mongering and generally doing whatever it takes in the media to promote right-wing causes."[135]

In September 2010, Philadelphia Daily News reporter Will Bunch released The Backlash: Right-Wing Radicals, High-Def Hucksters, and Paranoid Politics in the Age of Obama.[136] One of Bunch's theses is that Beck is nothing more than a morning zoo deejay playing a fictional character as a money-making stunt.[136] Writer Bob Cesca, in a review of Bunch's book, compares Beck to Steve Martin's faith-healer character in the 1992 film Leap of Faith, before describing the "derivative grab bag of other tried and tested personalities" that Bunch contends comprises Beck's persona:

His (Beck's) adenoidal 'Clydie Clyde' voice is based on morning zoo pioneer Scott Shannon's "Mr. Leonard" character. His history is borrowed from the widely debunked work of W. Cleon Skousen. His conspiracy theories are horked from Alex Jones and maybe Jack Van Impe. His anti-Obama, anti-socialist monologues are pure Joe McCarthy. His chalkboard is stolen from televangelist Gene Scott. His solemn, over-processed radio monologue delivery is a dead ringer for Eric Bogosian in Talk Radio. This is all well-worn stuff, but no one has drawn it all together and sculpted it for the purpose of conning an especially susceptible audience during turbulent racial and economic times.[136]

In October 2010 a polemical biography by Dana Milbank was released: Tears of a Clown: Glenn Beck and the Tea Bagging of America.[137] [edit] Satire, spoof and parody

Beck has been the subject of mockery and ridicule by a number of humorists. In response to Beck's animated delivery and views, he was parodied in an impersonation by Jason Sudeikis on Saturday Night Live.[138] The Daily Show's Jon Stewart has spoofed Beck's 9-12 project with his own "11-3 project", consisting of "11 principles and 3 herbs and spices",[139] impersonated Beck's chalk board-related presentation style for an entire show,[140] and quipped about Beck "finally, a guy who says what people who aren't thinking are thinking."[141] Stephen Colbert of The Colbert Report satirized Beck's "war room" by creating his own "doom bunker."[142] Through the character Eric Cartman, South Park parodied Beck's television program and his commentary style in the episode "Dances with Smurfs".[143] The Onion, a satirical periodical and faux news site, ran an Onion News Network video "special report" where it lamented that the "victim in a fatal car accident was tragically not Glenn Beck."[144] Meanwhile, the Current TV cartoon SuperNews! ran an animated cartoon feature titled "The Glenn Beck Apocalypse", where Beck is confronted by Jesus Christ who rebukes him as the equivalent of "Sarah Palin farting into a balloon."[145] Political comedian and satirist Bill Maher has mocked Beck's followers as an "army of diabetic mallwalkers",[146] while The Buffalo Beast, named Beck the most loathsome person in America in 2010, declaring "It’s like someone found a manic, doom-prophesying hobo in a sandwich board, shaved him, shot him full of Zoloft and gave him a show."[20] The October 31 Rally To Restore Sanity and/or Fear in Washington, hosted by Comedy Central personalities Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, was conceived as a parody of Beck's earlier Rally to Restore Honor.[147]

The JFFJ have claimed on their website that Beck seems "to draw his material straight from the anti-Semitic forgery, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion".[161] The letter states that Beck and Fox had "...diminish[ed] the memory and meaning of the Holocaust when you use it to discredit any individual or organisation you disagree with. That is what Fox News has done in recent weeks.

Criticism of Obama
Obama resigned from Trinity during the Presidential campaign after controversial statements made by Rev. Jeremiah Wright became public.[263]

There is much more criticism throughhout the article than that. But I agree it should all be bound up in a single criticism section. BlennGeck (talk) 19:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, there really isn't "much more criticism". Occasionally you may find "stated a desire for more involvement by Obama and the federal government." and "award drew a mixture of praise and criticism". Considering the thousands of media reports and coverage given to the Reverend Wright you may expect something more then what appears above.AerobicFox (talk) 21:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOT WP:N
Look, I'm not going to argue this with you on the RFC, but if you look at WP:NOT you will see that they are referring to different types of articles. The very first line of the section you have quoted states:

''As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Wikipedia articles should not be:

It is clearly referring to WP:N and is giving instructions on the format of articles, not on what information should be included. Soxwon (talk) 22:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It is clearly stated that "content policies" determine content, and that WP:NOT is a content policy. I don't know why you believe a completely unrelated notability guideline is being clearly referred to.AerobicFox (talk) 22:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It also clearly states in WP:NOTNEWS that the policies in that section are referring to article creation as I have bolded above. I'm not sure how much clearer I can make this. Soxwon (talk) 22:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've started a discussion here
 * Per random user who responded "This page WP:NOT is used primary to determine when content is not appropriate to include in an article. WP:N is used to determine if an article is appropriate in the first place"AerobicFox (talk) 22:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Mmm, that was my mistake, however, I still maintain that my argument holds true for WP:NOTNEWS as this is the section you were quoting. Soxwon (talk) 22:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That's alright, but WP:NOTNEWS still isn't a subsection of notability; otherwise there would be a "Main:WP:NOTABILITY" instead of a "Seealso:WP:NOTABILITY". It states "Wikipedia articles should not be:" as an opening for the subsection headings such as "Lyrics databases" which provides info for when lyrics should be included, what info about a song should be included, but does not state whether a song is notable enough for its own article. The song's notability is in WP:Notability, what content should be in a song article is in "WP:Lyrics"(in same section as WP:notnews).AerobicFox (talk) 22:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * However, the section you are quoting specifically links to notability: News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. (bolded is linked to WP:N in article) In addition, it wouldn't make sense for it to cover sources for content, as this would be redundant since it is already covered in WP:RS and WP:V. Soxwon (talk) 22:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * A seealso link and an internal link to WP:N doesn't seem to make this section any less a content policy to me. I will wait for more responses on the WP:not page.AerobicFox (talk) 22:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It appears I stand corrected, my apologies. Soxwon (talk) 23:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It is no problem. Perhaps that section should not link to WP:notability.AerobicFox (talk) 00:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Just a note
What User:BeckGlenn did wouldn't be considered meat-puppetry (which is off-wiki) but canvassing. Soxwon (talk) 23:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh I see. Thank you. AerobicFox (talk) 23:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't canvassing. I was asking what someone can do about users who block content simply because they don't like it. I was hoping he could site a policy or some kind of administrative recourse. I wasn't asking him to weigh in on the talk page. BlennGeck (talk) 00:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Carefully avoiding such wording seems like gaming the system. To ask a question like yours it is typically best to ask a general, non-specific, question at an unrelated forum, and not "What can we do about AerobicFox, he's messing up the Glenn Beck page" to a person who has previously shown disagreement to me on that page.AerobicFox (talk) 01:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I was not carefully avoiding anything. I didn't use those words, because I wasn't asking him to do anything like that. I just wanted to know if there was any kind of administrative way to handle posters who are blocking additions to articles. You are speculating now, and you aren't assuming good faith. Now please stop accusing me of things. BlennGeck (talk) 01:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Having been around for years I would suspect you would be familiar with such administrative ways.AerobicFox (talk) 02:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)