Talk:Glenn Beck

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
	This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.

This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute. Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.

I updated and corrected some information in his bio. It was his brother-in-law that committed suicide not brother as Glenn has no brothers, he has two sisters. Also I added that another brother-in-law had a fatal heart attack about the same time. Place of birth, Mt Vernon Washington, was also added. All of this info can be found at Glennpedia and he has stated it on his radio and tv show. -- 03/07/07 jsager75

---

I added my popular blog to the list of sites opposed to Beck. Please do not remove it, it has been linked many time on large blogs. Achorn 20:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

---

I removed a broken link to an Atlanta Journal Constitution page describing his TV deal with CNN.

I made the previous changes and it was not my intention to vandalize this site. I just feel that the term "right-wing" is perceived as a derogatory comment. I feel "conservative" more aptly describes Mr. Beck's work. I am a Democrat and still enjoy Mr. Beck and don't consider his work right-wing. Also I have seen it noted on plenty of sites that his ratings were 8 million or above.

What about Glenn's dad, who was a major influence on him? --Merovingian 14:11, Jan 3, 2004 (UTC)

Can't say I've listened to his show and some biographical information on him (e.g. date of birth) is particularly difficult to find. I'll look for some more articles on him and see what I can find. (Feel free to take part of the wikimoney back if you feel the article is insufficient. I think it's a pretty good start, at any rate.) -- Matty j 21:38, Jan 3, 2004 (UTC)

---

An anon user removed the statement that Beck opposes multiculturalism. I was about to revert when I realized that, never having heard of Beck, I don't know how he does feel about it, nor what he's said about it, if anything, on the air. In other words, I don't know if our anon friend (whose other edit was to say the US is "the greatest country on earth" and was qickly reverted) is disputing that Beck takes this position, that it's an example of a right-wing position, or that its inclusion is NPOV. ♥ «Charles A. L.» 21:37, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)

---

How about adding a "raised Catholic," phrase to his background info? (Source: 22 Jul 2005 broadcast, while stating how scary he finds the movie "The Exorcist.") --Michael Garoutte 16:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Beck's bumper announcements are to the effect that his show is the "perfect blending of entertainment and enlightenment", or words to that effect. Apparently he feels that this is something of a signature comment comparable to Limbaugh's "performing all my assigned host duties flawlessly, with zero mistakes." It probably ought to be in the article if someone can articulate it and add it better than I. Rlquall 23:02, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Contents 1 Content from Glenn Beck 2 Beck is now on more than 180 stations 3 NPOV 4 Stop spreading falsehoods 5 Just trying to present balance 6 homosexually themed television 7 Good job, everyone! 8 Let's avoid gushy bios, please? 9 anti-abortion vs. pro-life 10 New Orleans 11 External Links 12 Immediate Response 13 Controversial Statements 14 Neutrality: You Vandalized This Article 15 What Happened to this Article? 16 Unprotecting 17 Beck's Side Websites 18 9/11 & Katrina Victims v. Survivors 18.1 Statements without context hidden from article page 18.2 Discussion 19 Glennpedia (added to External Links) 20 "NO FANSITES"? 21 Misc. (added to External links) 22 Beckian Traits 23 Glenn Beck Program 24 'Recent Event' Reference 25 External links and the such.. 26 Beck on Radio, TV, Print, Stage 27 Career & Personal life 28 Global warming 29 RamaHanuKwanzMas 30 Best Page in the Universe 31 More-on Trivia 32 I Agree, but... 33 Changes to Criticism 34 Criticism and NPOV 35 Ellison incident 36 Beck OBSESSED With "The Apocalypse" 37 "Hate Speech" 38 "Response to Criticism" 39 Highly Biased 40 Suggestions 41 George W. Bush 42 Remove Dansig(sp) section 43 Blogs and attack sites 44 March 20, 2007 factual errors introduced by anonymous IP edits 45 Dina Sansing interview

[edit] Content from Glenn Beck

The following was written at Glenn Beck. Obviously a duplicate - it may be useful content: Based in Philadelphia, Glenn Beck, 40, is casting a tall shadow as the next phenomenon of talk radio. The former Top 40 DJ entered the talk format in 2001 and already his show is broadcast on 160 stations nationwide. Millions of listeners are drawn to this modern-day story teller who is armed with a quick wit, an informed opinion, and a unique ability to inspire others to experience their full potential with an open heart. His on-air presence is both commanding and inviting – a trait he has been refining for the last 26 years.

Glenn started in radio when he was only 13 years old by winning a local radio contest to be a DJ for an hour. Soon after that auspicious day, Glenn had three jobs – one at a Christian station, a Rock station, and a Country station – all of which his parents had to schlep him to in their home state of Washington. He was fired from all three jobs – on the same day when he was 14 years old!

After high school graduation, Glenn pursued his career as a Top 40 DJ at stations all over the country. Eventually, he landed an opportunity in Corpus Christi, Texas as the youngest morning guy in the U.S. at 18 years old. His career was soaring and took him to Top 40 morning shows in Baltimore, Houston, Phoenix, Washington, and New Haven, Conn. He rode the wave of professional success into the 1990s when things began to change. Today, Glenn points out, “When you have that kind of success that early in life, it’s easy for you to turn into a monster. And I did! I was not a good guy.”

At the age of 30, Glenn lost his passion for radio – and everything else – as alcoholism and drug addiction took him over. Struggling to find some answers to his problem, Glenn pursued higher education. Though he was accepted by Yale as a Theology major, he lasted only one semester, faced with a divorce from his first wife and separation from his two daughters – the oldest with Cerebral Palsy. He was emotionally and financially decimated and relegated to one of the smallest radio markets. The shooting radio star had fallen to earth.

Finally, he turned to a program of recovery.

Coming to terms with his past and staying sober shifted his life direction. He found a new love (his second wife, Tania), religion (he was baptized Mormon in 2000), and a new vision of his career – he would pursue talk radio.

Soon after his baptism, Glenn received a call from an agent who was interested in representing him. Days later, he had an offer to host his own talk radio show on WFLA-AM in Tampa, Florida, forcing him to move away from his daughters in New Haven. He and Tania decided to live in Tampa for two years and then, whether Glenn succeeded or failed, they would move closer to his girls.

He inherited the 18th placed position at WFLA-AM and took it to the #1 position in his first year, giving the station its highest ratings ever. Within 18 months, Premiere Radio Networks, the leading radio syndication company in the country, offered Glenn the opportunity to go national. In January 2002, The Glenn Beck Program launched on 47 stations.

He also kept his promise to his daughters and moved the national show to Philadelphia. The Glenn Beck Program airs weekdays from 9 a.m. to noon ET and be heard on more than 150 stations nationwide.

-- Chuq 03:25, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Beck is now on more than 180 stations

The show has grown to over 180 stations and now also features a weekend version. Also in the works, is a new magazine--"Glenn Beck's Fusion".

Fixed the 180 stations thing. Will work on Fusion Magazine stuff. SkeeloBob 16:16, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

The statement "In May of 2005, he threatened Michael Moore on the air. This inappropriate commentary received little notice by the now right leaning press," is NPOV. It should be modified to conform to Wikipedia neutrality standards. The nature of the threat should be described in greater detail. If Moore or a media watchdog group publically described it as inappropriate, this information should be included. Appropriateness or inappropriateness is subjective and should not be included in the text as a factual statement, even if you feel the statement crossed a line. The phrase "now right leaning press" is a slanted and controversial statement.

The transcript of Beck's statement aired on May 17, 2005 follows.

"I'm thinking about killing Michael Moore, and I'm wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it. No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out -- is this wrong? I stopped wearing my What Would Jesus -- band -- Do, and I've lost all sense of right and wrong now. I used to be able to say, 'Yeah, I'd kill Michael Moore,' and then I'd see the little band: What Would Jesus Do? And then I'd realize, 'Oh, you wouldn't kill Michael Moore. Or at least you wouldn't choke him to death.' And you know, well, I'm not sure."

-- Great Scott 15:21, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

If you knew about his disdain for political correctness, you would understand that Glenn is simply being sarcastic. Jm51 04:55, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stop spreading falsehoods

Unless you can cite specific instances of things, I will continue to delete them. Mr. Beck never "threatened" Michael Moore. Only someone who takes quotes out of context would believe that he was "threatening" anyone. Please try to remain neutral. If you do not get his jokes or sarcasm, doesnt mean it is not there. As he doesn't speak primarily on politics, the statement that his show contains more humor than other shows (Hannity, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Shultz, etc.) is factually correct. I will continue to keep this article neutral. SkeeloBob 21:33, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Neutral? You wouldn't know "neutral" if it ran over you on the highway. This article might as well have been written by Beck's PR department. The fact is Beck said (and this is a direct quote:) "I'm thinking about killing Michael Moore." That is a threat. I get fed up with all these right-wing nutcases saying things like "Oh, he didn't really mean it" or "He's just joking." How in the f*** do you know what Beck really meant? The fact is, NONE of us really knows. But the point is Beck DID SAY that he is thinking of killing Moore. That is a threat, no matter how you Nazi nutcases try to spin it.

You're taking this out of context though. It's a joke, I heard him say it in his "I am saying crazy things" high pitched noise. Seriously now, you are preching about these damned right wing nutcases, and yet you sound like a left wing nutcase yourself. As for the Nazi comment, well, you just called every conservative (right wing nutcase) a Nazi. Next you're going to apologize and say you were kidding.

Please read WP:NPA. Thanks. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 02:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just trying to present balance

Beck IS controversial and he is not loved by all. I don't feel its right to have a puff piece praising the man when there is another side to the story. Beck has been vocal when any Democrats or liberals joke around. He didn't think it was funny when Whoopi Goldberg made jokes about the President for instance. While I realize he was "joking" about Moore, many (including me) found joking about murdering someone to be in poor taste. Moore is a hated figure on the right--what if some unbalanced individual didn't get Beck's "joke" and hurt him. If an article is neutral about a controversial figure it should present both sides.

I have no problem putting the Moore bit in this article. I do have a problem saying it is "threatening." It was a comedy bit relating to Dave Chappelle. And if an individual harmed Michael Moore, it would not have been Beck's fault. It would be that individual's fault. Beck should not be responsible for other people's actions. If he were, any murder, domestic violence, or drug abuse would have to be blamed on COPS, rappers, or basically any movie or TV show out there. You would have to blame the war in Iraq on Moore since he simply joked about it. Quit blaming people for other people's actions! Moore is a great proponent of free speech, and Beck's comments did not violate his rights. I doubt Moore likes Beck very much, but he must respect his rights. SkeeloBob 14:48, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Beck has been vocal about things he has deemed tasteless many many times. He has made it clear he won't watch "R" rated movies for instance. Why is Joe Pesci swearing, an explicit sex scene and "Will and Grace" all bad things but joking about murdering someone is OK. I know you think he is hilarious but he ain't no Richard Pryor or George Carlin. I listened to a show were Glenn went on for quite awhile over some Good Charlotte lyrics that he thought were tasteless. He isn't funny and his nowhere near hip and his words are hypocritical and he contradicts himself constantly. I respect his right to speak but he doesn't respect my right to watch "Goodfellas" or someone elses right to watch "Will and Grace" (Don't even think about joking about the President--I heard Glenn compare or current Commander in Chief to Churchill once--he wasn't joking but I laughed at that one!). The biggest laugh in this article is from the statement that he is against political correctness. He is against liberal political correctness but (for instance) when Whoopi Goldberg made fun of President Bush, Glenn went on for weeks talking about how horrible it was for Whoopi to joke about the President. I get it---it's Ok to joke about Michael Moore, Howard Dean, Bill Clinton, gays, unions, etc. etc. but joke about a Republican President or any "red state" value and you've crossed the line with Glenn. My point really has nothing to do with this argument anyway---my point is the Wikipedia entry made Glenn Beck look as if he was wildly popular and beloved by all---I wanted to fix that. It was a puff piece written by fans---I wanted to let the other side be known.

I'll give it to you that Glenn is a little strange when it comes to watching R-rated movies (I believe it has something to do with him being a Mormon.), but he isn't against other people watching them. And I do think Beck is funny, but not "hilarious." (And although I may sound like a heretic to some, realistically, there are better comedians out there than Richard Pryor and George Carlin (unless you're really old), but that's an argument for another place and time.) I am pretty sure Beck would never consider himself "hip." I have absolutely no problem showing the other side. I think it is important to see all of the angles on a subject. And I cannot comment on his remarks about Whoopi because I don't know what he said about it. Do you have any quotes of his or anything? Was he commenting on the sexual nature of it? Or criticizing the President during a time of war? And what is so wrong with comparing Bush and Churchill? More greivous comparisons have been made, i.e. Moore's camparison of Iraqi insurgents and the Minutemen, IMHO. --SkeeloBob 14:37, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please---comparing George W. Bush to Winston Churchill? What an insult to Churchill!! Bush is leading us down the wrong path and his numbers are now sinking as the country catches on. Beck attacked Whoopi for the sexual nature of her remarks and for criticizing a President during wartime and for the fact it was at a Democratic fundraiser. I didn't think the joke was any big deal and in a free country (we still are in a free country I hope) you have the right to joke about a President even in wartime unless you are a talk radio host trying to sell people on a fictional "Real America" that never existed except in the Norman Rockwell fantasies of people like Glenn Beck. America is great because of freedom (real freedom--R rated movies and all) and diversity and I hope it stays that way forever.

I think the problem you two users are dancing around is basically this: Michael Moore and Glenn Beck believe in the same thing - freedom of speech. While I don't think Beck was threatening Moore with his insults, I also don't find joking about murdering someone to be in good taste. But guess what. He's allowed to do it. That's why we live in America. Because both Moore and Beck may say what they want. The first amendment is there to protect words and speeches that are UNpopular, not popular. If we reprimand Beck for his seemingly tasteless remarks, we must be forced to reprimand Moore for his many tasteless remarks. So it really boils down to two options: we understand that both men say what they think and do what they want because they live in a country that allows them to do it, or we bring civil action against both men for offending thousands of people with their words. And I do believe Glenn Beck IS against political correctness. Political correctness is what prevents both liberals and conservatives from saying what they truly want to say. If Beck gets angry at someone for insulting the president, it is because in his opinion, they are wrong. Doesn't mean that he's got the correct opinion, but he HAS A RIGHT TO HAVE IT just as much as they have a right to say what they want. And Beck has said many times over that he believes in freedom of opinion, and it's okay if people disagree with them, because they're exercising their rights. Doesn't mean he has to like their opinion, nor does it mean others have to like his. In fact, Glenn is very supportive of his detractors, and he makes all his hate mail available on his website, because he acknowledges that you cannot be loved by everyone.

[edit] homosexually themed television

I don't think I would classify Glenn as against homosexually themed television. He does seem to be against overtly sexual television and anything that pushes the limits of television standards like Janet Jacksons superbowl boob etc. The reason I make this distinction is that I specifically remember Glenn saying he enjoyed watching Queer Eye For The Straight Guy, when the show was first coming out. Just a minor distinction... ß Why is it that when you are logged off it calls Glen Beck an idiot and other name calling distortions? I s this really necessary? No. I personnally have never listened to his show, but, you end up losing any credibility by name calling. Just the facts please!

[edit] Good job, everyone!

The other day on his show, Beck called WP "a good resource for looking up just about anything," describing this entry as "eerily" accurate and "possibly more accurate then the bio on my own web site." - Calmypal (T) June 30, 2005 20:04 (UTC)

We do what we can. I have emailed Glenn a few times touting the great articles on Wiki about him and the stuff he does. --SkeeloBob 1 July 2005 13:48 (UTC)

I added this quote to the entry itself. It may not stand the test of time - I'll leave it to the experts. But I thought it was interesting and relevant for Wikipedia readers.

He again said the Wikipedia article is more accurate than his own website bio. I'm not too sure what day it was, but it was sometime this past week. Chalk another one up to WP! --SkeeloBob 16:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Let's avoid gushy bios, please?

Especially with a controversial personality like Beck, there is a tendency if you like a famous person to repeat the phrases you have heard him use in describing himself and others. These phrases are sometimes dialectal in origin, almost always ambiguous, and sometimes slanderous. It is important to at least attempt objectivity. My changes went to that purpose. If you want to debate the finer points, please do so here, but don't just roll it back or bat it around like a tennis ball in a boring political fray. That's not the purpose of Wikipedia, IMHO. --Doug Alford 19:29, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

SkeeloBob, is it really "notable" that Mr. Beck is "rather plump" -- or, for that matter, 6 feet 4 inches tall? The height is not particularly notable, but it is at least factual in context. The "plump" bit is not factual at all. It's just a quaint phrase that has no basis in definition or "notability". It could stay in the article, but only as a self-descriptive phrase used by Beck, if that is the case.--Doug Alford 04:51, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is pretty notable that he is rather plump. It is a topic on his show very often. I am not sure if Beck has ever called himself "plump," but it is factual. He talks about fitness fairly often, and his weight is normally the topic at-hand. It could possibly be said a less colloquial way, but I am not quite sure how to put it any other way. --SkeeloBob 13:36, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Then it's notable that he talks about it. "Plumpness", which, again, has no definition in the sense that there is no measured standard, is not notable because there are millions of people who could be described as "plump", including many radio personalities, so any objective description would not single out Mr. Beck as notable for this characteristic. It's really the word "notable" I have a problem with here. It's simply not true in this context, and it stands out as another example of taking someone's self-description and casting it as objective description. Can we at least change it to say something like "Beck often mentions his plumpness" ... or something else that doesn't read like Entertainment Tonight? ;-) --Doug Alford 14:50, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Well it is something he is known for. Should we not put personal information into articles? Should we not list James Madison as the shortest president? Should we not say that Richard Simmons used to weigh 300 pounds? Personal information is often used. And it's not "self-descriptive," it is "descriptive." It is something people know about Glenn Beck. Like I said before, maybe "plump" is too colloquial, but how else should we say this? --SkeeloBob 13:35, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

If it's something that he's known for, and if he mentions it frequently on the air, then maybe something like, "On the air, Glenn is also known for often referring to himself as overweight (or "plump") when making a particular point." Not necessarily that, of course, but something like it might work. Just a suggestion.Stanselmdoc 16:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] anti-abortion vs. pro-life

There was a change stating that because Wikipedia redirects pro-life to anti-abortion that we should use anti-abortion. This is wrong for a number of reasons. Beck states that he is pro-life, and by that he means much more than anti-abortion. If Wikipedia makes the assumption that the two terms are co-terminous, that is the fault of Wikipedia, not Glenn Beck or this article. For instance, he was the most vocal defender of Terri Schiavo, which he considered to be a cause for pro-life, that had nothing to do with abortion. — Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)} 16:44, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Beck states that he is pro-life: I suppose that includes the lives of those "scumbags" in New Orleans, as he calls them?68.110.199.122 02:25, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

"Pro-Life" is a commonly used term to refer to those who oppose abortion. As such unless the person in question has made a distinctive effort to redefine that word it should be used to refer to opposition to abortion. I think wikipedia is right in refering to those who oppose abortion as being "anti-abortion" because this more accurately describes their position. Most anti-abortion people support some policies that involve the taking of life such as the death penalty, war, lack of funding for stem cell research etc. Presto-3 15:21, July 26, 2006 (UTC)

And people who define "lack of funding for stem cell research" as "taking of life" are known as liberals. Val42 04:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Presto-3, yesterday you removed the comment of mine above without comment on this talk page or in the "Edit summary". I just restored my comment. What would you call a conservative who removed your opinion from a public forum? Val42 02:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Orleans

Beck states that he is pro-life: I suppose that includes the lives of those "scumbags" in New Orleans, as he calls them?68.110.199.122 02:25, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I copied the above from the previous section because it was a "response" to that topic as well as starting a new topic itself. I'm glad that when this anonymous provided this similar sentiment on the main page that he at least provided a reference. That way, the anonymous' "synopsis" of the statement can be corrected. Thanks again to the Anonymous contributor. Val42 02:51, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

And, Yes, the anonymous poster would be correct. Even "scumbags" have a right to life. --Jared W 17:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

The Big Frog 109.9 FM - A fansite for the fake radio station used on the Glenn Beck Program

More On Trivia DOT ORG - Tips and Suggestions on how not to be humiliated on the Glenn Beck Program

Both have been mentioned before on the Glenn Beck Program. --Spunkz 19:11, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Immediate Response

Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia where anyone can contribute. We would like to thank the user Neutrality for contributing to this article. Ben, please stop removing edits and additions that others make. I created a section called "More On Trivia" which is a highly sucessful segment on the Glenn Beck program. If you listen to the show then you would know that this segment explains a lot about his character and at least a mention should be included in his entry. Half the time Ben, I think your edits are just attacks against the guy. The rest of us are just interested in a rounded profile that represents his true character. Unlike the others you have banned from making edits in this entry, just open a dialogue with us. Thanks. --Spunkz 04:44, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Controversial Statements

Can we try and find more sources? Linking from just one site (mediamatters.org) gives the impression of bias. --Spunkz 04:58, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I removed the following comments from the article:

"This last section is biased and his comments were taken out of context his referral to Katrina scumbags had to do with those who would say they were looting to support their families but steal tvs, his comments about the 9/11 victims was actually about the families of 9/11 victims who blame President Bush for their deaths. Maybe before you add comments you should do a little more research."

--Spunkz 22:19, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't know why unfavorable statements end up on the Controversial Statements Catagory only days after the statements are made. When Glenn Beck speaks, he does not filter his statements to please those who disagree with him, and he seeks to entertain as he informs. Not taking away his anger towards Jimmy Carter, he decided to bring humor into the equation. This is not the place to discuss Carter's post-presidency record, but many believe that Carter has been detrimental to the cause of America and humanity.

At this rate, the Conrtoversial Statements will be much longer than anything else. There needs to be some discussion on which statements merit being put in the article.--The Saxon 17:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

First let me state that I actually watch Glen Beck, and when I came to this wikipedia article I was shocked that the New Orleans/9-11 victoms comments were not in here. Plus there is no mention of his decleration of World War III verses Iran. Are you seriously telling me that these comments don't rise to the level of being mentioned in the wikipedia article. Then I go into the discussion and see that the New Orleans comments were in, but then removed. Then i see comments like 'he seeks to entertain as he informs' and 'he brings humor into the equation'. These comments are blatently biased. I believe that Michael Richards could say that he was trying to be entertaining with his rant. But does that mean that story should not be a part of his wikipedia article. Certainlly not. Don't be biased with your edits. (66.173.230.50 00:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Neutrality: You Vandalized This Article

It seems you are the all-knowing when it comes to Glenn Beck since you are now the only one who can update the damn thing. I will no longer contribute to this article, nor will I recommend it for anyone to use as a reference for Glenn Beck. Great JOB! The only author who can edit this article (see Neutrality) is nothing more than a liberal socialite who enjoys censoring opinion that opposes his own. There is no irony in that all the edits he has made (which you can view in the Glenn Beck wiki history) have a left leaning opinion. He takes his "facts" from out of context quotes from a liberal website named mediamaters.org. Ironic indeed that when the rest of us had the ability to edit the article we didn't remove your "Controversial Statements" section.

You removed mentions of Glenn's new baby, refuse to let us correct the spelling of Tania's name, and deleted the More On Trivia section! Yet you were sure to replace that with the mediamaters.org talking points (which if we want to be technical should be migrated to wikiquotes cause that's what they are).

You claim that this is part of a clean up. Yet, you never followed wikipedia guidelines and logged your vandalism of the article.

If you would like to see an honest reflection of Glenn's life I recommend this site:

GlennPedia.com

--Spunkz 04:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What Happened to this Article?

Once upon a time, there was a great biographical article. Then the evil POV-ers came and ruined it. And I mean POV-ers from both sides: Pro-Glenn and Anti-Glenn. The problem is there was no reason for a protection to go up to prevent "vandalism" that wasn't even occurring! And the "Controversial Statements" section? Don't even get me started, EVERYONE knows you can't just put quotes in an article without adding some substance behind them. That's not wiki policy, that's wikiquote policy. If you want to quote his controversial statements, back it up with information like who got mad at his statements, who sent him hate-mail, who organized a protest or something. You can't just put the quotes in. Ugh, when I have more time, I'll bring up more issues. Stanselmdoc 15:08, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotecting

Time to edit. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 17:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Beck's Side Websites

Is there a reason that the sites that I have put up on the page keep getting erased? I have made it abundantly clear that these certain sites have been put own by Beck and his show, and are therefore not fansites:

• Jim Dingle Talking Issues
• Evil Conservatives
• Nerf Hoffelmeyer for NYC Mayor Campaign Site

These sites were created by Beck and his staff as a joke based on the topic. The Jim Dingle site has been going for at least three years, continuously. The other two have been around at least for a year. There sites are not fan sites.

Sites like More On Trivia is a fansite and I have therefore not included it. Do not erase Beck Sponsored Sites. --Saxonjf 01:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Note: Nick Berg was not a Wall St Journal Reporter. If you click on "Nick Berg" it describes him and his occupation. This should be corrected.--GRW 13 October 2005

[edit] 9/11 & Katrina Victims v. Survivors

The quote from Media Matters (the blatantly left-wing propaganda machine) ought to be left off. Glenn was in no way degrading the survivors of Katrina & 9/11, but those who tried to play the 'victim' role. It could be a whole article in and of itself.

If the Michael Moore thing weren't so funny, we would think about removing that, but honestly, who likes Michael Moore? --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.117.81.200 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Apparently Lord Voldemort won't let us delete the quotes taken out of context without discussing. Lets discuss the stupid quotes so we can remove them. Anyone care to actually take the postition that the quotes aren't out of context?!? Chancelot 02:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I was thinking that that quote was notable, so it might warrant inclusion, but if you remove that one, why not remove the other quotes out of context? But you are correct, we should at least have the full quote, not just the snippets mediamatters plucked out to fit their POV. Okay, go ahead and remove them until we can come up with some consensus here on the talk page. Nevermind I'll go ahead and do it. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 12:48, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I've got no problem removing all the out-of-context quotes, but I definately think that the 9/11 & Katrina victims is completely out of context. I'm not sure if you listen to Beck, but during that entire show he mentioned that he had nothing but respect for the survivors of such tragedies, but he was disgusted with how quickly people start to become greedy and scummy. He doesn't hate the 9/11 families, he loathes the families that sought to make it all about them. If you want to have a full quote, we'll pretty much need to start a whole new article just one his controversial statements. Chancelot 05:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Statements without context hidden from article page

On May 14, 2004, Beck said on his show that Michael Berg, the father of the murdered Nick Berg, was "despicable" and "a scumbag," saying "can you let your son's body become the same temperature as your son's head before you turn this into a political campaign against the president—could you do that?" and that "I find this guy despicable. Everything in me says that. The want to be a better person today than I was yesterday says he's a dad, he's grieving, but I don't buy that. I'm sorry, I don't buy it. I think he is grieving, but I think he's a scumbag as well. I don't like this guy at all." [1][2]

In a May 17, 2005 comedy bit involving what people would do for 50 million dollars, he asked, "Would you kill someone for that?" He said he was "thinking about killing (filmmaker) Michael Moore" and pondered whether "I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it," before deciding: "No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out—is this wrong?" [3]

[edit] Discussion

A while back, I think there was discussion about the killing Michael Moore bit. Perhaps that would be a good place to start. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 12:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

The Michael Moore thing doesn't bother me at all. Anyone who actually thinks that Glenn REALLY wants to choke Moore is just looking for a reason to hate (or continue to hate) Glenn. I think the qualifying phrase in that whole line is "In a comedy bit..." which should make it obvious that it was for humor.

Chancelot 14:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC) I think anyone reading the back and forth on this page and paying attention will get the best insight as to the nature of Glenn Beck's "controversy" than any actual comment. The mere fact that this article inspires people to begin commenting on the positions Beck has taken rather than actually discussing Beck himself shows the free speech system at work. Whether one agrees with his political positions or not is irrelevant until the first amendment is repealed. He discusses what he thinks is interesting, and enough people listen and agree with him to keep his show on the air... 208.50.126.126 23:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)Random Sick Twisted Freak

[edit] Glennpedia (added to External Links)

I added Glennpedia to the list of external links, as it contains a lot of valuable information - including recaps of each show. It is made so that a new listener to the program can understand the origin of many aspects of the show. 140.254.224.194 20:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "NO FANSITES"?

It appears that Glenn's show is no longer broadcast in Vancouver, so that part has been removed. I have also re-added the "fan sites". The removal of those sites is inconsistent with Wikipedia policy - if Glenn's fan sites are to be removed, it would only be fair to do the same for those of Al Franken and other talk radio hosts. 204.112.177.140 07:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Misc. (added to External links)

Added a link to the mediamatters.org entries for Glenn Beck, to balance out the gushingly cute pro-Glenn sites above. --65.248.243.100 22:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beckian Traits

Glenn Beck occasionally breaks the traditional rule against dead air time. His long, silent pauses contradict the common wisdom that such absence of sound will result in loss of listeners. Also, he sometimes may be unconsciously imitating Howard Stern's voice. This is most notable when he lowers his voice to a confidential whisper. Lestrade 16:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

[edit] Glenn Beck Program

I've added the Glenn Beck Program as an new article. I took it from Glennpedia and based on this discussion page, it will need a lot of scrutiny. Please have at it. --Jared W 17:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'Recent Event' Reference

There's an sentence that references 'recent events' without giving a relative timeframe: "As illegal immigration and other issues have come to the forefront in recent months..." I think perhaps this should be changed to mark an absolute date or removed entirely. A year from now, this will make no sense otherwise. --Jrb90 23:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links and the such..

Has anyone else noticed that ALL of the external links are pro-Beck in some way, shape or form? I think in the name of "balance," something touted on here quite a bit, other, less adoring info should be up. Try reading what Media Matters says about him (by actually linking to the site - the link on this page is bad) and his misinformation. If all you're doing is including links that take you to his list of "fake heartless corporations" and etc... then it's no more than an ad for this guy and his show.

The CNN link all the way at the bottom was not a "news article" - it was internal advertising by CNN for one of their shows. The two Media Matters links are good now but don't entirely balance out the frothing at the mouth adoration contained in the outrageous number of links above them.

I trimmed the list way down. I removed all the fan sites, and one redundant Media Matters page and one redundant Beck page. I didn't know what heading to use for the MMFA and DailyKos sites. You should think about getting an account. And please sign your posts with 4 tildes (~~~~) so it's easier to follow. Thanks. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I object to the fan sites being removed, especially Glennpedia. Neutrality is not the same as balance. If there are more pro-Glenn sites on the web, there should be more pro-Glenn sites listed here. Why shouldn't the external links be represented in their actual ratios. Listing sites that present an opposing view of Glenn is a great idea, but don't hide information from wikipedia readers in the name of artificial balance. --Jared W 23:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beck on Radio, TV, Print, Stage

I have just added a Glenn Beck on Headline news section. Please review and enhance. I would like to trim down the Glenn Beck Program section, or rather, move much of the content to the Glenn Beck Program article. I'd also like to see the Book and Magazine section moved up with the Radio and Headline news section. If a Live events section is added then this article will feature a section for each of the mediums where Glenn appears. I will do this slowly and watch for objections. --Jared W 22:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I just condensed the Glenn Beck Program section. I was careful to preserve the old content in the Glenn Beck Program article. Since I am a Glenn Beck fan, I invite others to review my changes for NPOV. --Jared W 22:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I just added the Live Events section. I've uploaded an image to wikipedia incorrectly and it is subject to deletion. Can someone with more experience help me fix the licensing on that image before it is removed? I explained in the note that it has been provided for the public to download, but didn't know what licensing to choose. Thanks. --Jared W 16:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Career & Personal life

I separated out the Career and Early life and the Personal life sections into Career and Personal life. In doing this, there where a few gaps that needed to be filled. I think that having the personal life and professional life mixed together promoted a "touchy feely" sense in the career section. It is my hope that with them separated, a factual account of Glenn's career can now be presented. With this in mind, I intend to reintroduce a Criticism section with some of the content from the old Controversial statements section. I think that by placing it in the Career section, it will be able to be presented with a neutral point of view.

I expect to use Not Just Another Conservative as the primary resource when I create the Criticism category and encourage other editors to read it before editing this article. --Jared W 16:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Glancing though some of the Wikipedia:Featured articles I came across the Tony Blair article and I really like the way his [section] is done. I think we should model that section here. Here is some quick brain storming of ideas. --Jared W 16:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Section titled Criticism
• Subsctions for...
  • Political Correctness (lack of it)
  • Michael Moore statements
  • Katrina Survivor statements
  • Hate monger accusations
  • Racist accusations
• Should contain statements like, So and so accused Beck of _________
• May contain statements from Glenn about the criticism

[edit] Global warming

I removed the following from Political views section.

However Beck has no degree or actual range of expertise in climatology... He has also never mentioned on his TV show or his radio program the fact that the National Academy of Sciences recently conducted an investigation at the behest of the Republican chairman of the House Science Committee to find out if global warming was occurring and if in fact it was being caused by humans. The National Academy of Sciences report that followed subsequently confirmed that global warming is no doubt real and is in also indisputably the result of human activity. Many people feel that Beck's continued denial of climate change in the face of overwhelming scientific opinion is irresponsible and misleading, if not outright dangerous.

That section is about Glenn's political views, not about disproving his opinions, pointing out his lack of education, or warning the world about his irresponsibility. There is a Criticism section now, and well sourced criticism can go there. --Jared W 03:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The information about global warming presented in the above paragraph is still available through the global warming, global climate change, and scientific opinion on climate change links which are still available in the text of the article. This seems appropriate and sufficient to me. --Jared W 04:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The statement "This despite the overwhelming non-partisan scientific consensus that global warming is in fact happening and is in fact being caused by human activity." is ironic since its context seems to prove Beck's point. There are plenty of good, solid scientific sources which disagree with human caused global warming. This statement shows the writer's bias not any facts. There are tons of unanswered questions about climate, so for anyone to claim they "Know" is premature and smacks of an agenda other than proving or disproving current theories.

[edit] RamaHanuKwanzMas

RamaHanuKwanzMas redirects to this Article but it is nowhere mentioned. --Majoran 11:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It has been fixed. It is a stub article, but it is there. I want input from other Glenn Beck fans to provide citations and increase the information on said page. Val42 19:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone verify that Glenn Beck actually coined this term? The section concerning this word badly needs a citation.

[edit] Best Page in the Universe

To User:-Dense- and IP address 67.71.150.154,

The reason that I keep removing the *The Best Page In The Universe link is because it is not a site opposed to Beck. It is not even a page opposed to Beck. Glenn Beck is only mentioned in passing on that page. There is no commentary about why or what the author doesn't like about Beck. It doesn't make sense to me to link to that page from this article. --Jared W 14:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

 It is obviously just a "best page" fan trying to drum up more traffic for     
 the failing site. I've seen the in other site forums and chat rooms 
 tossing the link around for the same purpose, on a few occasions. I wish
 them luck, though it doesn't really seem to be working. Trying it on wiki
 is just inappropriate, however.

[edit] More-on Trivia

I have added a paragraph on more-on trivia, as this is an important part of beck's show. I also added an external link to the More-on trivia fansite, per the rule for fansites, found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links Color me invisible 13:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I Agree, but...

I agree with 157.201.154.219 that the whole critisms section should be redone, but I do not think that it should have been deleted. I am going to work on maybe writing a new one, providing quotes in context. I do agree that the entire section is NPOV. I personally think that the critism section should show only critism by outside sources. I will definitly try and rewrite the critism section. I do not want to delete the section! I also suggest that 157.201.154.219 should get an account ( if you read this ). Posts can be signed by just adding ~~~~ at the end of your post. Color me invisible 16:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I restored the criticism section that 157.201.154.219 half-way deleted. I assume that you mean that the section is not NPOV. Please help me understand what is wrong with it. --Jared W 21:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changes to Criticism

I am working on changing the critism section, as I think that some of it is taken out of context, and needs to show what Beck actually said. For instance, he did not call a random poor family in New Orleans "scumbags", he was referring to those survivors who had taken to kill rescue workers, raping and pillaging. Other comments listed on the critism page are also taken out of context, and I think that they need to show the full quote in its context. Color me invisible 14:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I wanted to save a synopsis of what I wrote on your user page here.

• A criticism section is not the same as a controversial statements section.
• A criticism section should be a place that predominately presents what Glenn's critics say, not what Glenn says. (although some rebuttal is appropriate)
• A lot of full context statements will clog the article (it has been tried here before). You'd have to create a separate Glenn Beck, controversial statements article to cover it.
• I think the important points for the section are:
  • Not everyone agrees with Glenn, some people hate him ... a lot
  • There have been organized efforts by opponents to end his career
  • The opposition increased exponentially when he started his TV show
  • Many of his critics hate him just because he is a prominent conservative, not really because of anything he says.

Good luck with the rewrite, and try to avoid the tendency to fill this article with quotes from Glenn. --Jared W 15:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism and NPOV

A criticism section does not violate NPOV and should be included in this article. The Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Negative content section states Views that are relevant to the subject's notability, are based on reliable sources, and are not given undue weight are usually appropriate content. If a view represents that of a tiny uninfluential minority, it has no place in the article.

Other examples of Biographies of living persons with appropriate criticism sections are:

• Tony Blair#Criticism and Criticism of Tony Blair — Wikipedia Featured Article
• George W. Bush#Criticism and public perception
• Rush Limbaugh#Subject of criticism
• Pope Benedict XVI — An excerpt from this article is "This has drawn sharp criticism from Catholic gay rights advocates like journalist Andrew Sullivan, who claim that Benedict is espousing a form of fundamentalist edict, and is opposed to external questioning of his doctrines"

Glenn has many critics. It is part of his notability. To remove or hide what Glenn's influential opposition says about him would make this article biased. I argue that in order for this article to be NPOV it needs the criticism section. Please refer to my comments on the subject in the previous section. Sweeping changes to an article should be discussed here before they are made. And please use your wikipedia account before making sweeping changes to an article. --Jared W 17:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Is there a problem with explaining that his criticism has thus far been primarily "liberal" groups? The article states that Beck's a conservative; the organizations that have criticized him are "progressive" or liberal. It's extremely relevant to indicate what kinds of organizations are criticizing him. I don't want to enter a revert war, so I'm posting here. Zz414 19:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

It is probably appropriate to describe the standpoint of his critics when discussing them. However, in the case of FAIR, the more accurate term would be "left-leaning" instead of "liberal." Twalls 20:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Per the discussion here, FAIR has been called "left-leaning." The Wiki page for FAIR notes that it identifies itself as a "progressive" group and that it has been described as "liberal" by the Columbia Journalism Review and Media Matters. "Left-leaning" is the agreed-upon resolution here. Please stop making anonymous changes when a resolution has been reached here. --Zz414 14:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ellison incident

Beck asked Ellison for a moment of political incorrectness which the Congressman-elect obliged. During the interview, Beck implied that there was a burden of proof on Muslims to "prove to me that you are not working with our enemies," and that "that's the way I feel, and I think a lot of Americans will feel that way." The interview has drawn the ire of bloggers and was featured on Jon Stewart's "The Daily Show." This is more appropriate, if at all, for the criticism section. But is this even a noteworthy episode? Liberals disapproved and commented about it, but it doesn't seem to be any more unique than any of Beck's other incidents. The whole quote of Beck actually much less significant than this entry makes it appear: "[W]hat I feel like saying is, 'Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies.'" That suggests that Beck isn't even willing to go that far himself, but that's his inclination, and he wanted to give Ellison a chance to respond. I don't know that this entry is notable, or that it's NPOV to describe the actual criticism. Zz414 03:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Beck's special "Exposed: The Extremist Agenda" on November 15, 2006, was rated the #1 show on all cable news in the 25-54 demographic.[10] The report presented clips from Middle Eastern television, interviews with former terrorists, and other media that Beck asserted had been overlooked by the Western media. I was the one who wrote the piece on the Ellison interview and I must say that if you're going to include the aforementioned quote which makes Glenn look like a hero and shows a POV from the right then the Ellison interview should certainly be there, at least to balance it out and neutralize the point of view. It's not like what I posted was rhetoric on my part that tried to distort what Beck said, it was his words. I think it may not be something that everyone remembers when he's dead and buried but it is certainly relevant today and depicts a complete image of his persona, that he opnely stated he doubts Muslim Americans and believes that Congressman-elect Ellison is infiltrating Congress. Would he be casting those shadows of doubt if Ellison was a Republican? I'm open to a debate and being inclusive of the bit of the article that is italisized above if my section is as well. Stephen 00:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to make him look like a hero--I cut down about 75% of that portion, which originally was much more pro-Beck, if you'll look at the history of edits. The only reason it's at all relevant (in my opinion) is because of the ratings it gave him. If the entire quotation from Beck is in the proper context (one of my original concerns was that it wasn't the actual context), then I'm open to including it. But I'd feel much more comfortable if a more neutral non-POV source, such as [4], were used as the basis for the episode. Thoughts? Zz414 00:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I moved it and included the news source link. Based on Ellison's "shrugging off," I'm still not sure it's newsworthy, but I'll leave it for now. Zz414 20:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Once again, someone edited to include various POV citations and expanded the entry to give it undue weight--Olberman's "Worst Person" award and Media Matters coverage are relevant, but they shouldn't be controlling for this single incident. Thoughts on reverting? Zz414 13:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe that it is a noteworthy item. It is a good demonstration of the type of criticism that Glenn receives. The mediamatters blogs where especially alight with this topic and the mention of Olberman's worst person in the world award also seems approprate. It is very difficult to present criticism of Glenn in an NPOV way that satisfies both sides. I think that incidents like this that generate several external links to news stories and blogs is one of the best ways to present criticism of Glenn to a reader. As always, listening to or watching Glenn's shows will always be the best way to put criticism of him into context. --Jared W 16:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Also in the current version it says: "the TV host's insult". Calling it an 'insult' seems to be POV. Also one should keep the noted criticism by Olberman and others - as it is a section devoted to criticism after all, not just describing interviews. IMO it's very representive of the type of criticism Glenn recieves, and the reasons he recives them. I don't see why one would object to linking media matters for this interview - it is after all used for the other topics in the criticism section. -- User:SuluG 10:20, 20 November 2006 (PST)

The current wording is highly - how to put it - one-sided. The current wording is, in fact, completely misleading. It is out of context, plain and simple, to not include any lead-up to the question.

Current revision: "In November 2006, Beck drew criticism on Jon Stewart's "The Daily Show" and Keith Olbermann's "Countdown" for asking Congressman-Elect Keith Ellison of Minnesota, the first American Muslim to be elected to Congress, to "prove to me that you are not working with our enemies".[12] Olbermann named Beck the winner of the "Worst Person in the World" award for his comments.[13] Ellison shrugged it off. "It's just shock TV," he said. "Some pundits think they have to ask the most outrageous questions."

Glenn Beck talked about this on his radio show shortly afterward, yet nothing is mentioned of his response. I find it highly misleading, being someone that listens to him regularly, to call this "shock television." The quote may be worth mentioning, but it is highly unbalanced with its only companion being an "award" from the (notoriously-biased-according-to-some) Olbermann. If this entry isn't made more balanced... well, it'll only confirm what I already knew about Wikis. But I won't get into that. (I'd do it myself but apparently some of you - very often those that won't even read the Discussion page - frown upon giving the whole truth when conservatives look bad otherwise.) And if you don't see why one would object to linking to Media Matters... may as well throw this page to the dogs. They're okay to give criticism (which means they may fit in this section), but certainly NOT okay to give authoritative nonpartisan opinions. - Glynth 11:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The current version accurately depicts what Beck was criticised for saying without getting into long tomes (and thus adding more weight to the section). If you have a link to Becks response please include it in the response to criticism section. I was unable to find any. As for Media Matters - *shrug*, its been used as a source for other incidents for criticism, so i don't see why one would object to its use for the Ellison interview. Regardless the actual criticism is only linked from MSNBC and the Star Tribune. Media Matters is only used to provide a transcript and video of what Beck said. If you can find another (more neutral) site for the transcript and/or video, please feel free to include it instead. -- User:SuluG 11:15, 30 November 2006 (PST)

I thinks this has been settled. The final result was just fine. But removing the context where he doesn't just ask outright "prove you're not working for our enemies" but does qualify it with "what I feel like saying" is important. Removing that casts Beck in a more negative light intentionally as POV. Zz414 19:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

In reviewing the recent change, a couple of points standout: First, the current version is not an accurate portrayal of what Beck said. Compare the actual quotation-

Glenn Beck: And I have to tell you, I have been nervous about this interview with you, because what I feel like saying is, Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies.

And I know you're not. I'm not accusing you of being an enemy, but that's the way I feel, and I think a lot of Americans will feel that way.

Clearly Beck is not only saying " if he understood that some Americans may feel like asking ". Nor is it the reason Beck was criticised. Refer to the linked MSNBC and Star Tribune articles. Secondly, the criticism section is to document what criticism Beck has received, not to insert 'contextual qualifiers' which might make Beck 'look' one way or the other. I thought the original version was more neutral as it didn't cast any hidden aspirations on what Beck might have 'meant'. I don't see the "what I feel like saying" portion relevant enough to include in the article as it dosn't change the meaning of what was said either way (If someone says "I question your patriotism" or "I feel like questioning your patriotism" - it's the same thing - he is questioning your patriotism). If you do feel that section is important, then please add the entire quote: what I feel like saying is, "Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies." instead. -- SuluG 16:35, 30 November 2006 (PST)

I think that instead of trying to justify or clarify what Beck was saying with an explanation from one's interpretation of the interview, it would be better to add the full quote: "And I have to tell you, I have been nervous about this interview with you, because what I feel like saying is, Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies. And I know you're not. I'm not accusing you of being an enemy, but that's the way I feel, and I think a lot of Americans will feel that way." and then point out the responses to his remarks.--Folksong 10:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that. Zz414 12:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Just a reminder, this is the entire quote:

BECK: OK. No offense, and I know Muslims. I like Muslims. I've been to mosques. I really don't believe that Islam is a religion of evil. I -- you know, I think it's being hijacked, quite frankly.

With that being said, you are a Democrat. You are saying, let's cut and run. And I have to tell you, I have been nervous about this interview with you, because what I feel like saying is, Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies.

And I know you're not. I'm not accusing you of being an enemy, but that's the way I feel, and I think a lot of Americans will feel that way.

Adding the entire quote as a comprise is not an adequate solution. The criticism section should not be a list of what Beck said, but rather what criticism he received. Maybe it would be better to remove the entire quote and simply say 'Beck was criticized for apparently questioning Ellison’s patriotism' and linking to the actual conversation. Ellison’s comments should also be removed - he was responding to a question asked by a reporter, not criticizing Beck. -- SuluG 19:00, 02 November 2006 (PST)

But the two are inextricably tied. If you're going to give some of the quotation, you've got to give the whole thing. It's unfair POV to keep a fraction of the quotation and then point out the criticism, when in fact the quotation was much more than that. It casts a negative light on Beck because the quotation is deliberately misleading out of context. He was criticized for a component of that quotation, but that shouldn't prevent this article from remaining neutral by giving the whole quotation. And Ellison's response is also relevant, because it directly addresses the quotation and the circumstance under which he was criticized. It's negative POV to Beck to slant everything as a part of a quotation and the criticism, just as it would be positive POV to exclude the whole section or to include only the quotation and Ellison's response without mention of the criticism. The context, on both sides, is important to avoid selective POV. Zz414 14:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. I have editied it to remove the entire quotation and simply said "allegedy questioning the patriotism of Kieth Ellison" instead. Since the actual quotations were not used in other incidents of criticism for Glenn Beck - 911/Katrina victims, Michael Moore, etc, maybe it's best we don't include any quotation for this incident as well. - SuluG 22:00, 03 November 2006 (PST)

I think that's a good edit. Zz414 19:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beck OBSESSED With "The Apocalypse"

Perhaps Glenn Beck's dark, deeply personal obsession with "The Apocalypse" and/or "End Times" should be mentioned in this article. Hardly a show goes by where he doesn't mention these subjects, with every show offering a new 'prediction' as to when the "Tribulation" will begin. I know he's simply pandering to his right-wing Christian viewership in order to boost ratings on an otherwise sensationalistic, loud, and moronic show, but he personally seems very serious about the predictions of his on-air 'specialists,' so maybe this obsession of his warrants a mention. We can call the section the "Glenn Beck Apoca-Meter," charting the number of mentions/segments found in the show's history. --Pseudothyrum 04:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

if you listen to what Glen says he relly isnt "pandering to his right-wing viewership", he is makeing fun of the fact how everything is blown out of porportion. he is overexagerating like the news does. Razor romance 15:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree with Razor Romance. I've been a casual Glenn Beck listener for several years, and his apocalyptic talk is not a joke, nor is it satirical. I'm not sure it rises to the level of Wikipedia-worthy, but to characterize it as satire is **totally** inaccurate. --Skidoo 14:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Hate Speech"

I removed the incident and its POV-header. It seems little more than a common joke that Americans make about the French, and the "outcry" listed seems limited to a couple of non-noteworthy blogs. Zz414 22:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Response to Criticism"

The link does not work. I am removing the link and the quote associated to it.

Well, the link not working is not necessarily reason to immediately delete it. It's been cited there a while. Although it's good that you bring it up here so we can see if an alternate version can be found, etc. Mad Jack 18:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Why did you remove the links to audio where he talked about michael moore —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.109.156.13 (talk) 18:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC).

Ah, I did a mass revert because I didn't think this part (""No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out -- is this wrong?"") interpreted as this ("Glen Beck threatened to kill Michael Moore. He mentioned how he would look him in the eye while choking him to death. ") was fair. When it comes to something as highly contentious as that, it's probably best to just use his original quote Mad Jack 18:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Highly Biased

This article is highly biased with most criticisms of Glenn Beck being deleted. My links to the audio of Glen Beck threatening Michael Moore keeps disappearing. He mentions how he would look him in the eye and choke him.

(sigh) The article is not "highly biased". It is in accordance with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Please read and understand wikipedia guidelines. --Jared W 06:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. This article is about Beck, not about everything he's criticized about. There are a few of the more prominent criticisms, but to avoid things like undue weight, the amount of criticism is proportional to the length of the article. Zz414 20:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

To speak more directly to your point, I think that the statement in the Criticism section makes it very clear that he has spoken unprofessionally about a number of people, and readers can see the details in the reference links if they are interested. -- KellyLogan 19:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions

Glenn Beck earned his way to national fame in July 2003 at his Tampa, FL. radio station, he recieved a "local" news story on a comatose woman awaken after years of being in a coma by the name of Terry Schiavo was going to lose life support. The article may add the fact that Beck is the first major radio host to bring forth the Terry Schiavo life-support controversy to national consciousness and the politically heated event would be lost if it wasn't for Glenn Beck got the story around the world.

Another thing to add is on the January 18, 2007 segment of the Glenn Beck (radio) program (09:15AM EST)- courtesy of his official web site, when he's the subject of verbal attacks by congressman Robert F. Kennedy Jr. that Beck is a "right-wing fascist". Keep the article updated on whether Glenn Beck may sue Rep. Kennedy Jr. for libel or slander, or he brushes off those comments that are unfounded, since Beck has no formal ties with neo-fascist parties or organizations to begin with. Mike D 26 05:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] George W. Bush

Hello!!!!!! I am new to this article, and actually just started to read it for the first time today! Any way under the George W. Bush section it says the following

"Beck sometimes questions the Bush administration, however, on issues including border security, government spending, some aspects of the Iraq War, and the nomination of Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court."

This is an incomplete thought.... whoever has knowledge on this part should correct it. Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople 05:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

This looks like a complete sentence (and thought) to me. Though, I would have put the "however" at the beginning of the sentence, however, so that the sentence would be easier to read. ;-) Just drop the "however" (and the commas before and after) and read it again. It makes more sense that way. I've reworded the article to do this. If it still doesn't make sense, bring it up on this page; I may be wrong. Val42 06:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The guy's racist

[edit] Remove Dansig(sp) section

Can we find better sources than attack blogs? Thanks --Tom 14:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Blogs are not reliable sources here. There are tons of other forums out there for this kind of stuff. Please stick to reliable sources. I am no fan of this guy, but this article needs to maintain a certain level of review. You don't like this guy which is fine, just keeps the blogs out otherwise this article won't be worth much. Cheers! --Tom 18:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blogs and attack sites

Please stop adding blogs or hate sites. If this guy is a baby killer, great, get a reliable source and add that material. If he wanted nude pictures of some broad, even better! Get some RELIABLE sources that cover it and include it. If in ANY doubt, do NOT include it. I am an equal opportunity remover of unsourced/questionable material for EITHER side. There is a new sherrif in town :) just kidding. Seriously, I know this guy is a lighning rod to folks but lets rise above this. Any other thoughts? Thanks!--Tom 19:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, i see how it is. My site has been linked on countless sites, I've been on air america radio, and i have a large following and am a respected member of the blog community, but my blog isnt good enough for wikipedia? What do you consider "reliable"??? mediamatters? thinkprogress? crooksandliars? cause i can post them all here if thats what you want. Achorn 19:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Achorn, congratulations on your success, but I would refer you to WP:RS. Sorry for being a stick in the mud but i am just one tiny editor trying to keep Wikipedia up to encyclopediatic levels. --Tom 19:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Blogs are at the cutting edge of political discourse. Blogs are the next evolution of the internet. I'm sorry that wikipedia apparently only allows sources that are in magazines or newspapers, or the "big media" companies, but I guess wikipedia wants to be behind the times. Achorn 19:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Now you are getting it. --Tom 19:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

So lemme get this straight Tom, you have deleted all sites opposed to Beck. So now people coming to wikipedia will think no one opposes him. Great message to send. I guess we know where you stand now. Achorn 19:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Many articles have critizism(sp) sections or the like. This article has one, doesn't it? This article and most articles would be crap if the external links section was open ended. Please see WP:EL. Also, find some pro Beck stuff that isn't sourced and I'll remove it and then his fans can scream at me. I really don't care about guy as much as you do, thats pretty clear. Anyways,--Tom 19:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The issue is over. But I am editing Beck's site now to remove unneccessary and redundant information. Achorn 19:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Especially, unsourced, questionable material should be removed. Also, WP:OR is a huge problem in these parts. People/editors love to use reliable sources and then form their own analysis to add material. Another big no-no. As you have seen, I am a huge believe in less is better than more. Anyways--Tom 19:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] March 20, 2007 factual errors introduced by anonymous IP edits

The first error that caught my attention is the change of the radio station WFLA-AM in Tampa, Florida to Washington. The second glaring error is his religion. According to his bio at Glenn Beck, he was "he was baptized Mormon" at the age of 30. Looking at all six edits, this anon IP stumbled around making spelling mistakes until it finally settled on its final version.

Based upon these errors, I will revert to the last correct version before these edits. Ronbo76 23:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dina Sansing interview

I contributed a paragraph to this page last month about GB's interview with Dina Sansing. It has since been edited by a collegue with the insertion of the word "jokingly", to read "Beck jokingly propositioned Sansing". I think this doesn't go far enough, so I've re-written my original contribution thusly:

Countdown with Keith Olbermann, Truthdig and Media Matters have each criticised Glenn "horsin' around" Beck for making humorously sexually jokey-jokey suggestive barrell-of-laughie-laff comments in a strictly just-kidding manner to US Weekly's Dina Sansing on the February 28 2007 broadcast of Headline News. During their guffaw-cavilcaded discussion about controversial nude photos of an American Idol semifinalist Beck jokingly and just downright hilariously propositioned Sansing by saying, you know, on the jokily-okily-like side of things, "Dina, I've got some time and a camera. Why don't you stop by? No? OK." A knee-slapping transcript is available from CNN and the nyuk-encrusted clip can be viewed at YouTube.com.

It was a joke gone bad. Why would he mean anything else? He's on tv. -Yancyfry