Jump to content

Talk:Glenn Beck

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by R. G. Checkers (talk | contribs) at 00:18, 11 March 2022 (→Glenn Beck as conspiracy theorist). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article


Glenn Beck as conspiracy theorist

He is not a conspiracy theorist. JH019593 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:23, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, and "conspiracy theorist" is not used as an impartial description here, but as a pejorative. And note that the article is locked. This is just another pathetic example of how political propagandists and activists, under the disguise of impartial administrators, misuse Wikipedia as a propaganda platform. It is a disgrace.

Also, note that almost nothing of all the hundreds of discussions throughhout the years can be found on this page; they are "archived" (hidden). The article in itself is nothing other than a propagandistic smear piece, and the same unserious administrators who allowed that, must hide all the criticizm and discussion from public eyes... It is unbelievably pathetic and unserious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:AA1:1604:9340:218B:E7D1:2419:B9A9 (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And see, only a few minutes after I wrote the text above, my IP address is "partially blocked" by a Wiki administrator. Unbelievably pathetic and unserious, as I said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:AA1:1604:9340:218B:E7D1:2419:B9A9 (talk) 21:59, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've removed this descriptor, see my explanation in the revision history. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:30, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • A bad move. He's one of the most notable conspiracy theorists around. Do you want to suffer the same fate as the IP above? That's how bad a move this is. I reverted and per BRD, if you really want to push it, you should start a new section to discuss this, but that will only bring more attention to your dubious understanding of this subject. -- Valjean (talk) 15:29, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Statements like "He's one of the most notable conspiracy theorist around" without any RS backing is not helpful to this discussion or any discussion. I have no problem labeling anyone a conspiracy theorist. I would faithfully and without reservation defend the labeling of Alex Jones, Mark Dice, and Mike Lindell as conspiracy theorist, but for one reason and one reason only—RS labels them that. That does not appear to be the case here. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:18, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Conspiracy theorist" is verified well enough. Drmies (talk) 15:54, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • See also the RFC here; the article has plenty of sources discussing how he spreads conspiracy theories. If the objection is to the framing of "conspiracy theorist" specifically it is easy to find additional sources supporting that particular wording (eg. The Philosophy of Conspiracy Theories describes him as a signature example of modern conspiracy theorists and uses him as an example throughout). --Aquillion (talk) 17:20, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        @Aquillion: My concern is with MOS:LABEL. I think there would need to be several extensive reliable sourcing to label Beck a conspiracy theorist in WP:WIKIVOICE. I'll take your word that the book describes him with the term conspiracy theorist, but MOS:LABEL demands more. Citing the RfC is not relevant since it dealt with the mention of conspiracy theorist he's promoted, which is not the concern of my edit. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:00, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You all have the WP:BURDEN to prove that RS label him a conspiracy theorist. Because I've looked around, and besides maybe the book Aquillion mentioned, there are not many if any RS labeling him a conspiracy theorist. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:15, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy Section

I think that there should be a Controversy section added to Beck's article. His entire career has been built on being controversial, and he's said and done some really outlandish things. In fact, I changed the article today, b/c in section 3.5 Philanthropy, there was an incorrect accounting of an event that Beck announced in 2014. At the time, thousands of unaccompanied minors had crossed the Southern border of the US, and Beck, in conjunction w/ Senator Mike Lee of Utah and Representative Louie Gohmert of Texas, announced that they would visit the border w/ "tractor trailers full of food, hot meals, and teddy bears" to present to these children. There was bipartisan acclaim across the media spectrum, but after this announcement, there was no evidence that the visit ever took place or that the much-needed contributions ever arrived at the border. The article gave credit to these three men for this alleged action. In my estimation, this was something that would go beyond controversy. Invoking the plight of young children fleeing war-torn regions in order to make a perilous journey to an unknown and uncertain destination, all in the name of credit-seeking, was an abhorrent act.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmg999 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 29 August 2021 (UTC)‎[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2022

The text noting "conspiracy theorist" should be deleted as that is an opinion. WHile people noted in the page such as Sean Wilentz have opinions of Glen Beck, Wikipedia (The Free Encyclopedia) is supposed to be fact not opinion. Jcfranklin2 (talk) 12:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This is reasonably well sourced. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:57, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Glenn_Beck&oldid=1076410306"