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 05:49, 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, Marjorie Taylor Greene, 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 abundantly 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]
    • About three should be enough to satisfy WP:PUBLICFIGURE, and they don't have to use the exact words "conspiracy theorist". I don't know how many far more experienced editors have to tell you that but you really need to let that sink in and stop beating a dead horse. It's disruptive and tendentious IDHT behavior. That's how we interpret policies around here. You're not going to change that. Accept it, even if you don't agree. -- Valjean (talk) 02:16, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't even 3 sources labeling him as a conspiracy theory. The only one is the book mentioned by Aquillion. The 2 Salon one's are not reliable at WP:RSP, using Salon to label Beck a conspiracy theorist is like using a Fox article to label Obama a conspiracy theorist, Fox and Salon have the same reliability at RSP. Can you explain how that's enough to make an appearance in the first sentence? I'm not beating a dead horse, this is not settled a issue, here or at the Trump page, and there are editors with years of experience who agree with my opinion on this with regards to MOS:LABEL. Not that experience makes a quality editor in the first place. You speak as your POV is the law the land, and it's not. MOS:LABEL is very clear on this: Value-laden labels... may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject. This is the what I have been saying, if anything you are beating the dead horse against MOS:LABEL. I really am having a hard time understanding how this can be contested, guideline is crystal clear on the issue. Even then there's a worthy discussion that using this term in the first sentence is WP:UNDUE or redundant since there's already a lead paragraph regarding his promotion of conspiracy theories. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:12, 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=1076454772"