Jump to content

Talk:Glenn Beck/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17

religion = Mormon (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints)

Both the wp:Manual of Style (Latter Day Saints) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Latter Day Saints) say that they term Mormon is incorrect when referring a Latter Day Saint sect, as a religion. This included the current “| religion = Mormon (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) in the infobox. I don't see how removing “Mormon” can be POV (as user:Fat&Happy claims) when both of the wp:MOSLDS and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Latter Day Saints) say not to use "Mormon" when referring to a specific sect. wp:MOSLDS says "When referring to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the term Latter-day Saint is more accurate than Mormon, and therefore preferred." The reason for this is there is more then one type of "Mormon". CofC, FLDS, TLC, Bickertonite, etc. That is why there is a naming convention and wp:MOSLDS. What's the point of having Naming conventions and Manuals of style if including inaccurate terms is the preference, expecally when it not even needed. My argument about this isn't that Glenn Beck dosn't call himself Mormon,many people do. The argument is that using the Term "Mormon" when describing the "Religion" he belongs to is both incorrect and unneeded. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by its self supplies the needed information, doesn’t violate ether the NCLDS or MOSLDS.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 22:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

mos:lds reads in part,

"Use of the term Mormon...the word Mormon should be used to refer to Latter Day Saint movement adherents only in the following situations:

* In reference to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. However, this denomination opposes the use of the term Mormon Church, a term that should not be used in Wikipedia articles in any case, since there are several churches that could be described as a "Mormon church." When referring to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the term Latter-day Saint is more accurate than Mormon, and therefore preferred.

This style manual page is written confusingly. What it says is that whereas it is acceptable to call LDS adherents Mormon, it is preferable to call the LDS Church something other than the Mormon Church. That is, Mormon is the common (and bit more informal) way of saying "member of the LDS Church."--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 22:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
ARTEST, Beck himself self identifies as "Mormon" and has said clearly "I'm Mormon" (a ref has been added as well). Beck's DVD about his religious views is entitled "Unlikely Mormon: The Conversion Story of Glenn Beck". Not "Unlikely LDS'er" or "Unlikely Member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" etc. A sort clip from this DVD can be seen ---> here where he states 0:42-0:46 "I'm not the model Mormon" & 0:55-0:58 "Well he's a Mormon, they must all be like that". Lastly, the naming convention you refer to is a suggestion dealing with generic usage, not with what someone self-identifies as. Moreover, the fact that there are several branches of Mormonism is discussed in the linked article to Mormon.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 22:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
(ec)In any dispute, it is better to defer to WP naming conventions as being far less problematic. Is there a concrete reason that you would insist on "Mormon" in this case? Collect (talk) 22:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Lede's 2nd sentence at "Mormon" WP article: "Most commonly, the term Mormon refers to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), which is commonly but imprecisely referred to as the Mormon Church."--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 22:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Collect, I would "insist" on Mormon because (1) Beck himself does, (2) The vast majority (near unanimous) of the sources per WP:Verify & WP:Undue do, and (3) The naming convention is merely a Wiki-user created suggestion guideline to be applied in generic circumstances with common sense. He calls himself a Mormon, 99% of the sources call him a Mormon, yet Wikipedia will exclusively label him a "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Saints"(er)? = which does not even make grammatical sense when asked the question "What religion are you?" Moreover, to prevent confusion from readers who are not familiar with the intricacies of Mormon vernacular, they might not realize that Mormon and Latter Day Saint are the same thing in Beck’s situation (which is why both of them are included in the info box). For instance, they might incorrectly get the impression or think to themselves; oh Beck became Mormon and then converted to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints – which are the same thing in the common parlance, and in Beck’s specific situation.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 23:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, naming conventions determine how articles are named. They do not govern how topics are referred to in articles. For that, we should follow the sources specific to the topic.   Will Beback  talk  23:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

(Not necessarily to reference wp:OTHERSTUFF, but...the infobox at the bio Nixon lists his religious beliefs as "Quaker"--which, when clicked, leads the reader to the article, Religious Society of Friends.) IAC, the WP:MOS page section about preferred usage of Mormon is a reworking of the LDS Church's own newsroom style guide (emphases mine):

While the term "Mormon Church" has long been publicly applied to the Church as a nickname, it is not an authorized title, and the Church discourages its use.

When writing about the Church, please follow these guidelines:

* In the first reference, the full name of the Church is preferred: "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints".
* Please avoid the use of "Mormon Church", "LDS Church" or the "Church of the Latter-day Saints".
* When a shortened reference is needed, the terms "the Church" or "the Church of Jesus Christ" are encouraged.
* When referring to Church members, the term "Latter-day Saints" is preferred, though "Mormons" is acceptable.
* "Mormon" is correctly used in proper names such as the Book of Mormon, Mormon Tabernacle Choir or Mormon Trail, or when used as an adjective in such expressions as "Mormon pioneers."
... ...

--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 23:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
(ec)Only one section is on "naming convention" on that style page - the section at issue is "Referring to members of Latter Day Saint denominations" and is specifically not limited to article titles. And it specifically refers to how people who are LDS adherents should generally be referred to in articles and BLPs. "Quaker" is not dealt with in any MoS here, hence is wondrously irrelevant. So either we follow the MoS, or we choose to ignore it. Absent a solid reason to ignore it, I suggest we use it. Collect (talk) 23:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
The largest circulation publication covering Mormons is Mormon Times. Here this (LDS Church-owned) newspaper insert and Internet entity discusses the fact that "Mormon" is used as an adjective in its name:

1. Calling this section "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Times" is just not reasonable because of the length of the title. The church recognizes that shortened versions sometimes are necessary, such as the church's main official Web sites, lds.org and mormon.org, or church-affiliated agencies such as LDS Family Services.

2. The Mormon Times is not an official church publication about the church. An official publication is the weekly Church News — distributed every Saturday as part of the Deseret Morning News.

Mormon Times is about the people, faith and culture associated with the church. The church's media guide says:

• "Mormon" is an acceptable reference to church members.

--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 00:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
When it comes to religion, the best practice on WP is to follow the self-identification of the subject. If the subject calls himself a "Mormon" then that's what we should call him.   Will Beback  talk  00:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Even with all the arguments and “Assisting on it”, I still see no reason why "Mormon" is required or appropriate, since it isn’t needed and is ambiguous. Ignoring the fact that the LDS Church has ask that they should not be called "Mormon", since they don't seem to follow that very well themselves, the reason "Mormon" should not be used are as follows:
  • Both the wp:Manual of Style (Latter Day Saints) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Latter Day Saints) say that "the term Latter-day Saint is more accurate than Mormon, and therefore preferred" and that although "Mormon" has been used to in reference to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the "term that should not be used in Wikipedia articles in any case, since there are several churches that could be described as a "Mormon church". "Mormon " is incorrect when referring any Latter Day Saint sect, as a "religion". Mormon is used to refer to an individual who is "an adherent, practitioner, follower, or constituent of Mormonism" not the particular church he belongs to. If were not going to followed Naming conventions and MOS why have any of them?
  • The fact he has said "I am a Mormon" is irrelevant. This link is not a qutoe, and when he says "I am Mormon" he is saying he is "an adherent, practitioner..... of Mormonism". He is not referring to his specific sect in the Latter day saint movement. Since the infobox should provided the most accurate and concise information possible, it shouldn’t use "Mormon". For example, if a person calls himself a "Christian" and he attends a Southern Baptist church, you wouldn't put Christian, Southern Baptist.
  • The links is misleading. The Mormon link takes you to a page about all sects within Mormonism, not his sect in particular. Again, which Mormon is he? Is he IRLSD, CoC, TLC, FLDS,Strangite, etc., all of whom use "Mormon". "Mormon" is ambiguous. Using the same example, you wouldn't put Christian, Southern Baptist since the Southern Baptists is the "religion" this person is and there are hundreds of thousand of groups who call themselves "Christian" (inculding the Latter Day Saints)
  • Even if you argue that since "Mormon" is a type of religion, it is still not the proper way to refer to that religion per the Naming conventions and Manual of Style. It should then Read "Latter-day Saint, Church .... Saints".
  • The information is simple not needed. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints links goes directly to his church page. There is no ambiguity at to witch Latter day sect he belongs to. Using Mormon opens too many questions.
  • Lastly the inclusion of "Mormon" is POV toward the LDS Church. They are not the only Mormons out there. What give them the right to either claim or disown the term? A number of sects use it
I think it would be prudent to request additional opinions on the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard since I don't think there is any chance at a dispute resolution otherwise. --ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 14:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Why don't we just use both. It wouldn't take up that much space. I would suggest "religion = The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (AKA Mormon)." It's accurate and understandable. If that's too long then we could put "religion = LDS Church (AKA Mormon)." HankyUSA (talk) 14:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

*If we leave out "AKA Mormon" then readers will likely not realize who we are talking about. I think that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints should come before Mormon because it's more accurate (or true) but "AKA Mormon" should remain until we can confidently state that everyone knows what we mean by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Maybe we could put "religion = The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (of the Mormon sect)." If you really want to leave no misunderstanding you could put "religion = The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Christian denomination of the Mormon sect)." Once again I'll point out that you could abbreviate The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to LDS Church. HankyUSA (talk) 19:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
The insinuation of the objection almost seems to be that "Mormon" is somehow a pejorative term, that the LDS Church rejects, when it is not. For instance, the LDS church has been running their own "I’m a Mormon" TV ad campaign in 9 different cities in the U.S. ---> news clip. Additionally, the LDS Church’s official website is Mormon.org, while the official newspaper of the LDS church is the Mormon Times. Of specific relevance to this article, on a basic google search Glenn Beck + Mormon = 313,000 results while Glenn Beck + Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints = only 50,700 results. When you couple this with the fact that Beck himself only refers to himself as "Mormon" (as nearly all the sources do), then that is what he should be identified as (with The LDS church in parenthesis to show his particular "sect" of Mormonism). Hypothetically for instance, if Bob X identified solely as "Catholic", and all the sources simply referred to him as "Catholic", and he wrote a book entitled "Why I’m a Catholic" – but Bob X specifically attended the 5th Calvalry Church of Apostles – we would not list his religion solely as “5th Calvalry Church of Apostles” and not "Catholic". At most, if anything we would say Bob is Catholic (5th Calvalry Church of Apostles).  Redthoreau -- (talk) 20:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Some folks like to be called by a certain nickname, some don't. In the LDS's case, they don't want to be called either "the LDS Church" or "the Mormon Church." They want to be called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. That said, they don't mind for individual members to be called "Mormon." (Ironically, they also do notreally love being called "LDS," individually, either--in print, that is...even though they do it all the time among themselves. Confusing, huh!) The LDS's request would be similar to if the Quakers didn't mind being called Quakers individually but simply asked that their church not be called the Quaker Church but instead be called something such as the Society of Friends--this despite the fact that in common speech people often say, "Yeah, I visited this Quaker Church" or whatever. It would be more formal to write "I visited a Society of Friends congregation" (or whatever the more proper term is). Nonetheless, the Quakers (to make the analogy complete) would not mind whatsoever if say that someone attends a "Quaker school"--such as, incidentally, the children of the U.S. First Family attend: Sidwell Friends. In such a case, "Quaker" is an adjective. --As, in actual fact, calling BYU "a Mormon school" is not offensive to Latter-day Saints or Mormons, just as calling the LDS/Mormons "Mormons" is not offensive. (In fact, as alluded to above, they prefer being called "Mormon" to being called "LDS"!)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 23:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
...Btw the reason Mormons don't go out of the way to always say "mainstream" Mormon is because, whereas 1.7% of the the U.S. population identifies as LDS, only perhaps 70,000 or so people in the entire country are "Mormon" but belong to a splinter group. (The Missouri-based Latter Day Saint church called Community of Christ, by the way, never goes by the term "Mormon"--but IAC there are about an eighth of a million in the U.S. of CoC members.)

Similarly, there are mostly Roman Catholics that go by the term "Catholic" in the U.S. True, there are some U.S. "eastern" Catholics eg Syrian Catholic, a small number of Greeks who accept the bishop of Rome called Greek Catholics, etc., etc; there are some "high church" Epicopalians that consider themselves Anglican Catholic; there are several miniscule groups of New Age-y or whathaveyou "Catholics" that mimic the traditional R.C. Church; and there are even a group or two that consider the Roman Catholic Church as too modern and consider themselves the true Roman Catholics. Still, when you just say Catholic in the U.S., everyone knows you mean "Roman Catholic." Similarly, when you say Mormon, everyone knows you mean "mainstream" LDS.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 23:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, some Mormons are not LDS, but all LDS are Mormons. By including the sect in parenthesis, we make clear that Beck is part of the mainstream LDS branch of Mormons.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 14:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The Mormon Times about page says, "Mormon Times is not an official publication of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints..." The official website of the LDS Church is LDS.org. Mormon.org was made for investigators who don't know any better. Just setting the record strait. I still think that we should have both and that LDS Church should come first. The truth comes first and then we work on helping people understand it by saying "Mormon." Actions speak louder than words. What church does Glenn Beck actually attend? The LDS Church, not the "Mormon Church." Glenn Beck is a member of the LDS Church. It doesn't matter at all how common a different wording is if it's a false wording. There is no "Mormon Church" (not one Glenn Beck has anything to do with anyway); you can put "Mormon" but only as an afterthought to clear up confusion for the unaware. I propose "religion = LDS Church (Mormon)." First comes truth; then comes understanding it in terms of prior experiences. HankyUSA (talk) 03:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Hanky, the Mormon Times is published as they state by the Deseret News – which is owned by Deseret News Publishing Company, a subsidiary of Deseret Management Corporation, which is a for-profit business holdings company owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. So I guess it would depend on how you define “official”, but it is clearly a paper produced for all intents and purposes by the LDS church. However, more importantly, per WP:VNT can you provide a source of Beck stating that he attends the "LDS church", because I can give you countless examples of him stating explicitly that he considers himself to religiously be a "Mormon"?  Redthoreau -- (talk) 03:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
+ Hanky, as for "setting the record straight", at the bottom of Mormon.org it states "Official Web site of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints".  Redthoreau -- (talk) 03:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
We all know Glenn back calling himself "Mormon", but it doesn’t matter. Yes he calls himself "Mormon", but that isn't his "Religion". You can call yourself "Christian" all you want, but that isn't your "Religion". Your Catholic, Baptist, Latter-day Saint, etc. You’re still using the wrong definition of Mormon. “Mormon” is “is an adherent, practitioner, follower, or constituent of Mormonism,” not a “The church located in Utah”. That is why a MOS was written and that is why it’s wrong here.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 15:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I have opened a request for Mediation at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-03-03/Glenn Beck'--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/

I will accept you, Alpha Quadrant, as mediator. HankyUSA (talk) 01:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I accept Alpha Quadrant as mediator.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 02:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Me too.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 15:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Me as well, welcome.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 21:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Ok then, if User:Collect doesn't have any objections then I shall begin. Alpha Quadrant talk 04:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
No problems - all I suggest is that WP policies and guidelines be followed. Collect (talk) 11:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Mediation

Ok then. The main issue appears to revolve around whether to refer to Beck as a "Mormon", or a member of the Church of Latter-day Saints, "LDS". This ultimately falls to what he is most often referred to in reliable third party sources. If he is most often referred to as a Mormon, then Mormon would be used. If he is referred to as a LDS, then LDS would be used. A interesting point was brought up by Redthoreau, Mormon is somewhat generic, as there is more than one sect. There would be two possible solutions to this issue. One, you could write (Latter Day Saint) after Mormon. The second solution would be to write it as [[Latter Day Saint|Mormon]] into the infobox. Any thoughts? Alpha Quadrant talk 15:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually - then use the part post-pipe as "Mormon (LDS)" making everything crystal clear. Although adding five characters. Collect (talk) 16:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I would agree with "Mormon (LDS)".  Redthoreau -- (talk) 20:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry please clarifying this for me. I'm honestly confused. Please carlify what you mean by "write (Latter Day Saint) after Mormon". As to [[Latter Day Saint|Mormon]] you want to replace one ambiguous term with another term that is even more non-specific? "Latter Day Saint" direct you to the "Latter Day Saint movement" page which is the page for every sect. This dosn't address any of the other issues that with "Mormon". The main issue to me is not whether to refer to Beck as a "Mormon", or a member of the Church of Latter day saints. It is about the fact that Using "Mormon" or “I am Mormon” as a Religion is using the wrong definition of “Mormon”? If anything this proposal seems to move further away from listing what specific "Religion" he belongs to. "religion = The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (AKA Mormon)." as user:HankyUSA suggested (although a violation of the Manuel of style), would at least be accurate.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 22:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I guess the problem with mediation, is that some users will still argue with what the mediator suggests.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 23:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I asked for clarification. I don't understand what it is the mediator is suggesting and way it is even being suggested. Usage of "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" wasn't even part of the issue until now. I don't see how the changes make it is any different then the way it is was beofre. The mediator is wrong when the statement made "The main issue appears to revolve around whether to refer to Beck as a "Mormon", or a member of the Church of Latter day saints." (and "Church of Latter day saints" that isn't even correct) The issue I about the word "Mormon" and that at all, and that hasn't even been addressed. Removing "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" wasn't even an issue up until now. Using the entire name in the infobox, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints isn't what I or the MOS or the Naming convention has issue with, and that what it seems the mediator is suggesting. It's suggesting the removeal of the wrong thing.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 15:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Additionally the Mediation isn't closed yet, making this change is premature. No where dose the Mediator say "This is what should be done", the mediator is asking for comments. Mediation implies agreement, and in no why is there an agreement. Changing it now is inappropriate at this time. I have left "Mormon" in the way you guy wanted it, at least the changes can wait until all issues have been addressed before making it worst.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 15:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Artest, the mediator offered up their advice according to policy, Collect made a suggestion, which I then seconded. It also seems like Hodgson might favor wording similar to this. Although yes “Mormon (LDS)” might not be the final solution, right now it should be the starting point going forward. Your job now is to provide policy rationale or references that would challenge the aforementioned wording. The first thing you should do is check to see what the majority of reliable sources refer to Beck as – you will find unequivocally that it is “Mormon”. After you have done that, your next step should be the determine if “LDS” is the best way to clarify Beck’s specific sect of Mormonism.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 18:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I Dispute " the majority of reliable sources refer to Beck as – you will find unequivocally that it is “Mormon”." See "ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 18:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)" Below.
I should probably explain that whereas the WP page Latter Day Saint redirects to the LDS Movement, the page Latter-day Saint redirects to that for only the mainstream LDS denomination--which orthographic anomoly is explained by the fact that the hyphenated form didn't show up until it was spelled to this effect in legislation passed by the State of Deseret (the forebear of the present-day state of Utah) in 1851 and only slowly began to catch on there; however, the Latter Day Saints who didn't follow Young and remained further east (and a few in what became California) continued to use the original, non-hyphenated form.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 23:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I stand corrected, they both redirect to the Movement, at present. (Btw, see Latter-day_Saints#Latter_Day_Saint_vs._Latter-day_Saint.)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 23:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, I was unaware of a difference between the Latter-day Saints and the Latter day Saints. The references provided do appear to suggest that Beck is most often referred to as being a "Mormon". Therefore per the verifiability policy Mormon would be used. However because there are multiple sects of Mormons a disambiguation would be needed. As I said above, there are two ways to do this. The first would be to write it as:
|religion = [[[The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints|Mormon]] (Latter-day Saint)
As Secret Garden pointed out, I made an error. The second solution would be to write it as:
|religion = [[[The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints|Mormon]]
This is open to suggestions, these are the two ways that seemed most logical, but if someone has any additional ideas please feel free to make suggestions. Alpha Quadrant talk 16:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
This isn't addressing the issue at hand and it seems to me like the wrong question is being answered. Using The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was never the issue. It's using "Mormon" per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Latter Day Saints) and Mos:lds. I don't see why removing "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" is even part of the mediation? I guess I'm not making myself clear. The original issue was the change
|religion = <nowiki>[[Mormon]]([[The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]]
to
|religion = <nowiki>[[The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]](LDS Church) (or as some have suggested)
|religion = <nowiki>[[The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]]([[Mormon]])
Removing The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints wasn't the issue and changing it opens an entirely new issue unrelated to what is being asked.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 16:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Artest, you are making yourself perfectly clear, but your rationale is wrong according to Wiki policy. Per WP:Verify we are supposed to refer to Beck as “Mormon” first and foremost because he himself does and nearly all the sources do. It wouldn’t matter if Beck himself even knew what “Mormon” meant, or if he himself actually attended a Catholic church thinking it was a Mormon temple. Wikipedia is not concerned with WP:Accuracy or WP:Truth, only WP:Verifiability. The "naming convention" is also irrelevant in this case. It is merely a suggestion for vague cases where we are speaking generally in terms of the LDS church. It is not for cases where the individual themselves have unilaterally decided to identify themselves solely as “Mormon” and hence the sources have as well. You can continue to argue this point, but the Wiki policy won’t change. We are here to repeat the sources, not to “correct” the record or fix what you seem to think is an intricate technicality.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 17:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Obviously I'm not since the mediator suggested removing something that has nothing to do with what I was asking about.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 17:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Artest, the mediator is not here to personally address all of your specific concerns or independent inquiries. The mediator is here to bring an outside perspective of what would be correct according to Wiki policy. You asked one question, and the mediator provided an all encompassing answer of how to move forward, regardless of your initial question. You can continue to ignore the reality of the Wiki policy, but that will only lead to frustration – as nobody truly familiar with how Wiki works will give you the rationale that you seek to exclude “Mormon” from Beck’s religious description. He has a whole DVD for $%#& sake entitled “an unlikely Mormon”. He views himself as being a Mormon, it doesn’t matter what you think he should really call himself.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 18:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Since we are now changing the subject, Do a Google Search of ""Glenn Beck" "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints"" you get 691,000 results referring to Glenn Becks Church being any combination of " The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints ", " The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormon)", and “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS)” , etc. For example The New your times" say "Even Mormon scholars in Mr. Beck’s own church, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,... ". Even in you own VP argument "An Unlikely Mormon: The Conversion Story of Glenn Beck,”, Beck talks about the "unique path which led him to Jesus Christ and to his conversion to http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ent/tv/6229820.html." not the unique path which led him to Jesus Christ and to his conversion to Mormon" or "The Mormon Religon" or "The Mormon Chruch". So are we now to get into a Counting match as to who has more quotes? Ironcally you do a ""Glenn Beck" Mormon" seach and you only get 329,000 hits. I can use WP: Verifiability to show his church is not "Mormon" also. Since both can be WP:V's the more accurate should be use, shouldn’t it? --ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 18:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Slow down Red - let the mediation run. It is especially prudent to be sensitive to issues like this involving a WP:BLP.PRONIZ (talk) 18:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
As requested, I have added Three WP:V sources (NY Times, Mormontimes.com and Glen Beck himself) that use the words "the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" when what religion he belongs to. Addationallyh Here's one more that the word "Mormon" not only isn't used to describe his religion, it isn't even used at all. "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" is the only religion mention. How many more do you want? I have left "Mormon" since that was the original dispute. I have no issue with leaving it there until the final consensus is reached. However, my issue still hasn't been even addressed. --ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 19:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Artest, here is an example ...

Bob considers himself a Quaker, as he is a member of the Religious Society of Friends.
Now complete the following sentence to what you believe is accurate ...
Glenn Beck considers himself a ________ , as he is a member of the _______________________.
Redthoreau -- (talk) 19:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Your question has nothing to do with the discussion. I can make any number of answers to that question, some of which you would like and some of which I would like. However, I will humor you. “Glenn Beck considers himself a Latter-Day Saint , as he is a member of the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.” Go, ahead, ask him or anyone else in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints if I wrong? If I am then he and every other Category:American Latter Day Saints is in the wrong Category, so remove him from " “Category:American Latter day Saint" and move them to “Category:Mormon”. Additionally your example is flawed. Even Quaker, is referred to as a denomination (see George Fox) not “religion” and it redirects directly to Religious Society of Friends. Mormon dose not redirect to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints or any other denomination for that matter.
As you requested, I have given three WP:V of 62,000 sources that show Glenn Beck joined "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" and not the "Mormon Church". That is why there is a WP:MOSLDS, since both sides of this issue can supply WP:V sources saying supporting there side. I have shown that Glen Beck has said he was converted to "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" and not the "Mormon Church". I have shown that "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" is the proper name of his church, per WP:V and Glen Beck himself. I have shown that "Mormon" is not the name of any one sect in the Latter-day Saint movement, since it is claimed by all, let along his sect. I have shown that "Mormon" is a nickname, it is an unauthorized title, and its use is not encouraged by his church. It is even conceder an derogatory term.
I haven't even pointed out that the "religion" chose has nothing to do with what "religion" you call yourself. According to {{Infobox person}} the selection "religion" says "If relevant. For living persons please refer to WP:BLPCAT." It isn't what you or Glenn Beck call himself or any other source, it what the proper categorization of your religion is referring to WP:BLPCAT. According to WP:MOSLDS the proper categorization of his religion is "Latter Day Saint" not "Mormon". Hence "Category:Mormons" redirects to "Category:Amercian Latter day Saint", so your going to have a hard time moveing him to "Category:Mormons".--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 20:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Making the case for using (or including) "Mormon"

Artest et al, in violation of WP:Undue you have cherry picked a few sources that mention Beck and "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" in the same article. However, a fuller reading of the material will show that this is not how Beck is commonly referred to. However, before I get to the other sources – let’s start with ...

--- HOW BECK CLASSIFIES HIMSELF ---

... But really what does Beck know when it comes to what religion he is right? So per WP:Verify what do most of the sources say ? ... (and this is just a small sample of the thousands of instances from 2010-now - we can do more years if you'd like)

--- HOW THE MAJORITY OF SOURCES REFER TO BECK ---

Now obviously it would be reasonable to include (LDS) in parenthesis to make clear that Beck belongs to the mainstream group of Mormons who attend the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. But it would be absurd to remove "Mormon" altogether (as Artest would like to do), just as it would be to list Beck solely as a "Latter Day Saint". Additionally, only listing his Church’s title "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints", without acknowledging that this makes him "Mormon" for all intents and purposes - would also violate WP:V.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 21:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

This list you made is useless since I can also make the same list for the same number of WP:V source that say exactly the opposite as you. You asked me to show you any references and I gave you four including some that don't even use the word "Mormon" at all. I love how you dismissed as "undo" when they come from the exact same sources you just spent so much time listing. If my sources are undo then so are yours. So, give me a number and I can give you that many, but I doubt it will matter.

Making the case against using "Mormon"

I find it funny that the change suggested is to completely remove "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" then the above is that you only want to "include" Mormon. It should be clear that the changes suggested exclude all else except "Mormon". [[Latter Day Saint|Mormon]] is no different then using plain old "Mormon", and (LDS) is no more "reasonable". The current setup at least has the correct name of his church, which is why I left it as is it was until "Red" decided to change it before a consensus was reached, even though I disagree with it.

Weather Glenn Beck calls himself "Mormon or not, or what anyone else calls him is irrelevant. You can list every source you have to that fact. Again I will admit he dose. However, it doesn’t matter. The "Religion =" in the infobox is asking what religion is, and not the nickname for what set of beliefs he has. Again, you are confusing "Mormon" with a "Religion". Mormon is not his "Religion" it is his Belief system. It is no different then using "Christian" is not a "Religion" for a Quaker Roman Catholic or "Mormon", as you like to use, or any other "Christian" Chruch. You might as will put "Christian", "apostolic", "fundamentalist" or any other vause term as his religion, it works the same and is just as non-specific and POVish. "Within the Infobox, "Religion" is defined using WP:BLPCAT and Mormon isn't a choice there at all. There is no "Mormons" category. At BEST "Mormon" is a nickname for member of any Latter-day Saint Sect, at worst is a pejoratives (negative) term to "describe those who followed Joseph Smith". You might as will call him a cultest (member of a cult) while you at it, since there are hundreds of wp:V that say that all Mormons are cult members. If you bothered to read WP:MOSLDS you might understand this. There is no such thing as a single Mormon "religion" and using it as such is wrong.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 22:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Artest, if "Mormon" is "pejorative" then you may want to inform the LDS church, which was running their own "I’m a Mormon" TV ad campaign in 9 different cities in the U.S. ---> news clip. You might also want to caution the official LDS church about placing their information at Mormon.org, which might give the wrong impression; if indeed this is an insulting or offensive term. Moreover, Beck as a Mormon member of the LDS church presumably holds the Book of Mormon to be a sacred text, so we might also want to change the name to "Book of Latter Day Saint" or something less "offensive". Finally, it is clear that you Artest find it relevant enough to inform everyone on your user page that you consider yourself to be "a member of a Latter Day Saint church". Now you are obviously free to not personally identify as "Mormon" or see the word as "pejorative", but it is clear that Beck obviously does not share your same feelings - and is more than happy to say "I'm a Mormon". As for your own preoccupations or hang ups against the term - they aren't relevant to what we identify Beck as. Lastly, I believe that it is clear that our personal circular argument isn’t going anywhere, so that is why they have things like mediation , where we can await the judgment of other editors and the mediator (then again, you’ve already shown that you won’t honor any of the mediators suggestions either).  Redthoreau -- (talk) 00:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
A. Saying "I am Mormon" or "He is Mormon" is not equal to "His religion is Mormon". Even though I admit that all your sources say "Mormon" or "I am Mormon" that dose not equal "Glenn Beck's religion is Mormon". If it did then using your own WP:V sources such as CNN, Times, AOL, and even Mormon.org the same statements are made about Thomas S. Monson. For example, "The Mormon President Thomas S. Monson" has in the past, in the present, and in the future will be used, So according to your argument Thomas S. Monson's "Religion" must be Mormon, right? No it is not. Go and put "religion = Mormon" on his page and see how long that lasts? The same can be applied to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints page it self. All the article use "Mormon" to describe "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" so that page should be named "Mormon" with a redirect from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints to Mormon right. Again "I am Mormon" or "He is Mormon" dose not equal "His Religion is Mormon". If you bothered to read anything about the word "Mormon" and its usages you would know that when Glenn Beck is say "I am Mormon" he is not saying that "His Religion is Mormon", any more then when Pope John Paul says "I am Christian" that "religion = Roman Catholic" isn't the appropriate "Religion" since "Christian" isn't what "religion" he is (or what even type of Catholic he is I really don't know what that is).
B. I said that "Mormon" was a "Nickname" at best and at worst Mormon is "pejorative". The statement that "Mormon" is at worst "pejorative" can be proven from the wikipida Mormon#Popular_usage page. It says "The terms "Mormon" and "Mormonite" were first used in the 1830s as pejoratives to describe those who followed Joseph Smith and believed in the divine origin of the Book of Mormon. " I did not say that it is always or even generally "pejorative". Your putting word into my mouth. The statement that it is a nickname also come from Mormon#.22Mormon_Church.22, which says "While the term "Mormon Church" has long been attached to the church as a nickname". Nothing in that statement is false.
E. Since Mormon is a nickname then it is used by writers, including Glenn Beck to shorten the name of his "religion" from the longer "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints". Using Mormon is like saying "John Jacob Johnson Smith III here after referred to as "The Plaintiff" and then making the leap to "name ="The Plaintiff". "I am Mormon" dose not equal "My religion is Mormon". Notably, the Mediator was not asked to address if "Mormon" was the name of a religion, so why is the Mediator suggesting that?
C. The mediator said "Any thoughts?", "This is open to suggestions", "if someone has any additional ideas please feel free to make suggestions.", at no time dose that mean that a consensus has been reached. Mediation means coming to an agreement. A mediators jobs are to make suggestion as ask for input not impose a consensus, That is what I am doing and demanding that I follow the very first suggestion out of his/her mouth is not the point of mediation. Your comment about ignoring hi/her are inappropriate and Uncivil|. Mediators are suppose to try to help the two sides come together, not force a consensus.
D. The Mediators failed to even address the question I asked or that was being debated. I, or anyone else, was never given the chance to discuss if "Mormon" was his "Religion". I asked if "Mormon", as a nickname and a violation of wp:MOSLDS was appropriate. At no point was if it should be "Mormon" or "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" as was his/her very first statement was talked about discussed. Why should something unrelated to the previous discussion be decided by a mediator who failed to even read the issue at hand. He/she might as well have suggested changing "Nationally = American" to Nationally = USA". Mediators are suppose to try to help the two sides come together on the discussed issue, not answer discussed about questions and make unrelated suggestions.
F. To address you personal attack, not that is is any of your business, but yes I am Mormon. I admit I have left what kind of "Mormon" vague both here and on my userpage, since I have found that if I say I am a member of "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" then then a claim of wp:POV and wp:COI are always thrown out since I must be trying to push official "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" POV. Since that church has said officially said that "Mormon is incorrect" declaration, then I'm must be trying to push there POV. If I'm not a member of "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints", then a claim that I am trying to push the POV of another sect is thrown out. In this care you are going to make the same claim wp:POV and wp:COI since I am trying to push the POV of other Sects in the Latter Day Saint movement have officially said that not all "Mormons" are members of "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" and so using "Mormon" for them is incorrect" (See FLDS, TLC and AUB for there official declarations). I have seen this happen over and over again in every Latter Day Saint and Latter-Day Saint article discussion. Once side always screams wp:POV and wp:COI so you can't participate no matter what side you are on. That is why I have chosen to be intentionally vague, and the fact that you brought it up is proof enough that my caution is justified, I have not gone to your userpage to find out what Church you go to, so why are you doing it to find out what kind of "Mormons" I am?
G. On a personal note, I have decided to take a 24 hour Cooling-off period. This in no way means that i agree with any comments left after my post, only that I haven't read them and replied yet. Since Red can't arbitrarily decided to enforce some consensus he thinks has been force upon "et al" I think my own comments can wait 24 hours so I can take a minute to focus on my non-wikipida life and try to regain some wp:civil on both sides.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 11:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree it is more polite, formal and accurate to spell out the whole CoJCoLDS (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, whew!) at the denomination's first mention in an article; that said, it is not that important, because when someone clicks on a link that says something else, whatever it might be (Mormon, LDS, Latter-day Saint(s)), with appropriate "piping," they can get to that article in any case.

ARTEST4ECHO, the experience of fellow editors ever insisting you not edit LDS/Mormon subjects because you are LDS/Mormon is ridiculous. According to the most recent Pew Survey, 1.7% of the U.S. population term themselves Mormon, which is nearly twice the percentage for U.S. Muslims and precicely the identical percentage of American Jewry. To insist that Jews not touch articles about Judaic studies, Hassidim, the talmud, humanistic Judaism, Yiddish literature, Sephardic culture, etc etc would be patently ridiculous, just as it would be to insist that Muslims not contribute to articles about the uluma, Islam in Turkey, Salafi, dhikr, etc., or to ask that Adventists not contribute to articles about "the Advent" in Adventist belief (eschatology (Adventist)), progressive Adventism, charismatic Adventism, historic Adventism, etc. I mean, come on! that would be blatant prejudice, against the Project's foundational principles.

As for Latter-day Saint versus Mormon: when the former expression is hyphenated and day is not capitalized, they both designate someone connected with the CoJCoLDS. The church's own style guideline says that they don't mind being termed Mormon, used as an adjective or for individual members, but have a slight preference for the more formal Latter-day Saint(s). Thus, I think the difference tends to be one of context. Someone who is representing the church in some kind of official or religious capacity probably will tend to have this designated using the term Latter-day Saint(s) whereas someone who just happens to be connected to the denomination will continue to generally have this connection pointed out using the more common term Mormon. That's just the way those two terms are used. Katherine Heigl is a believing Mormon who rarely darkens a church door, so would probably not have her religious affiliation termed by the more formal Latter-day Saint(s) very often. Author Brady Udall attends church with his devoutly LDS wife sometimes, no doubt, but, as a cultural Mormon, his religious affiliation is generally termed Mormon and not Latter-day Saint(s). However, when Dallin Oaks--who went from being presidnet of BYU to sitting on the Utah Supreme Court to being a Mormon Apostle--presents a speech on religious freedom at the Disciples of Christ's Chapman University, the more formal Latter-day Saint(s) seems more appropriate. Likewise, when mentioning that author Orson Scott Card delivered a lecture specifically relating to Mormonism at the small LDS/Mormon liberal arts college he teaches at, Southern Virginia University, perhaps the more formal Latter-day Saint(s) would be more appropriate, too. It is in this context that I have the personal opinion that Beck is more Mormon and less Latter-day Saint(s), in a sense...in that Glenn--whose job is to semi-extemporaneously follow the scripts he and his collaborators write for four hours each weekday in live and taped broadcasts, speaking in easy to understand English about political topics--isn't doing so in any officially LDS capacity nor is he talking much about his specific religion. All that said, if Wikipedia, as a project, wants to universally outlaw Mormon as a designation for LDS and replace it with Latter-day Saint, that would be OK with me; it's not how the English language works, in the present moment, but perhaps it would lead to more precision in the English language in the future (with my only complaint being that it's not so much WP's place to effect change in the language at large but to reflect it, IMO at least.)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 15:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

[http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=272953#ixzz1GDSkJcvi Seven Wonders, p149-150]: "I questioned everything I could think to question about the faith. I went over my doubts again and again with the church bishop. I read everything there was to read on their website and every word of Mormon Doctrine ... I went to anti-Mormon literature for hints, but I found most of it to be unfair or just plain wrong. I tried every trick I could think of to find a contradiction. The problem was that I couldn't. Mormonism seemed to explain the world and my place in it better than any other faith I had looked at."

Seven Wonders, p149: "Latter-day Saints do not believe that your chances ever cease, even with death. They end only with the full understanding and denial of the truth by your own exercise of real free will. And even then there is no 'lake of fire.'" Note: See "Spirit world (Latter Day Saints)."

--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Since it wasn't my intention to even read the comment, but only add a partal agreement. So I will respond later to the comments by Hodgson-Burnett, except for one thing that has got me comply confused and that I wont be able to sleep if I don't respond to. Hodgson-Burnett, said "ARTEST4ECHO, the experience of fellow editors ever insisting you not edit LDS/Mormon subjects because you are LDS/Mormon is ridiculous." I not sure what you are say is "ridiculous". If it's that prohibiting "Mormons" from editing LDS pages then yes that is "ridiculous" then I totally agree. I was not saying that it is or should be some kind of policy. Yes, that would be "ridiculous".
If your saying that it is "ridiculous" that I have the opinion that this kind of thing happen informally, I'm sorry it's not. I have run into several examples where my "Mormon" standing has changed what people want simple because I'm Mormon". The facts take a back seat. The best example I have is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Temple Riders. Biker Biker went from "Delete unremarkable bike club. article does not assert notability" to "Keep - ... I honestly think this is an attempt by a Mormon to censor anything Mormon-related .." simple because he found out I was "Mormon". I happens all the time, and the fact the RED even brought it up show that he somehow thinks that just because I "Mormon" I have some hidden agenda, so my comments should be ignored and I shouldn't be commenting. What dose my status as a "Mormon" of any sect have to do with the facts I point out. It shouldn't but to RED it seems to.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 07:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I didn't mean that your contention that you've run into anti-Mormon bias is ridiculous, I meant that any kind of such bias is ridiculous: your option A, brother.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 20:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Ok, the comments make more since now.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 20:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Artest, I am not sure why you are so hung up on the semantic interpretation that “Religion” as a general term in every info box directly implies “state your religion here”. Another way to look at the broad phrase is, “Religion= this person is a _____, (and if applicable) attends the ________”. If someone asked Beck the common American question “what religion are you?”, it would be fair to extrapolate from his own statements that Beck would probably answer with “I’m Mormon”. And 99 % of the population knows that when he uses Mormon that he means the mainstream Mormon’s based in Salt Lake City associated with the LDS (although many Americans might not know that Mormon = Latter Day-Saint, which is more esoteric knowledge that you would be more likely to know the closer your vicinity is to any Mormons). Now using your “nationality = USA” argument, what I am suggesting in your analogy would be to list “Nationality = Mexican” while you would be suggesting “Nationality = United Mexican States” (the official term for ‘Mexico’). As for what you deem to be a personal attack, it isn’t my business what religion you are, but you felt it relevant to voluntarily share with everyone on your user page that you consider yourself a Latter-Day Saint. That’s great, and I would never say that you shouldn’t edit LDS articles (in fact Mormons would be the prime people with knowledge to edit specific LDS-related articles). My issue arose because in my view you were displaying an overzealous emotional reaction to the term “Mormon”, and thus showing severe inflexibility and inability to acknowledge the clear majority of sources on the matter. So before I ever even looked at your user page, I began to think that you were taking this to personally (hinting that it could potentially ruin your day etc) – and almost had to be a Mormon yourself who does not like to officially be referred to as a "Mormon", but personally prefers “Latter-Day Saint”. Then walla, I clicked on your user page and right there it confirmed my inclination. Now does that mean that you can’t edit the article? Of course not. But I believe it does possibly explain why you are so head strong and emotionally invested in him not being called “Mormon”, because you personally don’t prefer it. However you aren’t Beck, and he doesn’t have any hang ups with the term Mormon, in fact the few times he does speak about his personal religious beliefs – he simply sums them up with “I’m Mormon” and lets all the chips from that fall where they may.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 22:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Here is the first reference to the LDS Church in an article published yesterday in the Salt Lake Tribune (which, incidentally, is owned by the LDS Church, although it enjoys complete editorial independence from its owners):

It’s also a bit of a local issue, given that Beck has, on several occasions, made much of his membership in the Mormon Church. LINK

And here is a piece by a journalism professor in today's Mormon Times (likewise technically owned by the LDS Church) specifically about covering the Mormon religion as it intersects with political campaigns. It uses the word Mormon a hundred times and uses the words Latter-day Saint(s) or LDS zero times.

Just sayin'. --Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 15:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm enjoying reading your writing, Secret Garden. Actually, the Salt Lake Tribune is owned by a company in Colorado, not the LDS Church. Both the Deseret News and the Salt Lake Tribune have Wikipedia articles that describe ownership in their first paragraph. Also interesting reading: http://www.media.utah.edu/UHE/s/SaltLakeTribune.html . . . Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 10:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Oops, guess I was confused about that, Charles. It is only the two SLC papers' "printing, delivery and advertising" that are combined, according to the WP article, "Newspaper Agency Corporation" ("jointly owned by the Deseret Morning News and The Salt Lake Tribune, the two major daily newspapers in Salt Lake City, Utah,"--but, indeed, it appears that the two papers are owned separately). Thanks!--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

This is the first time I have ever heard someone claim the term "Mormon" is perjorative. I remember swimming in a hotel pool once and meeting this girl and asking her if she was Jewish. She replied that she was Mormon and I asked my mom "What kind of Jewish is Mormon?" Clearly, it is not an insult to her family or the millions of other Mormons who identify as such. I didnt read the whole debate and just stumbled upon this when searching for Glenn Becks marriage status, so perhaps that gives me an outside perspective? Writing out LDS is clunky and Mormon is the more commonly known term. For a while I didnt even know they were the same.--Metallurgist (talk) 09:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Metallurgist, you are right. "Mormon" can be a compliment or the opposite depending on speaker/context. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 10:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

"Denomination" Proposal

Ok, I realize it hasn't been 24 hours, but I have come up with something that might make reaching a final agreement possible, so I will proposed it and completly ignore everything else and then return later, since I don't want to let this effect my day. The biggest obstacle it see that that the proposed change deviated from the original discussion by removing a part that wasn't discussed at all. So if we can resolve that new issue, perhaps a final agreement is possible.

So will this work for Red, et al. Instead of completely removing "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" can we agree the this is a least Glenn Beck's "Denomination". A religious denomination is a subgroup within a religion that operates under a common name, tradition, and identity. So I think that all your and my WP:V sources at minimum say that "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" is his "Denomination", since it is said numerous times that he join "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" and not some other "Latter-day Saint" sect. Since the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints "operates under a common name, tradition, and identity." diffenet from other "Mormons" (Compare LDS to FLDS, CoC, CofChrist etc.), then "Mormon" with any piplink would not correct as a "Denomination".

So can we agree to remove "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" from this issue by adding "| denomination =[[The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]]" to the infobox? Unless there is some reason that "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" should be hidden I don't see why this can't work for this part. Then we can get back to the original issue instead of debating something new?--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 07:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Artest, there are several problems with your denomination proposal. (1) I believe having a “denomination =” listing would violate MOS. (2) I am not even sure the info box would allow you to insert a “denomination =” option, as these info boxes are set up to be uniform and not really allow for unique categories. Have you ever personally seen this done on a Wiki article or in a info box? (3) Semantically the “religion =” category is there for someone’s common religious title and their denomination or specific church (if applicable) i.e. Quaker (Society of Friends) or Catholic (St. X Cathedral). In Beck’s case it makes sense to say he is religion = Mormon (LDS) or possibly religion = Mormon (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints). What would you disagree with about the latter bolded option?  Redthoreau -- (talk) 22:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Interesting suggestion ARTEST4ECHO. I tested the template here to see if the "|denomination =" works. It does indeed work, and I do not believe that it is against the manual of style to use it. Alpha Quadrant talk 02:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I would like to reply out of order. Regarding:
  • (2) Do you really think I would suggest "denomination" if I didn't know it wasn't an option on the infobox in the first place. Go to {{infobox person}} and you can see it is not only available, but it immediately follows "Region" Is says:
Parameter Explanation
religion If relevant. For living persons please refer to WP:BLPCAT.
denomination Denomination of religion, if relevant.
  • (1) Where dose it say this is a MOS violation? Can you show me, especially if "denomination" is an option? Additionally, it would seem to me that per your previous argument MOS doesn't trump WP:V. I have constantly said the WP:MOSLDS says “Mormon” is wrong, but you say WP:V say “Mormon” is to be used so WP:MOSLDS should be ignored, WP:V says that his denomination is “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” so even if it was a MOS violation, per your argument it doesn't matter.
  • (2) Your claim that "“religion =” category is there for someone’s common religious title and their denomination” (emphasis mine) can't be true for two reasons:
A. If infobox offers both, then how can Region can be both?
B. If it was for both then you would be happy with "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" (Mormon), since that is his "Region" and his "Denomination" together. Yet you have constantly removed "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" and replaced it with "Mormon" only. Your own edit don't include both the "Religion" and "Denomination", so "Religion" can't be for both, per your own edits.
  • Regarding Mormon (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), I don't agree to that for the reason I have constantly written above. Per WP:MOSLDS, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Latter Day Saints), “Mormon” it a nickname. "Mormon" should be listed first, "Mormon" is used by all sects, etc. I'm not going to go over all the reason I already have, so I will stop here.
I'm trying to get to a compromise by removing "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" from the equation, since all the edits so far have been edits to remove "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" from the infobox all together, so we can at least have part of the issue resolved. Then perhaps we can solve the rest.
It seem to me that there is no reason to hide the name of his church if it is an option readily available and is WP:V. All your own sources prove the his "denomination" is "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". Your argument has always been that WP:V demands "Mormon", as his "religion". Well I'm also saying that WP:V demands that his "denomination" be "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints".
Since it seems that you didn't know that "denomination" was an option, so I ask again, now that you know that "denomination" is an option, can we come to compromise on this part of the issue?--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 04:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Artest, I guess “denomination” is an info box option, although I have never seen it used. Do you know of any examples? I also believe that you have misinterpreted my position. All along I have argued that BOTH "Mormon" and "LDS" or the longer "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" would be relevant for inclusion. Our disagreement seems to revolve around (1) The order & (2) The fact that you don’t believe that “Mormon” should be included at all. I have shown that per WP:V, "Mormon" is worthy of info box inclusion, so now to me the real issue is the order - with the options being (a) “Mormon (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints)” or (b) Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon). As for “denomination”, the only way I think that would be necessary as a separate column, is if you used “Religion = Mormonism” & “Denomination = Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” – as “Mormonism” is used just as often in relation to Beck as “Mormon” is.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 07:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
   I don't have any examples, not that I have looked at all. However, since I have plenty of example that use “Religion = "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" (LDS Church)” without “Mormon” at all and those are being ignored, it shouldn’t matter what other pages are using. They are both available, so why can’t we use them both?
   I don't see how in the world you can claim that you have argued that "BOTH "Mormon" and "LDS" or the longer "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" would be relevant for inclusion.", since your edits and arguments unequivocally don't reflect that. My original edit and the “mediation” request had nothing to do with "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". I was never given a chance to discuss its removal before you removed it. My original edit was to removed “Mormon” and replace it with (LDS Church) from the page. I did it ONCE then opened a discussion as to why I didn’t want “Mormon” when it was “undone” and I have left it on the page despite my thinking it should be removed. Yet that discussion and your edits changed to the removal of "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" and you have demanded that it be that way, since the mediator suggested it. If "you have argued that BOTH them both..." were ok, then why are you removing "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” all together? I had to ask that the page be protected since you were removing "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” without allowing any discussions. I don't see how that can be a "misinterpreted my position". I agreed, it is a fact that I don't believe that "Mormon" should be included at all. Why can't you admit that you wanted "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" to be removed?
   I have amited that I object to (Mormon) "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" and I don't think "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" (Mormon) is right per WP:MOSLDS. As I said above, I am tring to remove "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" from this disagreement, by using “denomination”, so that we may be able to figure out a solution to the separate “Mormon” issue. This is an attempt to return to the original “Mormon” issue, which has been deviated from. If “denomination” happens then perhaps we can discuss the inclusion or exclusion of "Mormon" separately, since “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" is no longer the “New” focus of this conflict
   Would it help if I agreed to the condition that, if we are unable to come to a consensus on the "Mormon" issue, that you wont be held to the “Denomination” agreement. A “both or nothing” agreement? So, I ask are you willing to allow "Denomination = "[[The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]]" or not?--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 13:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I can only assume from Red's lack of comment on any kind of compromise (or anything else) for three day that the "Denomination" Proposal isn't something he can agree with and there isn't anything else RED is willing to discuss. Since the page protection is going to expire on the 23rd and there is no longer any communication, I will move things to the Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee. Arbitration is the "Last Resort", I will wait until tomorrow to give you a change to come back to the “bargaining table”, so to speak.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 16:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

If Redthoreau !voted a certain way, he need not chime in again here in this informal thread. But, ARTEST4ECHO, I don't think it necessary to go to the more formal forum in that I think a rough consensus has already been achieved right here, IMO--since the admin and other contributors have agreed to accept a denomination field in the infobox (with the exception perhaps of the comment in the section immediately below by an IP, whose argument, in any case, I had trouble following)--and I'll finally officially add here that I find use of the infobox's denomination field acceptable, too.

(And, in a reply to the IP 71.53.195.160|71.53.195.160: Of course denominations need not refer only to branches of Protestantism; see List of Christian denominations, Hindu denominations, etc.)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Artest, I have already made my view known. I do not object to listing his denomination as “Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” as long as his religion is listed as “Religion = Mormonism” (or "Mormon)". My primary concern all along has been that we not obfuscate the fact that Beck is Mormon, as he considers himself Mormon, and the majority of sources note that he is a Mormon who adheres to Mormonism. Any further specification of his precise denomination or sect is fine with me. As a general rule, I want the potential reader to be more informed not less.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 22:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I got the impression that Red completely disagreed with this idea and that implementing this wasn't going to happen. However, since it now seems clear that he doesn’t object, I think we can come to a consensus of some kind. Thank you. I will move down to the "Finding the agreement" you.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 13:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The discussion makes a distinction between the words denomination and religion or denomination and sect. Websters does not make these distinctions. These words mean the same thing and perhaps the distinction should be dropped from the article, as I have already said, because it causes too much confusion. Again, I do not want this suggestion to hold up correcting this article, but would like it considered.

I did read the discussion. The distinction between the terms denomination, religion, and sect that is drawn in the discussion stems from an elaborate discussion of LDS, mormons, mormonism, not of Glenn Beck. If this were a discussion about, LDS, religion, denominations, or sects, it would be relevant to the topic. Right now it seems to split hairs on an at best a side issue of the topic.

This can be fun and I have engaged in such discussions myself. I think it is wrong to hold up the main article with discussions that are not central to the topic. I continue to believe Wikkipedia can present a biography of Glenn Beck that is both accurate and objective. Right now it is hampered from making needed corrections by discussions that relate no more than tangentially to the topic. I don't think that's right or fair.

71.53.195.160 (talk) 22:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC) DWright

Finding the agreement

Ok, I am trying to find a compromise with the other side. However, this only works if the above “Partial Agreement” is accepted, since I think removing “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day saint” is wrong and should be a part of the infox, if at a minimum as his “denomination”.

  • If I agree that “Mormon” in the “religion =” can be included in some way, even though I still don’t think it should be since there is no "Mormon" religon, can the other side agree the “Latter-Day Saint” (with the “-“) also can be included in some way since that is the correct “Religion” per wp:MOSLDS and WP:BLPCAT? Then all we need to decide on is format, since the content will already be decided?--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 14:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I feel that both "Mormon" and "Latter-day Saint" should be included but "Mormon" should be there only as a clarification. There is no "Mormon" religion, but it's understandable that people think of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the "Mormon Church." I think that "Latter-day Saint" should come first (linking to the article on the church) and "Mormon" second. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HankyUSA (talk • contribs) 00:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I think we should hold off on trying to decide how these should be listed so two reason:
  • If we can't agree to the "Domination" part then this part has no use, since I think "Mormon (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints)" and "(The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints) (Mormon)" shouldn’t be part of the infobox. Therefore, if the "Domination" agreement fails then this fails also.
  • Until we decide that the "Mormon" (or Mormonism as Red said above) and "Latter-Day Saint" can both be included, in some way, then deciding on an order is irrelevant. A compromise to use “Mormon” (or Mormonism)in “some way” can't be reached if “Red” won’t compromise and agree to "Latter-Day Saint” being used in “some way”. How they are used and their order has to come second.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 04:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
The way the Article currently reads is perfect — it cannot be improved. .!. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles Edwin Shipp (talk • contribs) 10:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I am sure the Church of Jesus Chris of the Latter Day Saints prefers to be called just that or LDS. I am equally sure Glenn Beck said "I am a Mormon." Since this is an article about Glenn Beck and not about the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints, the reference to Mormon, Mormons, and Mormonism are the appropriate terms to use. These distinctions between LDS and Mormonism is interesting, but belong in an article about the Church of Jesus Christ of the Later Day Saints. His statement he is a Mormon is so common as to present little or nothing in the way of eliciting controversy or illuminating him as an individual.

Wikkipedia should be guided by accuracy, not by popular opinion. To argue that the word Mormon should be used because other references use this word begs this issue of accuracy. It is accurate Beck defines himself as a Mormon. Anything else fails to illuminate Mr. Beck as an individual. It seems illuminating a person as an individual is the task of a biography, so it is accurate and meets the goal of biography to quote Mr. Beck and leave the matter alone after that.

As to the concern about the word "denomination", I know this term as typically used to describe differing beliefs with the Protestant Religion. Webster's New World Dictionary (2nd Ed., 1980) does not describe this restrictive use of the word and defines it with the words "religions or sects". I'm not sure this distinction amounts to a hill of beans, but think the best approach might be to delete the word as it seems to present confusion for the reader.

71.53.195.160 (talk) 01:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC) — 71.53.195.160 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 01:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC) (UTC).

Ok. I am willing to accept “Mormon” or "Mormonism" in the “religion =” in some way (even though I don't believe it should be) in order to try and come to an agreement. However, I agree to "Mormon" as long as "Latter-Day Saints" is included also, for all the previous reasons listed. I also agree with HankyUSA that, if it's included, "Mormon" should be for "clarification" purposes. I think "Mormonism" would be better the "Mormon" since it sound better, like Atheisms sounds better then Atheist. However, I really don't care which one since I think both are equally bad, so Red and others can choose "Mormon" vs. "Mormonism".
Anyway, I have come up with some ideas. However, this is not the "only" why I would agree to. This is only a start. Tell me what way you all think and if you would to any of them. (Obviously I have removed lines that aren't involved in this discussion in order to reduce the space used. They will still be in the infobox on the page
1
2
3
Glenn Beck
WebsiteGlenn Beck's Official Website
Glenn Beck
WebsiteGlenn Beck's Official Website
Glenn Beck
WebsiteGlenn Beck's Official Website
4
5
Glenn Beck
WebsiteGlenn Beck's Official Website
Glenn Beck
WebsiteGlenn Beck's Official Website
Again, this doesn’t mean that these are the only way I would agree to, this is just the ways that first came to my mind, so if Red et al hate all these ways but have a different way please suggest it.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 13:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

A simple statement indicating some members of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints take issue with the terms Mormon and Mormonism would be OK, even though it is unnecesary and somewhat off the point. That Glenn Beck uses a term to describe himself that other members of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints take issue with points out his need for controversy. All evidence suggests the controversy is very common and contained largely within LDS. In fairness to Beck, the article would then need to point out this controversy is by far not the greatest one he has created and, in fact, the controversy preceeded him. All this is if this topic were taken up. In this context I find this information taxing and dense while failing to shed much light on Mr. Beck yet will not disagree with its inclusion. I still object to an extensive discussion of this issue. It is more about LDS than about Beck and belongs in an article about LDS. This is a biography of Glenn Beck. That he is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints is only one aspect of his life. His conservative political beliefs are another. That he writes books and appears on television is yet another as is his history growing up in an alcoholic family and living an actively alcoholic life for some years another. That he used AA to obtain abstinence is another aspect. His diagnosis and treatment of hyperactivity attention deficit disorder is yet another. Facts and events build a biography and this article is a biography. 71.53.195.160 (talk) 22:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC) DennisW

Artest, I would recommend ...
Glenn Beck/Archive 14

To me listing "Latter-day Saint" twice is redundant.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 23:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It is possible this redundancy is invited by a one size fits all approach to biographical outlines. In Protestant Religion differences on one fundamental concern of the religion leads to different churches. Different churches then lead to different religions within the protestant movement. Is the argument that something similar does not occur in LDS? I can digress as well as the next person into the history LDS to support the case there are different sects or denominations within LDS. It appears there is detail lost in an ill fitting nomenclature. A better fitting nomenclature would require an explaination to other readers. I have no trouble with using both LDS and Mormon for religion and denomination, yet am brought to the sense that this distinction is likely lost on the subject of the article. It might be better if Wikkipedia used the common usage of denomination rather than the broader, more technical one. In this way it would be used in articles about individuals who are protestant and/or part of a well defined sect of a religion. It would lead to less confusion. Saying this, I am not going to argue the article should not be opened until this correction is made. These corrections could be made later on or the article could remain as is. This concern is largely irrelevant to Glenn Beck or his espoused beliefs and/or opinions. 71.53.195.160 (talk) 00:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC) DWright

This,

Glenn Beck
WebsiteGlenn Beck's Official Website

Seems more accurate to me. 71.53.195.160 (talk) 00:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC) DWright

Ooops! I wanted the box that said, religion: Latter-day Saints, denomination: mormon. 71.53.195.160 (talk) 00:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC) DWright
If you bothered to read the discussion "denomination: Mormon" is inappropriate since there are hundreds of "Mormon" sects. A religious denomination is "a subgroup within a religion that operates under a common name, tradition, and identity." Using a generic term such as "Mormon" can't be a "common name, tradition, and identity" when it applies to any of the Latter Day Saint sects. Which "Mormon" denomination are you talking about? You might as well put "denomination: Christian".--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 12:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Hodgson, in my view it doesn’t make sense to have a “denomination” listing, without specifying that the denomination is in reference to his “religion”. If the current listing was going to stay as is, then I feel it would be better to just list it as “religion = Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon)” rather than “denomination”. Opinions, thoughts? Artest et al?  Redthoreau -- (talk) 23:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I've never seen the denom field in use before. Perhaps sometimes, as ARTEST4ECHO suggested, it is used alongside the religious beliefs field? In any case, in Beck's case, he is not known for being a spokesman for his religion so I think only one field should be used. And, now that you mention, perhaps the most appropriate one might indeed be the religious beliefs field instead of a bare denom field, Redthoreau, as you say.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Hodgson-Burnett argues well for only one field describing religious belief. I favor religion as broader than denomination and open to less confusion. Whether his religion is described as Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or a Mormon is not that major a detail and either would suite.

71.53.195.160 (talk) 23:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)DWright

THe only acceptable answer is to follow wikipedia policy. Beck does not frequently refer to himself as a mormon because he does not even refer to his religion that often and most of his referrals to such were quite a while ago. When Beck wrote his book, and most of the times, if not all, that he called himself a mormon were before the Church came out and publicly asked members to no longer refer to themselves as Mormons but as Saints and to no longer refer to the church as the Mormon Church but the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. (they made this request in October 2010) Thus, since that date beck has not, to my knowledge, called himself a Mormon. The only 2 feasible reasons someone would want his religion to say mormon would be 1. to link him or his religion to the negative slanderous accusations frequently surrounding the word mormon, for example, polygamy, and thereby discredit either him or the religion. Wikipedia is not in the business of propaganda or of taking sides in any sort of argument except where Barack Obamas page is concerned. :) putting "mormon" arguably is not an unbiased title. or 2. because they believe that referring to him as a mormon would more quickly get people to understand which relgion he is a part of because its a more recognizable word. Wikipedia does not have a policy of using more recognizable words. It has a policy of using more accurate words. Just as, in speaking of Barack Obama (again) you wouldnt put as his ethnicity "black" you would put "african american" even though the word black is more easily recognisable. 97.118.9.94 (talk) 07:49, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

This topic has been mentioned in the discussion thread of the RfC here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Latter Day Saints)#RfC.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 15:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
And a mention (at the very least) here would also be in order IMHO. Plutonium27 (talk) 13:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

objectivity of the Beck biography.

I commented twice before the article removed the comments Beck's mother was an alcoholic. This relates to Beck as it describes his upbringing. It seemed to me and seems to me now this obscures Beck as a person in favor of his controversies. In reviewing the documentation for the article I found the following quote in footnote 15, a biography of Glenn Beck,

"At the time of Beck's death, she (Mary Beck) held custody of her 15-year-old son, Glenn, with whom she had moved to Puyallup. She had left her estranged husband William behind in Mt. Vernon, Wash., another small city 100 miles due north. After producing two daughters and a son, the Becks' marriage had collapsed in 1977 under the weight of Mary's chemical addictions and manic fits of depression. It was in the two years bridging this divorce and his mother's drowning that a teenage Glenn Beck launched one of the most bizarre and unlikely careers in the history of American broadcasting."

I note the article not only removed the report of chemical addiction, but ignored the suggestion of emotional instability.

71.53.195.160 (talk) 00:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)DWright

I researched the other footnotes and could not find another independent source for the statement in the Slate article. I was disappointed to see the Slate article did not include it's sources of information. I'll continue to look for at least two more references.

71.53.195.160 (talk) 04:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)DWright

On one hand, I see what you're saying. On the other, this would be a rather delicate addition to make. For one, Beck is a controversial figure. We want to make sure the addition is, firstly, not given more emphasis than would be appropriate given sources available, and, secondly, is not treated as if it is making a point about him, but only reporting a fact about his life among others. Beck is very much known for his controversies, so a lot of weight is going to lean towards that. Perhaps if you want to work on the addition, you make a specific suggested change, and we can examine here what would work.
I think we can agree this has the potential to be a sensitive aspect of the article, and it would be very bad to appear to be attacking Beck through his mother, no matter what various editors may think about him. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 22:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

It is purported to be a fact in at least one source. It is a fact that may have occurred in his formative years and could have had an influence on his world view. Not all parents who are chemically addicted are "bad parents". In my experience they are often very good parents.

71.53.195.160 (talk)DWright —Preceding undated comment added 23:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC).

Unless a reliable source makes the claim that it impacted his world view, we won't speculate. Whether that one source is sufficient for including in the article partly depends on the source, and partly depends on how well the info is covered in that source. I'm not finding your attempted change in the history so far, so would you post the information/link here? Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 14:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

That, of course, would be more of the research. Your article already references Beck talking often about his mothers suicide and maybe there is something in those references. I asked Salon.com for their references. I so far have not heard from them. Salon might not be that friendly to Beck and I would want to look at their primary sources.

71.53.195.160 (talk) 21:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)DWright

I heard from the salon author. The statement that the marriage of Becks parents failed due to the chemical dependencies of his mother seems to be a condensation of several on-air remarks made by Beck in reference to her alcohol and drug use. The author is looking for those references.

Of course I will post the sources here as I get them. It might take some sorting through the context of Becks comments. It is possible these statements were taken out of context and not representative of what Beck meant to say. He is also known to speak first and think later. His comments need to taken within the context of his personal style of public speaking. I wonder if he has written his own biography. Do you know?

71.53.195.160 (talk) 22:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)DWright

Can't say myself. However, if it's condensed from several sources, there's a good chance we can't use it, as it would involve original research or a synthesis of sources. Trust me, there are very good reasons we don't want to do that. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 22:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 66.229.114.208, 27 April 2011

The ACORN section on this page seems to be very subjective, more objectivity requested. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.114.208 (talk) 20:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Also, it doesn't seem unduly subjective to me at all. — Bility (talk) 18:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Critism of Beck's style of delivery from other conservatives?

Like Beck I'm a Latter Day Saint and a political conservative. Beck's view that the Constitution of the United States is, along with the Declaration of Independence, an "inspired document" is not at all outside the mainstream of Latter Day Saint thought. The Book of Mormon itself pretty much says so. I would seem to be based on my own independently-formed views, inclined to be a supporter of Beck who seems to largely base his political ideal on the idea of Captain Moroni's Title of Liberty, as do I.

But though I agree with much of his worldview, I find his methods of explaining himself .... frustrating. I think he oversimplifies everything to the point that there's hardly anything there for people to learn. I would contrast Beck's style of delivery with other conservative commentators like Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin who while they largely agree with many of Beck's positions, they express themselves on a much higher level intellectually with a much greater respect for the education of their audience in terms of expectations. I'm pretty sure there have got to be other conservatives who feel the same way, who feel somewhat in sympathy with the many liberals trolling that "BECK IS AN IDIOT" because they feel Beck has somewhat oversimplified and dumbed down the conservative worldview in many instances, while other commentators (notably Mark Levin) will sometimes cover the same material in a much less intellectually shallow manner. Surely if anyone could find sources for this criticism of Beck - not of his policies but about his delivery coming not from enemies but from other conservatives, wouldn't that be worth including? --BenMcLean (talk) 21:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Freedom for Palestine

Freedom for Palestine (song) has just been created but could use some work including Beck's review of the song, the initial edit largely quotes coverage by supporters of the song in order to keep controversy to a minimum. Bachcell (talk) 14:24, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Fan logo, continually being added to article

I have attempted to remove a fan-made, SVG logo, supposedly meant to be Glenn Beck's television logo. The logo is very poorly designed, and does not resemble the actual logo used on the show. The user has reverted my removal of the image, calling it "vandalism", but the user seems to have ownership issues in wanting to have their fan-made work displayed in the article. Additionally, the user continues to suggest discussing here on the talk page, but has made no effort to do so before reverting. WP:LOGO also seems to advise against using logos that do not closely resemble the actual logo in use by a company or television show. The logo should not be in use in the article, as it strongly misrepresents the television show's logo. Gage (talk) 06:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree and am removing it based off of this explanation. Additionally, it looks to me like the NFCC guidelines say we should be using a low resolution logo (or one of small size) and this is neither of those. Kevin (talk) 06:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
The image in question, first off is not FAN-MADE, secondly to say the "The logo is very poorly designed, and does not resemble the actual logo" Is not only untrue, it shows shamefulness and uncivility, on your part. You may want to refer to the source, I used. Now the only thing I see that may be incorrect is the title, maybe it should considered a "Screen Shot". Also keep in mind Vandalism is removing any image or part of an article, without any valid explanation Jetijonez (talk) 17:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Have, you tried actually reading Wikipedia:Vandalism rather than just linking to it. A content dispute is never vandalism. If this is indeed a screen shot, has the copyright holder (presumably the TV company?) given permission for its use? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Is any non-free image whether it's a logo, seal, or screen shot ever generally have permission for its use??? Jetijonez (talk) 17:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

It is not permissible to use a non-free logo that is of a large size or of a high resolution in this context per WP:NFCC. Additionally - and I even watched Beck's show last night to confirm - this logo really does not appear to be a screen shot or terribly accurate representation of the show's logo. If you believe it is, where did you get it? Also, please don't accuse Gage of incivility or 'shamefulness' - he's commenting on content in a way that you disagree with but not in a way that is uncivil. Accusing other people of being uncivil (and accusing other people of vandalism) can be uncivil behavior in and of itself. Kevin (talk) 20:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
"very poorly designed" That pretty much says it all, and I take that as impunity on my work. If he'd simply stated that the image was not accurate, that would have been sufficient. But forget that part, if you read my post thoroughly you'd have seen that I stated "refer to the source" So I would suggest go to the image and check out the Source for yourself....there's a link. Lastly I addressed the size to comply with WP:NFCC Jetijonez (talk) 21:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
The image is not a screen shot. Screen shots are raster graphics. This is a vector graphic and was created in Sodipodi and Inkscape. You can't comply with NFCC with a vector graphic - it scales to any size. That policy is meant for fair use of raster graphics. If you want to add a picture of his logo, crop the real thing File:Glenn_Beck_Banner.jpg - inclusion should be covered under fair use. Morphh (talk) 21:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
No, it would fail regardless for two reasons. One, the logo does not significantly add to the reader's understanding of th subject of this article (i.e. Beck himself) and therefore fails WP:NFCC#8. If the logo were to be used under fair use it would have to be in the article Glenn Beck (TV program). However, since there is already a non-free logo in that article, this one would then fail for overuse (WP:NFCC#3a). Black Kite (t) (c) 21:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
True.. Morphh (talk) 21:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I'll note that you introduced an artifact in your latest version (circle that cuts through the logo). The logo itself is not too bad (the normal logo usually has more depth and flair), but I'd suggest removing the blue gradient and make the background transparent. That's not to say it should be used here. The reason for using the real logo is to make sure it conveys the meaning intended and avoid tarnishing or misrepresenting the intended image. Morphh (talk) 21:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Morphh for the input, I'm just gonna let go, though. Consensus, is to leave out, so it's gone Jetijonez (talk) 22:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 118.93.131.167, 25 April 2011

Hi there, there is no citation for the claim that glenn beck is a "conservative" as stated in the introductory paragraph. in the interest of neutrality, this word should be removed untill it can be properly cited.

118.93.131.167 (talk) 06:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

This is common knowledge, he's well known as "the crying conservative" and it's on his own website. There's no need to source every well-known, non-controversial fact. — Bility (talk) 15:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Not needed now, but we could note that Glenn Beck was the invited guest keynote speaker at the Conservative Political Action Conference in 2010. Here is the caption under his photo-portrait-picture on the top of the Article-page: "Beck speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference in 2010" Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC) They invited him because of his leading conservative thought and commentary, not to mention his conservative movement efforts.

Edit request from JamesDennisMark, 21 July 2011

Please include Keith Olbermann's comparison of Glenn Beck to the film character Lonesome Rhodes under the heading "Satire, spoof and parody" [1]

JamesDennisMark (talk) 21:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Why? . . . Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jnorton7558 (talk) 10:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request , 25 July 2011 [Utøya island massacre]

I request that the following sentence be included in the first section of the article: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.46.239.238 (talk) 19:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

In his comment to the Utøya mass shooting in 2011, where more than 60 teenagers were shot by terrorist Anders Behring Breivik, Beck compared the victims of the shooting with Hitlerjugend [1]

46.46.239.238 (talk) 19:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure about it going in 'the first section', but given this [2] report in the Guardian, it seems to have attracted international attention, and may well merit inclusion in the 'Public disputes' section. I'll see if I can find other responses. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
3 more:
Daily Telegraph: [3]
Jewish Journal: [4]
USA Today: [5]
I can't check the Norwegian Media (don't speak the language), but it will be worth looking there too, no doubt. I'd say that was enough to merit inclusion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree. I'll have a look at the Norwegian media.
Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 00:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Here's one. Dagbladet: [6]. According to Google translate, 'Election researcher and Labor Member Frank Aarebrot' said "He is a fascist. Only a fascist would say something like that. The man is a pig". He went on to compare Beck to Joseph Goebbels.
The Telegraph piece read like a hit piece meant to beliberately take it out of context. Let's be careful.--King Bedford I Seek his grace 00:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
The Daily Telegraph, as a leading right-oriented UK newspaper, is unlikely to be publishing 'hit pieces' on Beck. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Frank Aarebrot, interviewed in the Dagbladet article, is a notable figure.
Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 01:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Norwegian TV2
Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 02:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Who is the Torbjørn Eriksen interviewed by the Daily Telegraph? Is he identical to the very notable Torbjørn Giæver Eriksen who's a State Secretary?
Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 03:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
It seems significant for inclusion, although not in the lead. TFD (talk) 04:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Marking as answered while discussion occurs. Jnorton7558 (talk) 04:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Edited the heading for the sake of clarity.
Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 22:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

"Recentism" tag

I removed the "recentism" tag from the section on the Norway attacks, as I don't see any evidence of recentism. Yes, it has to do with a recent event, but that in itself doesn't make it recentist. A public figure comparing the victims of a terrorist attack/massacre to the Hitler Youth isn't just controversial now, it's controversial a year from now, ten years from now, a hundred years from now, etc. If someone wants to put that tag back in, they should discuss here why they think it's needed. -Helvetica (talk) 16:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It is the epitome of "Recentism". This was a deliberate out-of-context smear job. I'm beginning to wonder of those who are so adamant about the comment's inclusion see a greater connection between the two groups than Beck may.--King Bedford I Seek his grace 17:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
What, exactly, is out of context? The quote I keep seeing is: “As the thing started to unfold and there was a shooting at a political camp, which sounds a little like the Hitler Youth. Who does a camp for kids that’s all about politics? Disturbing,” What is the context that would change the meaning or implication of what he said? —Torchiest talkedits 18:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
No one outside of leftist hacks are going to care about that statement in two weeks, max. The camp was formed sorely for one particular leftist political party, and not as a more general camp seeking higher morals (like anything Beck or Tea Party has been alleged). Given that the Hitler Youth were also indoctrinated by a single left-wing political party, there are parallels. Plus, we don't have the full discussion, just a soundbite. All in all, this is POV and recentism. See if it sticks after two months or so.--King Bedford I Seek his grace 18:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Hm, this is always awkward... King Bedford, as much as Mr. Beck has spoken to the contrary, any political scientist, politician or historian will tell you that the Nazi's were a far-right organization. The "Socialist" in their title did not reference Marxist idealogy, and in fact Communists was summarily executed. Hitler and his youths were fascists, the polar opposite of left-wing. Please learn terminology; just because Communism and fascism were both bad doesn't mean they're related. The Cap'n (talk) 18:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
How exactly does reporting what Beck said, or about how it was responded to constitute a 'smear job'? The only thing I see that might conceivably be seen as a 'smear' is Beck's own comment. (Though come to think of it, edits that describe the Daily Telegraph as a 'left wing group' might fit into the category). And with regard to your obnoxious (and ignorant) attempt to justify the comparison, I suggest you redact it immediatekly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. Given that this ludicrous and somewhat unpleasant posting does not address the reason for adding an NPOV tag, I have removed it. It's completely illogical anyway - if you agree with Beck that there are parallels between the two, why on earth would you apply an NPOV tag to a section that reports his claim? Black Kite (t) (c) 18:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
IT IS DELIBERATELY OUT OF CONTEXT. WHich of the previous words do you not get? Here's a helpful wikilink: Webster's Dictionary.--King Bedford I Seek his grace 18:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Repeating yourself in capitals isn't going to help. Why is it out of context? In what context was the statement made that isn't reflected in the quote given in the article? Black Kite (t) (c) 18:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
What was the context? Wasn't Beck talking about the shootings in Norway? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
It's not out of context, King Bedford. Beck's comments about the camp itself are accurately reflected in the quote. He went on to revile the shooter, but that's another point entirely. If the article were using the quote to state that Beck sympathized with the shooter, THAT would be out of context. As it is, the fact that he hates the shooter doesn't make comparing the victims to Hitler youth any less controversial or notable.
As to your second point, you figured out our plan. The International Liberal League of Evil will hear of this! The Cap'n (talk) 18:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I've again removed the "recentism" tag. Like I said before, just because it discusses something which happened recently doesn't automatically mean that this tag should be there. There needs to be a good reason for it. Equating the victims of a massacre/terrorist attack with the Hitler Youth is certainly controversial, and it will still be ten, fifty, and a hundred years from now. Incidently, the political party this camp was associated with is a mainstream Norwegian political party, currently the ruling party in Norway. You may strongly disagree with their politics, but that doesn't make them in any way like the Nazis! -Helvetica (talk) 21:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Beck says something insulting every couple months that receives some coverage. Most of the coverage is from or spurred by those who oppose him politically. And every couple of months someone tries to add something like that to the article. The whole layout of the section with subsections and lines of clarifying text gives more prominence than most of the comments deserve. That is why it is akin to recentism. If editors would focus on not highlighting new coverage and attempting to ridicule the guy (he doesn't need your help) then the article could actually portray the subject in a light that does not read like over-reactionary mud slinging. Maybe his comment will have some historical significantly. I doubt it will just like his other 1000 inflammatory comments have mostly proven to not be worthy of mention.
In regards to the "out of context" argument. I think the editor is wording it wrong. Of course the quote in itself is not out of context. However, to not mention that he did not agree with he attack leaves the reader to assume he was only blaming the victims and did not criticize the perpetrator. If you do not see that i how it could easily been read then you need to try to circumvent your own POV better.
So if we want the article to be more than a list of everything mean Beck has said, editors will need to focus on keeping a historical perspective in mind. Instead of listing every single quote that got picked up by Olbmermann or anyone else, it should be mentioned as running prose that don't highlight whichever news piece editors find interesting. Concise paragraphs without excess quotes instead of subsecitons with lengthy explanations and rebuttals.
And I agree this incident is of little significance. History has so far proven that mos of the stuff spewed from commentators receives no coverage within a month. That being said, I assume there is a way to work it in responsibly. Cptnono (talk) 21:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Since editors are bickering over the recentism tag, I have instead added a POV tag. Two editors have said why they think it is misrepresentative of a fact. Make sure it doesn't lead the reader to assume Beck condoned the attack and it can go.Cptnono (talk) 22:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Glenn Beck about the Utoya Island massacre in Norway

You should report what the gentleman said, that the boys killed in the Utoya Island massacre were like the Hitlerjugend. It's a shame for him, I understand it, but it must be said; he is an adult and he must be fully responsible for his statements.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/8660986/Norway-shooting-Glenn-Beck-compares-dead-teenagers-to-Hitler-youth.html

http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/glenn-beck-compares-victims-of-norway-attack-to-hitler-youth-1.375388 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.37.129.176 (talk) 17:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The article includes this already, in the 'Public disputes' section, under '2011 Norway Attacks'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
See above, topic no 5. I think it would be good lo let the matter cool down for some time, and then improve the section. The global perspective should be considered, and the parties involved in the dispute should be properly accounted for.
Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 22:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd better say up front that I don't have a particular axe to grind here. I'm frankly uninterested in all this left-wing-right-wing pigeonholing, because honestly I think that both terms are now so indiscriminately thrown around that they really don't mean anything any more - they're just blunt instruments with which we can club people who don't agree with us.

That said, can there be some clarification on the nature of the dispute over the neutrality of the section on Beck's comments about Norway? Reading the article as it stands, and comparing with news reports, I can't see anything mentioned that isn't backed up by sources. I don't know what Wikipedia's stance is on news organisations as reliable sources, but the wording of this section seems reasonably undisputed in the media: Glenn Beck said what the article says he said; the response was as described. Wikipedia is not currently making any attempt - at least in this section as it stands today - to make any judgements on Beck's politics or morality: it is only reporting (accurately, as far as I can tell) what he said and how it was received. - Silvensis (talk) 07:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

It is up above. Cptnono (talk) 07:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I'll get back to the matter in a few days. I don't see any major neutrality issue. However, the account of the reception could be improved, and the extent of media coverage should be looked into. The main neutrality conflict was that an editor, erroneously as far as I can see, made reference to "left wing groups", and this phrase was reverted a few times.
Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 07:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
The only thing I can think of is that the section focusses solely on Beck's comment about the camp, and not about his attitude to the shooter. To be fair, Beck did condemn the shooter, and compared him to Osama bin Laden (He said he was 'no different from Osama bin Laden'). I think that would clear the NPOV tag. (Personally I think the section is fine - it's reporting a fact and is cited - but maybe the 'whole' truth needs to be covered. I suspect whoever tagged it did it for partisan reasons, and hasn't managed to come up with a coherent argument for why the NPOV tag was added. Hence me coming up with an argument for them (even though I can't stand the man and think his comments are extremely hypocritical)). So maybe this could be added, if it can be cited (I'm sure it can, but I'm not doing it - this is a fire and forget. I know we're not meant to give our opinions of the page subject on talk pages, but this sterile 'his comments are out of context'/'no they're not' discussion is clearly getting nowhere. I'm from the anti-Beck camp, but can see that the whole truth alters the enormity of Beck's crassness somewhat. Stevebritgimp (talk) 07:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it's relevant to say that he also clearly condemned Breivik.
Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 08:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I think that, as it currently reads, it's entirely NPOV. The section is headed "public disputes", not about his views on particular subjects. Clearly, Beck's condemnination of the killings is not something that has lead to any disuputes. Comparing the camp to the Hitler youth is something that has been disputed. Ergo, it seems reasonable to mention the disputed issue and nothing else. Otherwise why not mention that he compared the camp to the Hitler youth but that he also likes kittens? Robinr22 (talk) 08:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Because that would be irrelevant.
Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 09:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Which is my point, no? His condemning of the shooting is irrelevent to the dispute over the Hitler youth comparison. It would only be a dispute (for which I read controversy...) if he praised the shooting. Robinr22 (talk) 10:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
No, your point is different from mine. It's irrelevant to say what he likes or dislikes. It is relevant to say what he said in context, because the account could otherwise be misleading to the reader.
Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 10:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi, im a reader and i dont find it misleading. I wouldn't presume Glenn Beck supported the shooting based on what is written and i just came here and commented because i couldn't understand why a NPOV tag was in place. 89.180.143.121 (talk) 18:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I can see there's some issue over the interpretation of what the man thinks about things. But I'd suggest that it's probably more relevant to the article to address public reaction to something he said, rather than speculate on why he might have said it. As I understand it, it's a documented fact that he made a comparison between the Norway camp and the Hitler Youth, and it's a documented fact that he's received public criticism because of it. So both those pieces of information can go in, with proper cites. His supporters may argue that that's misrepresenting him, but look at it this way: I've no doubt a great many famous people have expressed sorrow and sympathy for the Norway killings, and condemned the killer. Unless their reaction is particularly notable in itself, I don't think we'd need to create a section on each of their articles to say so. If someone receives notable criticism for expressing what are interpreted as opposing views, then that's worth covering here - and should be balanced out with any subsequent mitigation or explanation he or his staff might offer on his own behalf. I'd argue that the opinions of his supporters aren't relevant to the piece. - Silvensis (talk) 07:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

For Norwegian reactions, see also: 2011 Norway attacks#Domestic.
Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 09:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Section POV tag

I went ahead and removed the section NPOV tag. The only reason I had seen for its presence was that there was no qualifying statement about how Beck had condemned the massacre. I went ahead and added that in. If anyone wants to restore the tag, then we need to know what exactly is the POV problem being alleged. -Helvetica (talk) 19:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

For the second time, it is discussed up above. Stop reverting and fix it already.Cptnono (talk) 04:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Fix what? 'I don't like it' doesn't justify anything. Explain how the article breaches NPOV. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Also: ″Make sure it doesn't lead the reader to assume Beck condoned the attack and it can go″. It did, before you reverted. Do you think that the edit that stated this breached NPOV? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
It was in there! I saww "undid" and assumed it wasn't. Make your edit summaries clearer and remember to actually cite sources in the future. And it wasn't there last night. Regardless if it worked out or not, this went down like complete bullshit.Cptnono (talk) 05:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I didn't cite sources, for the simple reason that I didn't make the edit. Remember to actually look at the editing history in the future. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Not my fault it got stuck in (while still not being sourced or NPOV) without a talk page reply in the given section or without an edit history. You should feel bad for your part in it regardless of my embarrasment for assuming the worst in people. And while you are at it, you should actually respond to the recentism issue since half the edit war was over that and it is still an issue. Of course, you could instead see in two months when I remove it for no coverage. But I would rather the whole section get fixed instead of removing the fun stuff.Cptnono (talk) 05:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

"Websites" section

reads like a promo. The Website section of the article seems irrelevant in the first place (almost everyone and everything has a website, but that doesn't warrant an entire section) and should be relegated to the links area. Even if his website was unique and newsworthy, the section needs to be reworded.
"As of 2009, GlennBeck.com was estimated to receive five million unique visitors per month. Included in its subscription service..."
It goes on to promote the featured vlogs and put in a plug for Beck University. I'm just waiting to hear "for the low, low price of $19.95!" I move to delete the entire section; it's irrelevant and aggrandizing. This being the notoriously contentious Glenn Beck page, however, I want to put the proposal up on here before I do anything. Let me know if you have a valid argument for keeping it. The Cap'n (talk) 15:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I would say the whole wikipedia page reads like a promo 92.30.176.76 (talk) 19:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Here is some of the media product material at the Oprah Winfrew blp:

Winfrey publishes magazines: O, The Oprah Magazine; from 2004 to 2008, Oprah also publshed a magazine called O at Home.[58] In 2002 Fortune called O, the Oprah Magazine the most successful start-up ever in the industry.[59][dead link] Although its circulation had declined by more than 10 percent (to 2.4 million) from 2005 to 2008,[60] the January 2009 issue was the best selling issue since 2006.[61] The audience for her magazine is considerably more upscale than for her TV show, the average reader earning well above the median for U.S. women.[59]
Online
Winfrey's company created the Oprah.com website to provide resources and interactive content relating to her shows, magazines, book club, and public charity. Oprah.com averages more than 70 million page views and more than six million users per month, and receives approximately 20,000 e-mails each week.[62] Winfrey initiated "Oprah's Child Predator Watch List", through her show and website, to help track down accused child molesters. Within the first 48 hours, two of the featured men were captured.[63]
Radio
On February 9, 2006, it was announced that Winfrey had signed a three-year, $55 million contract with XM Satellite Radio to establish a new radio channel. The channel, Oprah Radio, features popular contributors to The Oprah Winfrey Show and O, The Oprah Magazine including Nate Berkus, Dr. Mehmet Oz, Bob Greene, Dr. Robin Smith and Marianne Williamson. Oprah & Friends began broadcasting at 11:00 am ET, September 25, 2006, from a new studio at Winfrey's Chicago headquarters. The channel broadcasts 24 hours a day, seven days a week on XM Radio Channel 156. Winfrey's contract requires her to be on the air thirty minutes a week, 39 weeks a year. The thirty-minute weekly show features Winfrey with friend Gayle King.

Nonetheless, other than a summary, such info especially about programs that don't star Beck really belongs at the article about his production company, Mercury Radio Arts, just as an overview/list of various media products owned by Oprah Winfrey's production company belong at Harpo Productions.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 04:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Conspiracy?

It should be made more clear about how often Glenn Beck's behavior follows routine conspiracy theorist patterns. Its undeniable from the man's own words that he is either a conspiracy theorist, or at least has all the symptoms of being a conspiracy theorist. Whether or not he believes them is not at issue; its the fact that he uses language, rhetoric, idioms and fallacies well known for their associate with fringe conspiracy groups. The lack of acknowledgement that he does indeed use those words seems to be dishonesty by omission.

Just to make it absolutely clear, I am not say we should label Beck, just that we should make completely clear that his publicly used language is identical to those in all ranges of conspiracy theory beliefs. 74.132.249.206 (talk) 15:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
The article already states this. It even has it in the lead of the article. ??? Morphh (talk) 15:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

If I might chime in, in line with this, the phrase "his critics contend he promotes conspiracy theories and employs incendiary rhetoric for ratings." Could perhaps be made to conform more concretely to his observed patterns of speech if it were to read: "his critics point out that he promotes conspiracy theories and employs incendiary rhetoric." To use "point out"/"observe"/"call attention to" in no way raises the issue of Mr Beck's (unknown) motivations, but does make it clear that he invokes conspiracy theory and incendiary rhetoric.134.2.246.212 (talk) 15:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

To say "point out"/"observe"/"call attention to" presumes the factualness of the item in question. To say "contend" is to characterize that factualness as something which is being argued by the cited source. The supporting source cited is one particular Beck critic (mediamatters.org) saying, "Fox News host Glenn Beck has become notorious for his conspiracy theories and incendiary rhetoric." (i.e., either arguing or pointing out that there are a significant number of other sources holding that Beck puts forth conspiracy theories and incendiary rhetoric), and describing what the cited critical source apparently feels are two good examples of conspiracy theories and/or incendiary rhetoric put forth by Beck. It looks to me like a matter of editorial judgement whether the cited source is making an argument there or pointing our a fact. The cited source does not appear to support the assertion re critics (plural) except that this is something which is being either argued or pointed out by the cited source -- that source itself being a source which is critical of Beck. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

"what they claim are traditional American values"

Recent edits have repeatedly added (or removed) the phrase "what they claim are" from this sentence - "Beck's supporters praise him as a constitutional stalwart defending what they claim are traditional American values". The phrase is currently in the article. I do not think it needs to be there - clearly, Beck's supporters are praising him for defending what they believe to be traditional American values - it wouldn't make sense for them to be going by anyone else's definition of traditional American values. Because the meaning of the sentence is the same with or without the phrase, it doesn't seem to be doing anything other than raising some NPOV concerns by implying that their definition is not correct. I didn't want to remove it without talking about it here first, but unless anyone brings up a valid objection in the next day or so on this talk page, I'm going to go ahead and take it out. Kevin (talk) 18:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. Morphh (talk) 18:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. NYyankees51 (talk) 19:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Disagree. removing that phrase makes it sound like they are "defending traditional American values" as opposed to defending their perceptions of such. Since this country does not, by and large, believe in the same traditional American values as Beck, it should be clarified. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 19:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps better wording can be chosen so it does not seem to have a negative implication, but as we all know, if there is no real definition of such, we cannot write such a sentence in a fashion that makes it look like there is. Either way creates a POV. So... fully support different wording to say the same thing as "what they claim" without any POV implication... but total removal of some sort of distinguisher creates a different POV while removing one. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 19:26, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I tend to disagree with your statement that "Since this country does not, by and large, believe in the same traditional American values". They believe in different values, but traditional American values (see Traditional values) is a specific term that has a particular meaning in the U.S. which is tied to Family values. So by and large, they have the same definition for "traditional American values", whether they choose to believe in those values or not. Morphh (talk) 19:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Morphh, I have, and it actually supports my statement, including with showing use of it by people like Pat Robertson, who's definition of TAV is far different than the vast majority of the country. And Beck's most definitely are not the agreed upon definition either - largely because there is no such thing. This country has a wide set of "traditional" values. Many traditions, various value-sets based on them. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 19:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I am not opposed to an alternate wording if you can come up with one that is not POV, but I believe you are incorrect in asserting that the absence of such wording has any pov problems. I don't remember enough of my grammar/syntax to formally parse this out, so excuse the awkwardity here, but: the sentence as originally written indicated that 'Beck's supporters' believe Beck is a "constitutional stalwart defending traditional American values." It does not indicate that "Beck is a constitutional stalwart defending traditional American values" (which would be POV,) it only indicates that his supporters believe he is such. The original wording does not indicate that they are correct in their belief, whereas the current wording does indicate that they are incorrect in their belief. Kevin (talk) 19:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Also, I did run in to an edit conflict there, but looking at your new post, just to be clear: the original sentence also does not indicate that there exists such a thing as 'traditional American values.' It only indicates that Beck's supporters believe that he defends TAV. All of the meaning added by the disclaimer ("what they claim are") is already present in a straightforward reading of the original text. Kevin (talk)
I definitely see your point there, but you bring up another point; if it's already present in a straightforward reading of the original text off Wiki, but not properly portrayed in what is written here, then it's kinda a synthesis or interpretation of sorts. How about simply "defending their traditionalAmerican values"? (emphasis not intended for article of course). Or (poorly worded, but hopefully you get the gist) "defending the traditional American values they mutually hold". Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 20:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Robert, either of those sound fine to me. Morphh (talk) 20:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I just looked at the actual source cited for the comment for the first time. (I know, I know, I should've done that before starting this discussion :p.) The comment is apparently being sourced to the headline of an article which reads "Glenn Beck fans say he represents their American values." As an interim solution, lets use "their American values" since that's what the source actually says and hopefully eliminates some of the problems Robert is seeing. In the long term, I suspect putting in a totally different sentence there would be better. I understand that there's value in it being there (to add a 'balanced' description of views of Beck to the lede,) but it kind of feels like a subpar attempt to do so. I'll poke around and see if I can find something better to substitute in at some point when I have the time. (I guess part of why it feels subpar to me is probably that its citation is some journalist generalizing from two quotes) Kevin (talk) 20:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

In addition to responding to the proposals below, I'd like to note that on July 28, the sentence read:

Beck's supporters praise him as a constitutional stalwart defending what they say are traditional American values, while his critics contend he promotes what they say are conspiracy theories and employs incendiary rhetoric for ratings.

although the second qualifier had only been added two days earlier; I removed both occurrences of the phrase in what I considered a fair reduction of unnecessary POV from both sides. Interestingly, only the first "clarification" was deemed necessary enough to restore. Twice. Even though the only cited source for the second claim is Media Matters. NPOV? Fat&Happy (talk) 22:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposals

I think we all agree the current wording adds a negative POV connotation, so...

  1. Change to "defending their traditional American values"
  2. Change to "defending the traditional American values they mutually hold"
  3. Simply remove "what they claim are" and make no other change
  4. Robert, go drink some more coffee, you're off your rocker... ;-)

Thoughts? Did I miss any other ideas? ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 20:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I dislike #2. In my mind, that has substantially more problems than any of the alternatives or the original. The original version doesn't imply that the 'traditional American values' in question are accurate or even that such a thing is a coherent concept - it just implies that Beck is praised by people who believe he is a 'constitutional stalwart defending traditional American values.' Option #2 would change the most straightforward reading of the sentence from "'Beck's supporters' praise Beck because they think he is a "constitutional stalwart defending traditional American values."" to "'Beck's supporters,' who hold traditional American values, praise Beck, because he also holds traditional American values." Kevin (talk) 20:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I can see that interpretation of #2, now that you mention it... thus I've struck out my support of that one above. Leaves me supporting #1 or #4. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 20:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
  1. 1 looks good to me. Morphh (talk) 21:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support #3. It is clear that the beliefs being described are the beliefs of the people to whom they are attributed – his supporters. Accept #1. It doesn't hit the reader over the head with a hammer. But some similar qualifier on the subsequent contra-point would also be better in order to maintain complete npov. Fat&Happy (talk)
I thought about that (and checked)... it's already in place: "while his critics contend...". Unlike "traditional values" which does not have specific criteria list, critics has a specific meaning. (side note, no it's not clear, or I wouldn't have brought it up - it needs to be clear to more than just you; it needs to be as clear as possible to everyone) Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 22:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Hardly. "Critics contend" corresponds to "supporters praise"; both are equally clear and well defined. "Traditional values", like "conspiracy theories" and "incendiary rhetoric" are what the respective sides claim. If one needs to be identified as originating with the claimant, the other does also. Fat&Happy (talk) 22:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
ETA: Or is the verb the problem? Would "say he is" be better then "praise him as"? Fat&Happy (talk) 22:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

As the person who added the phrase, I agree that it is a bit redundant. However, I want to make it perfectly clear and the suggestion in 3 can be a bit ambiguous. I would go with 1 Soxwon (talk) 02:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

If what Glenn Beck supporters are defending was anything to do with american values (what are they anyway? being free?) than the US must be considered the most dangerous contemporary country for mankind. Or, to be more "objective" :) - there are no American values, there are values of people and they should be discribed in detail and not with a placeholder "american" which stands for different values for different people. JB, 30.9.2011 17:08 (MEZ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.73.36.130 (talk) 15:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Since it looks like #1 is universally accepted (if not terribly well-liked by all,) I am changing the text to that now. This has been a pretty neat example of how process should work. Kevin (talk) 18:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, and thank you all! Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 01:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request or addition

Could someone add a "Glenn Beck controversy" page. I came here looking for dates involving his infamous "You have to shoot them in the head," comment & nothing was to be found, despite the noted media frenzy when he first said it & again after the Arizona shootings...point of fact the ACORN scandal issue was, well, lacking, and most article seems to skate over a fair bit of Beck's history. This certainly has a strong pro-Beck POV — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.3.209 (talk) 21:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

No, controversy sections or articles are highly discouraged. You role criticism into the article topics as they are discussed. Morphh (talk) 00:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Wealth?

This article doesn't mention anything about his personal wealth. It is a very relevant issue. 109.77.121.222 (talk) 23:42, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Such Forbes estimates are notable, I'll admit. Still they are misleading. Mercury Radio Arts currently employs over 100 people, over 75% of which were hired during 2011--that is, how much is Beck's "wealth" being reinvested into his (solely owned) company?--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 23:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Why would where he invests it matter? PRONIZ (talk) 20:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I've added back the salary field in the subject's infobox.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 23:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Cocaine

Should there be a mention of his cocaine usage? (sources: Salon, Bloomberg)Smallman12q (talk) 17:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Beck's problems with alcoholism and drug abuse are already discussed in the 'adulthood' section. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

ratings

In the radio section, the info claiming that he is 3rd in Arbitron is outdated. He is actually tied for 4th along with Dave Ramsey and Mark Levin each with 8.5 shares. The first three are Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Michael Savage. Reference here - http://www.talkers.com/top-talk-radio-audiences/ Soley707 (talk) 17:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Gold Line and Glenn Beck

Recently Gold Line was charged for something like 19 counts of fraud and theft, and Glenn Beck is noted for promoting Gold Line. Is this worth mentioning? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.137.161 (talk) 06:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Not without sources that link one with the other. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:08, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Philanthropy/Charity

Hi there - I have been trying to figure out exactly what type of charitable or philanthropic work Mercury One does, but beyond selling clothing which is made by an American group that employs single mothers I can't find anything. Can anyone tell me what the profits are used for? And - beyond using a socially responsible company for its labour - how it is philanthropic/charitable? Thanks in advance! Zenira (talk) 10:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I can't find anything about the company ever giving any money to anyone (I guess that's too socialistic for Beck), or even ever claiming to. The "non"-profit organization is supposed to be self-sustaining, and I have found a source indicating that the profits go right back to the company to expand it. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Fwiw, what follows is from a MercOne donor appeal:

Tax Deductions. Mercury One's application for tax-exempt 501(c)3 status is presently pending. While our application is pending, the IRS does allow us to accept donations and for the donor to treat them as tax-deductible. You are urged to consult a tax expert prior to donating to fully understand the limitations that may apply claiming your contribution as a tax-deduction. How is Mercury One Different? Mercury One is not going to reinvent the wheel. We recognize that there are already good and great organizations out there fighting the fight in this area. Some are well known but ineffective, others are unheard of but do tremendous work in obscurity. Where great work is being done by good organizations, Mercury One will work with those organizations, where possible, to maximize the value and reach of every dollar.

--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 22:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Researching the question further, it appears that Beck intends MercOne as a "voluntary non-profit organization where members meet regularly to perform charitable works by direct, hands-on efforts" (ie, adapting a quote from WP's lede at the article "Service club"). Would such be philanthropy? or would another term be more apropos?

Here's a book that calls the founder of Rotary clubs a philanthropist.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 00:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Charity is voluntary. Government "giving" (which requires taking first) is not. Socialism is a form of government. I'd ask if that clears things up for you, but your comment makes me doubt you're actually seeking honest thought on anything related to Beck. -- Glynth (talk) 01:23, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Actor with the same name

There should be a disambiguation note for the actor here : http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0065140/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Savuporo (talk • contribs) 00:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I did not see a Wikipedia article for the actor. Let me know if/when there is one and I'll do it if you aren't familiar with how to create it.Cptnono (talk) 01:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 January 2012

Glenn Beck no longer lives in Manhattan, NY. he now lives in Dallas

Here is the link conforming it: http://www.glennbeck.com/2011/07/11/glenn-announces-move-to-dallas-tx/

68.89.171.83 (talk) 19:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

We can certainly say that he announced plans to move to Dallas. I can't find any source which says he's there now.   Will Beback  talk  20:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
OK, I see there was already a ref for the move in the text, so I've changed it in the infobox.   Will Beback  talk  20:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
His GBTV broadcasts from both NYC and Dallas, and he lives in Dallas (and CT, I think). Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:41, 18 January 2012 (UTC) He's happy to be out of NY.

Religious

The bulk of the section on Religious (Influences) is comprised of pointless speculation. Just because something can be sourced doesn't make it encyclopedic. This section should be reduced to a paragraph or two at most. Davidwhittle (talk) 06:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The most obvious absurdity is all of the speculation about Beck trying to being a religious leader. Where is the reliable source for that fringe theory? Davidwhittle (talk) 07:09, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The section mostly consists of secondary sources instead of primary sources. Sticking mostly with what Beck says would open up the door to original research. The "pointless" speculation is (for us) unoriginal research.
The section at no point says he's trying to be a religious leader. It discusses his religious influences, and where they've driven his career. Please quote what gave you that impression that the section is about him trying to be a religious leader.
The first paragraph consists of things he's said about how religion has affected his life.
The second paragraph consists of how others believe Mormonism has affected his broadcasting style, and Beck's response. Each view is properly attributed to each person.
The third is about different evangelical criticisms of him, again attributed to each person, which does contain one person's attributed view regarding the disparity between political and religious agreement that happens to use the phrase "religious leader." In the context given in our article (without having to check the source), it does not appear that he is being portrayed as some sort of Mormon pope or some sort of cult leader, but "religious leader" in the sense he is a political leader: someone who people turn to for guidance on those matters.
The fourth is about how some Conservative Christians are not concerned with Beck's religion in the face of political agreement, again, attributed to the individuals that give those views.
The last paragraph regards interactions with Billy Graham.
I'm not really seeing how you're getting a grand sense of the article trying to portray Beck as some sort of cult leader.
Ian.thomson (talk) 01:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for reciting the contents of the section in question - it makes it all the more painfully obvious that this section fails to serve its encyclopedic purpose of addressing religious influences - although I must ask if there is an equivalent section (on various purported influences) in the articles for Obama, Bush, Jon Stewart, and if not, why not? The 1st and 2nd paragraph address the point, although I think they give UNDUE weight to fringe elements of Mormonism (such as the White Horse Prophecy). After that, the section strays far away from its original purpose and veers into speculative studies about whether Beck is a religious leader or a political leader and what others THINK about that. Then, I'm at a loss to understand why Beck's meeting with Billy Graham enters the picture - is anyone asserting that Graham had somehow had a pertinent religious influence on Beck? If not, how is it relevant? Davidwhittle (talk) 18:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Trying again: this article is about Glenn Beck. The section in question is about Religious or Ideological Influences on Glenn Beck. The first part about Beck's Mormonism is appropriate for inclusion because Beck is a Mormon and Beck has been influenced by Mormonism. The second part about Evangelical opinions of Beck's Mormonism and its influence on Beck is irrelevant to the section because there are no references that establish that Beck is influenced in any way by Evangelical opinions of Mormonism or their opinions about whether he is a religious leader or a political leader. In other words, this second part is about Becks influence on a certain segment of religious believers and NOT about their influence on him, and is thus inappropriate for this section. The attempt to infer influence on Beck by including references to Beck's influence (or lack thereof) on other believers in Original Research - a synthesis to establish by inference an influence on Beck. The third part about the section about the meeting with Billy Graham, while interesting and possibly relevant to an encyclopedic article on Beck, is also inappropriate for a section on Religious or Ideological Influence on Beck because none of the sources say anything direct about how Beck was influenced by Graham or the meeting. Davidwhittle (talk) 19:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

There is a section titled "Ideology" with a "Religious" section, but no section title about "Influences." The article does not say Beck influences evangelicals, the article pretty clearly states that Evangelicals are not influenced by him on religious grounds, they are opposed on religious grounds. There is nothing in the article about Beck being influenced by evangelicals (and as the section is no longer about influence, it's not an issue). The new title opens up discussion of ideological interactions. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Changing the title from "Influences" to "Ideology," as you did, simply begs the question and makes it worse for you. Even if it's now about ideology, the burden of proof is still upon you to demonstrate that the Evangelical religious opposition is part of Beck's religious ideology. It's clearly not, as you admit. It's as if there were a section in the article on Barack Obama titled "Ideology," with a subsection titled "Religious," and a couple of paragraphs on Jeremiah Wright's church and its teachings that Obama presumably believes because he attended the church, and then with more paragraphs on what the Evangelicals (or Mormons, for that matter) think of the fact that Obama sat in Reverend Wright's church all those years. It's simply not suitable for inclusion in an article on Beck's Ideology OR Influences. In fact, by changing the title to Ideology, you just raised the bar on the burden of proof. Because if the title is Ideology, you must restrict the content of the sections under that title to Beck's ideology itself, as proven by Beck's statements and writings, and even influences on that Ideology are inappropriate for inclusion unless it's under a subsection titled "Influences." The reason the synthesis tag is appropriate is because given the titles in place, whether "Influences" or "Ideology," the inclusion of arguments making points that don't directly relate to the title of the section in which they're placed leaves the reader to infer the relationship between the points being made and the expectations of what points should be made in that section as imposed by the section titles. In other words, it appears that the article and section is trying to establish that it is part of Beck's religious ideology to be a religious leader, which is the only reason the inclusion of Evangelical resistance in a section on Beck's religious ideology (or influence) makes any sense. Hence the appropriateness of the Synthesis tag. You are relying on multiple sourced references to establish a point that is either 1) an inappropriate synthesis and original research (to establish that Beck has an ideology to be a religious leader) or 2) is irrelevant to the section. Either way, the content is inappropriate for the section. This is not rocket science, but until you understand it and address it, I'm going to ask you politely to stop reverting my SYNTHESIS tag. Would you prefer I use the UNDUE tag, since it also gives UNDUE weight to Evangelical opinion of Beck's Religious Ideology? I think I'll re-insert both until you remove the offending content from this section. 166.70.45.120 (talk) 14:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Even if it's now about ideology, the burden of proof is still upon you to demonstrate that the Evangelical religious opposition is part of Beck's religious ideology.
Except that the article never says that. Are you just making up stuff to win here?
Re red herring about Obama: Guess what, it does discuss Wright and the ensuing controversy, with due weight.
Re Undue: That's actually what the issue is here. Try reading WP:UNDUE, it says that we give different views weight according to how much reliable sources cover them. That religious difference between most of Beck and most of his audience have come up in the news repeatedly makes it notable. One might as well ask that we remove responses to Richard Dawkins's advocacy of atheism or stuff about counter protests section from the Westboro Baptist Church article: even though it is about outside difference to the subjects' beliefs, those differences are notable.
Once again, the article does not ever say that Beck is trying to become a cult leader or something. If anything, it says that he uses religion (any religion) to further his political views.
Ian.thomson (talk) 20:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

You don't have the right to reverse any concerns I've inserted without answering them. You are beating around the bush intellectually. Whatever game it is you're playing, you can't simply assert that I don't know what I'm talking about when it's clear that your arguments show that you don't have a clue what I'm saying, even though I'm speaking plain English easily understandable by anyone who makes an effort. We have a disagreement here, and until it is resolved and there is a consensus about it, you cannot just UNDO my insertion of a valid TAG. I don't have to keep repeating myself just because you come up with a lame attempt to argue away my points without even addressing them. You have to convince me. If you can't do that, you need to get anyone to support your reversal. Until either of those happen, the tag stays. Understand? 166.70.45.120 (talk) 23:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Your (non-existent) points have been addressed, you just didn't care. And you are wrong about the reversion: WP:BRD, you boldly inserted, I reverted, and now we discuss. The article maintains its status quo until you demonstrate there is a valid concern. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Your failure to understand or properly address my points does not constitute a failure on my part to make them. If you undo again, you are guilty of edit warring. Now we discuss, and until there is a consensus, the tags remain. I have demonstrated a valid concern; you have not demonstrated a valid answer. Again, the concern is that you cannot explain why Evangelical opinions of Beck's Ideology / Religious Ideology has any merit or relevance in a section ABOUT Beck's Ideology / Religious Ideology. It is patently obvious that this section is written from the perspective of an Evangelical, and thus suffers from NPOV problems as well. Thus, you should heed this, from WP:BLP: "The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material." Davidwhittle (talk) 04:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request:
Woah, there, 166.xx. I hear your quite reasonable argument, but please tone down the rhetoric; I also hear a reasonable rebuttal from Ian.thomson. Y'all asked for a third opinion.

I agree with Davidwhittle / 166.xx on two points: (1) The boxed quote seems to me to go too far in linking Beck to far-from-mainstream Mormon prophecy; and (2) I don't see the relevance of the Billy Graham paragraph. I will be bold and eliminate both of these.

However, I agree with Ian.thomson that the section as written seems encyclopedic. Each paragraph is sourced as well as balanced -- that is, nowhere do I see a claim that might be used solely in an opposing candidate's attack ad. I don't see the article trumpeting Beck as attempting to be a "religious leader." Rather, I see documentation of how religion relates to Beck and his politics. And religion seems rather central to Beck's politics, so I can't see this discussion as in any way undue. 01:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)Moishe Rosenbaum (talk)

Thanks for weighing in, Moishe Rosenbaum. Perhaps what we are discussing then is the title of the sections. "Ideology" and "Religious." If Beck's ideology is Mormonism, how is Evangelical opinion of his Mormonism relevant in any way to Beck's Ideology? And IF Evangelical opinion is somehow relevant to Beck's Religious Ideology / Influences, then it is UNBALANCED anyway, because there is no mention of Jewish opinion of Beck's Mormonism (see Michael Medved's recent column on that), no mention of Catholic opinion of it, etc. etc. Don't you see the problem with including countering opinion of someone's ideology in an article on a living person? Where does it end? It's negative on its face, and thus unfair to the person. Would you include right-wing opinions of Jeremiah Wright in an Ideology section in Barack Obama's article? No, you clearly would not. We should be consistent with how this is handled with other commentators, on both sides of the political spectrum. Davidwhittle (talk) 04:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I realized that all of my concerns could be addressed simply by moving the disputed paragraphs into the Public Reception section. I think that section could use some sub:headings, but the text about the public reception to Beck's religion is clearly better suited to a Public Reception section than it is in a Religious Ideology section. Can we have a consensus that moving the text is the appropriate way to handle our disagreements? Davidwhittle (talk) 04:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

No argument here -- I see your point. I do believe that reaction to Beck's Mormonism amongst religious conservatives to whom Beck appeals is relevant to the article. But I agree that this issue could be covered under a less emotive "Public Reception" section rather than trying to pigeonhole the man's particular ideology.Moishe Rosenbaum (talk) 17:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

GBTV — Major efforts going into Texas-based Glenn Beck TV & Facilities .!.

The section on GBTV needs to be expanded as GBTV grows in size and importance. There are Major Efforts going into Texas-based Glenn Beck TV & Facilities .!. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

See WP:CRYSTALBALL... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Andy; I learn something every day. Actually, a lot has already happened, not added to Glenn_Beck#GBTV; Am I and my wife the only WP editors watching GBTV? Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, I don't watch it - but then I'm based the other side of the Atlantic... Has much been said about GBTV in the mainstream media? It will be third-party sources that we rely on to determine if something is growing in 'size and importance'. I'll maybe see if Google finds anything. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
The WSJ has a recent article [7], but it doesn't really tell us much that we didn't know already: it has predictions about numbers of subscribers, revenues etc, but these are sourced to "a person close to the company" - not really much use in an article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. My wife and I woke up and turned on Glenn Beck radio show at 6:30am and I listened for five minutes before I arose to write this note: he said (1) Internet is now the mainstream for information and news; (2) for his Texas studios, they purchased the Oval Office set from the makers of the movie "JFK" and improved it, including a bust of Winston Churchill; (3) Glenn Beck will be on GBTV tonight "in the Oval Office"; (4) it will not be comedy/satire; (5) Glenn Beck will deliver a five-minute address on what current POTUS should say about (a) size of government, (b) responsibility to grandchildren and future generations; (6) this segment will be live, and another short clip will be pre-recorded. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC) PS: 5pm ET, It's not just about size, but the importance to the Tea Party and the Conservatism in America movement.
The Blaze can be used as a RS for the purposes of GB's enterprise. They're the most likely source to produce the figures and speak with authority on the inner workings of the network. Such as this piece about the Oval Office.[8] I caught a bit of the show from yesterday and he did mention large expansion - even recreating a pilgrim boat (if I recall) on a new set. Morphh (talk) 14:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
No. The Blaze cannot be used as RS for figures - or for anything else being cited to establish the significance of GBTV. This needs third-party sourcing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't suggesting that it be used to establish significance, but such a source can be used to describe itself. They operated under Mercury Radio Arts, so it falls under the area of "this is what they say about themselves", which is important for presenting NPOV (see WP:SELFSOURCE). Morphh (talk) 18:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
  1. ^ FOK News Channel: http://foknewschannel.com/worst-persons-for-march-16-2010/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Glenn_Beck/Archive_14&oldid=1268344960"