Jump to content

Talk:Glenn Beck/Archive 15

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

Skousen

The bolded material below was snipped.

An author with ideological influence on Beck is W. Cleon Skousen (1913–2006), a prolific conservative political writer, American Constitutionalist and faith-based political theorist.[1][2] As an anti-communist supporter of the John Birch Society,[3] and limited-government activist,[4] Skousen, who was Mormon, wrote on a wide range of subjects: the Six-Day War, Mormon eschatology, New World Order conspiracies, even parenting.[4] Skousen believed that American political, social, and economic elites were working with Communists to foist a world government on the United States.[5] Beck praised Skousen's "words of wisdom" as "divinely inspired", referencing Skousen's The Naked Communist[6] and especially The 5,000 Year Leap (originally published in 1981),[4] which Beck said in 2007 had "changed his life".[4] According to Skousen's nephew, Mark Skousen, Leap reflects Skousen's "passion for the United States Constitution", which he "felt was inspired by God and the reason behind America’s success as a nation."[7] The book is touted by Beck as "required reading" to understand the current American political landscape and become a "September twelfth person".[4] Beck authored a foreword for the 2008 edition of Leap and Beck's on-air recommendations in 2009 propelled the book to number one in the government category on Amazon for several months.[4] In 2010, Matthew Continetti of the conservative Weekly Standard criticized Beck's conspiratorial bent, terming him "a Skousenite."[5] Additionally, Alexander Zaitchik, author of the 2010 critical book Common Nonsense: Glenn Beck and the Triumph of Ignorance, which features an entire chapter on "The Ghost of Cleon Skousen",[8] refers to Skousen as "Beck's favorite author and biggest influence", while noting that he authored four of the ten books on Beck's 9-12 Project required-reading list.[9]

In his discussion of Beck and Skousen, Continetti also stated that one of Skousen's works "draws on Carroll Quigley’s Tragedy and Hope (1966), which argues that the history of the 20th century is the product of secret societies in conflict",[5] noting that in Beck's novel The Overton Window, which Beck describes as "faction" (fiction based on fact), one of his characters states "Carroll Quigley laid open the plan in Tragedy and Hope, the only hope to avoid the tragedy of war was to bind together the economies of the world to foster global stability and peace."[5]

Princeton University historian Sean Wilentz says that alongside Skousen, Robert W. Welch, Jr., founder of the John Birch Society, is a key ideological foundation of Beck's worldview.[10] According to Wilentz: "(Beck) has brought neo-Birchite ideas to an audience beyond any that Welch or Skousen might have dreamed of."[10]

Reasonable, yes. Is it the best condensation possible? (Note that I offer a slight fix here.)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe that some of the Skousen details could possibly be trimmed if there was consensus for it; however I believe the removal of the bold to be overdue and have reverted it until we can all hopefully agree on the right proportion of material. Of note, much of the Skousen details, are highly relevant, as the section is on those who have ideologically influenced Beck, and nearly every sentence is followed with an opinion of Beck on the preceding issue in question. To just say Skousen was an influence, without any examples of how we are coming to that conclusion (by including Beck’s own views on Skousen) I believe does the reader a disservice - as many of Skousen’s past views have now clearly (and self-admittedly) become Beck’s views.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 21:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
FWIW here is the latest Zaitchik piece w rgd Beck--Skousen.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The Sousen detail gives air to the ideas of Sousen which would be OK in an article about Sousen. There is a reference in the article Sousen influenced Becks opinions. This is OK, but to go beyond that statement is to overstate the case. The article points out Beck does not have a static set of ideas, but a dynamic one that is not easily defined beyond the broad scope of conservative-libertarianism. Therefore this detail is only semi-related to the topic and I agree with its' deletion as burdensome and somewhat misleading.

The point I get from the article is Mr. Beck does not have a formed set of ideas, but has a touch point values system he uses to discuss current events. This seems well documented in the article and to present Mr. Beck as having a consistent and stable philosophy is to mislead the reader to think he is a read scholar or studied thinker. Documented in the article are the facts he went to catholic school as a youngster, dropped out of the one theology class he took as a young adult, and the only self study he has done is reading of Sousen. It may be debated this narrow and shallow study of political and philosophical thinking qualifies his opinion, but it cannot be argued it makes him a scholar or thinker of depth or understanding as implied with this level of discussion of Sousens ideas. 71.53.195.160 (talk) 00:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Beck was 32 when he attended a single class at Yale, not a young adult.
The thing about his not having a stable philosophy, etc., is good but needs to be sourced and referenced, not wp:SYNTHesized.
The Zatichik article I linked even has a cartoon of Skousen, with Beck's coming out of the top of Skousen's head. In any case, since a number of Beck scholars and general commentators believe that Beck was influenced to a great degree by the political opinions of Skousen, this association is very notable and thus, in my opinion, deserves a fair amount of coverage in an encyclopedic account of Beck's commentary. That said, I think it could be summarized more succictly, too. Incidentally, Beck has read and commented on a quite extensive list of political and historical books and is responsible for having made quite a few of them do well on the Amazon and NYT, etc., best-seller lists.
--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 19:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the point Beck was 32 years old when he enrolled in a class he did not finish. It is a factual detail while the term "young adult" is open to interpretation. It appears he has read some material written by Cleon Skousen, but the article does not list what material written by Skousen Beck actually read or claims to have read. These are facts as they relate to the subject and are conspiciously absent this article.

What Cleon Skousen wrote or believed is extraneous to this biography except where it relates to what Glenn Beck states are ideas he uses in his opinions. My read of this article suggests Mr. Beck is none too clear about what these ideas are. If this the case, leave it stated this way. If this is not the case, then do the research and report what ideas of Mr. Skousen Beck endorses. Otherwises we have a discussion of Cleon Skousen at the expense of understanding Glenn Beck.

71.53.195.160 (talk) 05:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)DWright

S. E. Cupp

Soon as blp is unlocked commentator S. E. Cupp shd b added to the article's current Mercury Radio Arts subsection, per here.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 16:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Beck to 'Transition off' his talkshow

Breaking news. Clearly notable though. I see this has already been added. There is more on the Guardian website here: [1] AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Christian Science Monitor here [2]. Heiro 22:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
A later Guardian article, with more detail: [3] "Sagging ratings, a string of damaging remarks and an exodus of advertisers have combined to end Glenn Beck's controversial tenure on US cable network Fox News". AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
OMG just make the change already. Throw in a couple lines and be done with it. I personally am very excited for this to happen since then the quality of this article can actually be addressed. Cptnono (talk) 08:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Fox News dumping Beck?

I added into the article the fact that is it rumored that Fox is going to get rid of Beck when his contract expires, mainly because they feel he is greatly enhancing perception that Fox NEws is a right-wing organization. I have added a citation to back it up as well. If anyone has more info on whether or not Fox is getting rid of him, please add it. Karrmann (talk) 17:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

He may be a goner. Telling that the NYT's reporting slash speculation is all over the interwebz this morning but noone from Fox has even hinted along lines of debunking the same.

Incidentally, I think Beck's long-term reputation will hinge solely on whether the economy tailspins further in the near future. Per this comment below the recent NYT article

"My father-in-law cashed in his IRA to invest solely in gold, is buying a huge refrigerator to stockpile bread, worries out loud about the parallels between Hitler and President Obama, is scared to death of George Soros and is fairly convinced we're heading into the end times. All of this from over consumption of Beck. He is doing real damage to people too gullible to see through his fear mongering."

--either these Porter Stansbury-esque doomsday scenarios play out or they don't.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 19:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Color MacNicol skeptical.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 19:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
And Entertainment Weekly agrees with MacNicol's skepticism.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 21:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Rumors make for bad BLPs. Collect (talk) 19:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
The information comes from an editorial. Editorials are not reliable sources for facts and the opinions should only be reported if they are shown to be notable, e.g., if they are picked up by news articles. TFD (talk) 20:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Carr is actually a media critic for the NYTimes LINK (or try this link, if not behind NYT subscription wall).--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 20:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
And does not state that Beck is being dumped. WP:BLP deals with facts, not rumours. Collect (talk) 22:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a resource for much notable information. As a result there are those who wish to make the information they favor more notable through Wikipedia. Beck leaving FOX News is, as of right now, a rumor. I will support you adding it, if it becomes notable (without Wikipedia's help) or if it comes true. HankyUSA (talk) 04:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

If desired, click "Show" at right to see a portion of this thread that I've rolled up, concerning bias in the Beck article and sockpuppetry allegations.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Dear lord, this article needs some serious work. The pro-Beck Bias is clear. 76.119.137.236 (talk) 14:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

IP, you may be right, however IMO you certainly haven't been very clear in your pointing out exactly when, how and where in the article this is the case.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 00:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

A look at the discussion page and its archives, reflects heavy bias in favor of beck. It is pretty obvious if you simply tally people's positions. 76.119.137.236 (talk) 13:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The only apparent "bias' is that of enforcing WP:BLP as it is intended. Collect (talk) 14:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I am afraid we disagree. IMO WP:BLP is being enforced selectively and the participants on the discussion page are essentially stacked in Beck's favor. 76.119.137.236 (talk) 14:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

How are you tallying supporters of Beck? For example, I'm a Democrat and admitted socialist without much of a Libertarian bone in my body in real life yet I edit right wing articles with an eye to NPOV. Does that make me "pro Beck" in your eyes? If so, then your is measuring device is faulty, in my opinion, at least. In other words: If guidelines are being enforced in a partisan manner, be specific. (You may well be right.)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 15:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Not suggesting that editors are personally pro-Beck (I can't know that based on a person's edits or comments unless they explicitly state their position). Suggesting that the edits and comments weigh heavily on including material favorable to beck and excluding negative material. 76.119.137.236 (talk) 16:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

You're acting like you're in the corner office with windows and a plant, sitting in a swivel chair behind a nice mahogany desk and we're supposed to nod and run back to our cubicles and try to address your announced conclusions and then report back to you, whereas it would work better for you to just jump into the issues you see yourself--and if another editor disagrees with you in whatever instances (as likely on political Wikiarticles), to bring your specific conclusions back here to the talkpage.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 18:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you assumed a lot from my one little post. I simply observed that there seems to be bias on the page. I don't expect anyone to do anything about it, except perhaps say they agree or disagree. Really there is nothing wrong with raising a concern about article content and editorial choices on the talk page. And that is all I have done. 76.119.137.236 (talk) 20:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The first pgf of the subsection at wp:ETIQ#Working towards a neutral point of view says

When dealing with suspected violations of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view:
Inquire politely on the article's talk page about aspects of the article you consider non-NPOV (unless they are really egregious), and suggest replacements.
If no reply comes, make the substitutions. (Use your watchlist to keep track of what you want to do.)
If a reply comes, try to agree about the wording to be used. That way, when an agreement is reached, an edit war is very unlikely. This has the disadvantage that the article stays in an unsatisfying state for a longer period, but an article that changes frequently does not create a good impression with other Wikipedians or of the project as a whole.

The other tack is to come to the talkpage and say, without specifity, "You guys screwed up and this article sux!"--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 20:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say you guys screwed up. I suggested that the page seems to have a pro-beck bias and that that is an issue. This isn't a matter of one or two instances, but a problem overall with the page, and the talk page. If you disagree that is fine. But I felt the issue deserved mention. 76.119.137.236 (talk) 20:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The article has less criticisms of Beck than I would prefer, but I tend to be an inclusionist and would include more criticisms of Obama, for example, at his blp, too (regardless if I myself agree that these criticisms enjoy particual merit or not). For what it's worth. IAC too bad if you don't wanna roll up your sleeves and wade in here. Or, "...weigh in," to not mix metaphors.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 21:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I too would like to see more balanced views on the pages of both left and right wing figures. I tend to notice that most BIO articles seem to have more editors working to include positive rather than negative material.

I thought of getting more involved in this page and maybe contributing,but honestly, looking at the talk page, this isn't a place I would want to wade into. There is just too much passion on both sides of the aisle IMO, and too much hostility. 76.119.137.236 (talk) 21:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Your comment style and language in general sound a lot like someone who has been here before. Arzel (talk) 21:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure the irony is lost on you, Arzel, but that sort of baseless and unhelpful accusation is exactly the type of behavior that keeps new editors from getting involved. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Wow, how perceptive. I'll bet that's the reason we have such a paucity of editors from the Lynn, Massachusetts area, who jump straight to this page as soon as they arrive, but strangely seem be able to attack other editors based on their past behavior. Fat&Happy (talk) 22:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
WP:AGF, anyone? It's quite possible, and maybe even likely, that it's the same editor. As far as I'm aware, however, WP:AGF is still one of the pillars. I do take great amusement in the double irony of condemning an editor because of his "attack [on] other editors based on their past behavior" because of what you believe is that editor's past behavior. How meta. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

These posts just reinforce my theories about this page and its editors. 76.119.137.236 (talk) 01:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

And now the theories are confirmed. As Baseball Bugs and Aerobic Fox have opened and participated in an ANI against me. 76.119.137.236 (talk) 13:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

According to Entertainment Weekly, Beck has addressed the NYT piece about his not-so-certain future with FOX. A snippet of monologue from his radio show:

the only thing in life that is constant is change. And so while things, and I don’t know which, will change, all things do, but I know that we’ll continue to find each other whether on the radio, the Internet, on stage, in movie theatres, in the pages of books that the New York elite will never read or on Fox that the New York elite will never watch.

--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 20:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Please explain how Beck's time at FOX could hinge on whether the economy tailspins. Does Beck get the responsibility for talking people into not wanting to pay taxes thus creating the revenue shortage we call the deficit? If this were the case, then I wonder if he was present at Shay's Rebellion or the Whiskey Rebellion. Seriously, Beck can be accountable for inflaming or encouraging hate because he says hateful things, but he can't be held responsible for tax aversion. That's at least as old taxes themselves.

It seems odd one would make the argument FOX would dump a personality because they give the impression FOX is rightwing. What does that say about other FOX personalities such as Mike Huckabee and Sarah Pallin? That they are not rightwing? I'm having trouble with the logic of this argument.

Normally one would say FOX might dump Beck, or anyone else for that matter, because they cease to be popular. Unpopular hosts don't bring in money, etc.. Yet FOX regularly loses money and controversary is their bread and butter. The logic of this argument is now muddy at best.

I have no problem with this discussion briefly in the article as one of the controversies. A statement it is a controversy without going into much detail about this largely speculative topic. I think part of the problem with this biography is that it wants to go into detail about controversy and does not seem to have room for facts and events.

71.53.195.160 (talk) 05:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)DWright

Interesting claim. [4] does not directly break out sector reports but says: Thanks in large part to FOX News parent company News Corp reported an 8% profit growth in its latest earnings report on Wednesday. [5] News Corp., the owner of Fox Broadcasting and the Twentieth Century Fox film studio, said second-quarter profit more than doubled, driven by higher television subscriber fees and advertising sales [6] News Corp. said Wednesday that its fiscal second-quarter net income more than doubled, boosted by advertising growth at its U.S. cable channels such as Fox News and a recovery at its broadcast TV segment Fox "regularly loses money"? Seems that would appear to be a bit of an exaggeration! Collect (talk) 07:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Update (and attendant speculation) courtesy of Mediaite:

By bringing on a senior television executive with Cheatwood’s track record, Beck seems to be telling to the television world (and perhaps his current employer) that his vision for his future in broadcasting is not entirely reliant on Fox News[... ...N]ow more than ever, established brands are crucial to breaking through the mass media clutter, and attracting viewers. Add to that Beck’s radio, web, publishing, and stage reach, and it’s not unfair to say that Beck enjoys a significant marketing platform that would certainly be attractive to a wide variety of networks and programming services looking for a cornerstone — a rising tide that would theoretically lift other boats. Beck and Mercury have often been ahead of the digital curve, and have already built a robust subscription streaming business with Insider Extreme, something that would certainly hold appeal to the next iteration of video consumption a la Netflix. [...] The hiring of Cheatwood makes the most sense in a scenario in which Glenn Beck is no longer on Fox News, an indication that all of the smoke surrounding this relationship reveals a deeper fire suggesting that the relationship is coming to an end. Beck’s status at Fox News is markedly different than that of his on-air peers; he arrived at the cable news network as an established personality, and likely feels less a debt of gratitude to the powers that be, which in turn makes him more of a free spirit/loose cannon. While it’s likely that a “Beck-less” Fox News would not miss a beat, this move by Glenn Beck seems to show that he also has no intention of going gently into the night.

--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 16:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Still crystal ball gazing at best. Collect (talk) 18:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

This is more speculation about what FOX might do, what Beck might means when he says or does something, and a digression into branding theory. This seems like events searching for a conclusion. Biography is a presentation of events that have already happened. Including this controversy gets difficult because it invites the biographer to speculate. History is often far ahead of biography and the article would not be diminished without the inclusion of this topic. Saying this, I have no difficulty with a brief discussion of this topic.

71.53.195.160 (talk) 23:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC) DWright

DWright, Beck was asked about speculation that he might take his television show to another cable channel by the NY Times and "Beck's people" sent the Times his statement, "Roger Ailes has built the most important voice in America today — Fox News — and it is an honor to do my show there every night. I have no intention whatsoever of doing the show I am doing now on Fox anywhere else.”--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 18:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Update - (Not that Fox anchor Neil Cavuto necessarily knows what's going on but IAC...) Covuto told Fox Business Network morning talk jock Don Imus: "I would love and hope that [Beck] can stay here. These are things that, you know, are settled in due course as they say."--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

So it appears Glenn Beck intends to stay at FOX. The rest of the events seem a bit muddy. FOX hired a superior to Beck and that triggered rumours Beck might be canned or leave. In response Beck's "people" said he intends to stay and appear to quote Beck in giving the response.

This is another controversy surrounding Mr. Beck. Any article about Glenn Beck would mention his controversial style in some detail or it would not be true to his nature or his impact on his viewers and followers. This issue is no different than the other controversies and there is no reason to exclude it from all the other controversies.

At the same this is a biography rather than a current events page dedicated to Glenn Beck. I remain concerned the editors of this article are more interested in outlining the details of his controversies than uncovering and describing events about him. I have no difficult if someone wants to start a current events page and dedicate it to Beck. In this biography I prefer to see events and facts.

In this line of thinking, I noticed none of the editors responded to my concern about the basic objectivity of this article. I have two comments there that are not responded to by any of the editors of this article. Nor do I see a comment by the author.

71.53.195.160 (talk) 13:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC) DWright

And now I return to say those who speculated Glenn Beck would leave FOX News were absolutely correct. Such is the nature of specuation, one side will turn up right and the other wrong. In this case I am wrong and there is additional information to place in the biography that should be included.

71.53.195.160 (talk) 00:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)DWright

Libertarian Leanings?

If Beck is a Libertarian, Hitler was a secularist. I don't care what the bastard considers himself, someone needs to reword that. Hitler could have called himself a secularist, but would that make him one? I could give endless analogies but it comes down to that Beck is far more authoritarian than libertarian, and that false bull-shit needs to be removed, or, at very least, a note needs to be put in that he is not what he claims.69.146.92.44 (talk) 18:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

It isn't your analogies we need but those from reliable sources.Cptnono (talk) 20:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
The article doesn't say that Beck is a libertarian. It says that he describes himself as one. I think it is crap too, but compared to the rest of his output it is relatively innocuous. In any case, the word 'libertarian' has so many different interpretations that it is almost meaningless without further expansion. Not worth arguing about. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with AndyTheGrump, the article represents how Beck sees himself. This is the substance of biography. It is less about the category the person puts themselves in than about how the person describes themself. If there is a large difference between how the subject describes themself and how the reading public views the label used, then there is a topic to discuss (likely in the controversy section ; > )!).

At any rate, the article points out Beck does not entirely endorse liberatarianism. It says he says he only has libertarian leanings. It also says he leans a few other ways and that he does not have a constructed point of view, just touch points he uses as a base for his opinions.

To the point Beck is too authoritarian to be a libertarian, well I need to ask your indulgence while I digress into political theory. Libertarianism means many things to many people. To Ayn Rand all power exists within the individual. If all individuals were equal, then there would be no power differential. It is important to point out Rand and her family were supporters of the Kerenski social-agrarian party when they lived in Russia. This party had as an ideal that all people would be equal and this condition would come about through efforts of government.

Rand seems to diverge and say equality exists in nature rather than a goal of government. In practise her form of libertarianism is so oriented to free will and against a social contract that the strongest and most powerful can be the only ones who gain and use authority. By nature her society becomes authoritarian through the lack of restraint on individual actions.

Another source of libertarain thought is the notion of syndicalism. In this thinking small communities find resources for the community within the communuity. When these resources do not exist in the community, then the community barters with nearby communities for these resources. A syndicate of communities exists which surplants the need for a central government. It might be interesting to note the most well know syndicate in America existed in Chicago between Al Capone and other criminal gangs. I think we would be hard pressed to say these gangs were not authoritarian in structure.

Saying this, I express request none of this discussion about political theory as it relates to libertarianism be remotely included in this article about Glenn Beck. It relates much more so to the philosophy of some on the right than the subject. It is, indeed, another controversy.

71.53.195.160 (talk) 23:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)DWright

The "controversy" got some play in RS. But we do not need it in a section with such a title. It would fit perfectly fine in the section discussing his political views. If someone wants to formulate a paragraph for that section that is not based on belittling the subject then they will have my full support. Cptnono (talk) 02:43, 4 April 2011

(UTC)

I don't think Beck unequivocally cam be classed libertarian, without a modifier. As we keep seeing in talkpage comments, "Libertarian movement" people, like any type of philosophically centered group (eg, Socialists in the 60s), tend to worry about ideological purity; yet, it can be shown that a wide understanding of libertarianism makes for a fairly large tent comprised of a number of factions. To some purists, Ron Paul isn't really libertarian because of Paul's social conservatism on a number of issues--despite Paul's advocacy of a "consitutional conservatism" involving balanced budgets with low taxes and limited government as well as the avoidance of foreign military interventions. How does Beck stack up against Paul? Well, in comparison to Bill Kristol, Beck is full-on libertarian: Kristol is the opposite of Paul on the "foreign policy isolationism" score while Beck is more iffy. But on the limited government score, Paul, Kristol, and Beck are team members in the same ball club (although whether this should be termed "libertarian" is a object of contention).--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 23:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 16:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Today's NYT: "Beck became a daily broadcast platform for a libertarian strain of politics that is also evident in the Tea Party, a movement he embraced."--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 02:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I'll add that WP articles are not supposed to be based on the opinions and analyses of WP editors. The point is not the opinion of some WP editors about beck's libertarian leanings, the point is what reliable sources have had to say about that (or about anything/everything else covered in WP articles). See the initial paragraph of WP:V. See WP:DUE. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

There are LOTS of different kinds of libertarians. Just because he isnt an athiest who drools on Christopher Hitchens and Ayn Rands shoes does not mean hes not a libertarian. He believes government should keep its nose out of economic and moral concerns and that its only role is the 6 roles stated in the preamble to the constitution. Sounds like a libertarian to me. In fact, his views seem more like libertarianism as its traditionally been considered than do the views of "alleged" libertarians like the people at the Rand Institute. Who are only libertarians because nothing else really fits in to their ideals. Similarly. Many libertarians would be better classified as liberals. You know who you are. 97.118.9.94 (talk) 08:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the above describes the strict constructionist view of the constitution, not libertarianism. The theory of strict constructionism says if it is not specifically in the constitution that government has a certain power, then government does not have that power. It does favor a constitution, but limits the powers of the arms of government to those specifically enumerated in the document.

I'm not sure Ayn Rand would have written a constitution for the United States. Certainly not one like the one we have. She might more have supported one like the Articles of Confederation but the logical extension of her argument is no constitution at all since all power lies in the individual. Syndicalists would not favor a constitution because it would give legitmacy of a central government which they do not agree with.

Many may argue that government is too instrusive in personal lives, but this is not strictly liberatarianism either. In this country Democrats complain government gets too involved in personal sex lives while Republicans argue government gets too involved in business activities. These are general lines between liberals and conservatives and not necessarily liberatarian concerns.

I do not think a discussion of liberatarianism has a place in this discussion of Glenn Beck as it is off the topic. In as much as he might describe some of his thinking as stemming from or related to libertarianism, then those ideas are on topic. Other than that, I stick with my original depiction of this discussion as a digression.

71.53.195.160 (talk) 04:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)DWright

Controversies Section

Given how inflammatory a character he is, I'm surprised there's not a section devoted to the controversies Glenn Beck has instigated. There a public dispute section about a few people that he's targeted, but it might be informative and appropriate to also list his major controversies, with his statements and the consequences.

Obviously I mean major controversies, not just his controversial nature. Things like:

  • The 400 Rabbis
  • Calling President Obama a racist
  • Talking about his fantasies of murdering Michael Moore
  • Calling 9/11 & Katrina victims whiners & scumbags
  • Accusing a Muslim Congressman of possibly being an enemy of the state
  • Claiming Californians deserved a devastating fire because they were bad Americans

I mention the above not to rant (ok, not just to rant), but to show that there are numerous, thoroughly cited statements that Beck has made that have resulted in a large controversy leading to apologies, lawsuits, etc, that have not been described in the Public Dispute section. It's a significant aspect of his life and persona, and deserving at least as much space as, say, his Political & Historical influences.

I'm willing to do this myself, but I wanted to see if anyone has a legitimate issue with the idea. This is a widely visited and contentious page and I don't want to start a war unnecessarily. The Cap'n (talk) 16:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with this section. I did not know he called Californians "bad Americans" but the rest of the controversies are well documented. I prefer a documented set of events rather than a larger discussion of tangential issues which relate less to Beck. I prefer a reportial style of; Beck said, others reacted, and Beck responded. Let the reader draw their own conclusion of where they stand on his controversial statements.

71.53.195.160 (talk) 13:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)DWright

Askahrc, go ahead and compile a list. (Btw, Beck also sometimes gains kudos, too. Eg, this one, from the ed.–publisher of The Jewish Week):

"It was left to Glenn Beck, the highly controversial Fox TV host, to stir up our emotions as no one else in the mainstream media has over the Fogel murders, reminding me that when Jews are killed because they are Jews, all of us should feel the heartache.

"You can love Beck or hate him, consider him an ardent friend of Israel for speaking fervently of his support for Jerusalem, or a covert anti-Semite for suggesting the Jews killed Jesus or for making frequent inappropriate references the Holocaust and Nazis.

"But his three separate tributes to the Fogels on his show last week seemed to come from the heart, each spoken in a tender, intimate tone."

--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Hodgson-Burnett points to the basic ambivalence that arises when Beck's comments are viewed in context of emotional attachments of the listener. These feelings are driven to the surface by his emotive and unstudied approach. In the midst of his controversy Beck ceases to be an individual and becomes a series of statements that we can attribute either positive or negative qualities depending our strongly held feelings. In this way he is a no longer commentator, but a mirror showing us either Snow White or the Wicked Witch as we may be pleased to see.

This is nothing new. All demagouges know this trick will work in the face of logic when people are insecure and afraid. Beck spews inflamatory information while crying and implying the worst is about to or has happened. Whether he believes what he says or thinks he is taking others for a ride is irrelevant. Most demagouges belief what they say and in their method of saying it with no encumberance of thinking though their ideas. Some are just in it for the ride.

Mr. Beck gets paid a good deal of money a year from FOX for his comments and opinions. His income is implied in the article, but not stated. I don't know if the article needs to include a financial report on his income, but his income is relevant when one considers why he makes controversial statements. It seems that's what his employer wants and pays him handsomely to deliver.

71.53.195.160 (talk) 00:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC) DWright

Salary might be relevant, though unsupported presumptions regarding his motivations for making the statements he does would be original research. The article sports an {{infobox person}} template, and that infobox has a parameter described as, "salary: Annual salary or compensation, if relevant." Beck's entry here on the Forbes 2010 Celebrety 100 rankings list says, in part, "Revenue sources include a popular Fox News TV show, which pays him an estimated $2 million a year, a syndicated radio show ($10 million), several bestselling books, well-attended speeches and events, magazine, newsletter and a subscription-based website." The only other professional opinionator I see on that particular list is Rush Limbaugh (see here), whose article also sports an {{infobox person}} template which does not present any salary information. Limbaugh is #19 on the list, vs. Beck at #43. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Wtmitchell provides documented evidence of what Glenn Beck is reported to earn. Inclusion this information is close to fact and further research can confirm or deny the figure of $2 million/year. In my comments I did not intend to say speculation about his motives for making the comments he does should be included in the article. Speculation should not be in a biography. The report he earns $2 million/year, if substaniated, should be in the article and the reader be allowed to make their own speculations about his motives, or anything else for that matter.

So just because he's well paid, we are supposed to make what "speculation" exactly? That he's stating all this stuff, not because he really believes them, but because he knows that that it will make him money? Are we to also put the same assertion on Michael Moore's page - that "he obviously doesn't believe any of this crap and is spewing hatred and demagoguery simply to make money"?!?! Would either of their intellectual/political positions be more correct if they were working for free? I guess I'm having trouble following your argument. Ckruschke (talk) 18:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke

No challenge in my calling him a demagouge? It's my opinion and opinions are like speculation in that neither belong in a biography unless they are so widely held as to be accepted as fact. It is worth considering he may be a demagouge when trying to sort through the myriad aspects of his controversies.

71.53.195.160 (talk) 22:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)DWright

Sorry for the delay, I've been busy and haven't had time to create the section. I hope to be do so in the next couple days. The Cap'n (talk) 17:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Here again I might have drawn the wrong conclusion: that Beck is controversial because that is what his employer paid him for. He remains very popular, his sponsors left in droves, and now FOX drops him. Maybe Rupert Murdock is tired of losing a lot of money. Maybe he is listening to his more liberal new wife. Who knows? Maybe Glenn Beck just likes being controversial. Has he made such statements?

Beck is gone from FOX and that's a fact. He got paid a good deal of money and that's a fact. My being wrong twice recently (also a fact) suggests speculation is little more than a crap shoot...

71.53.195.160 (talk) 22:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)DWright

Minor correction/deletion under Satire, Spoof and Parody

The last half of the last sentence in that paragraph, starting with "even though...", states they came up with the idea of holding a rally before Beck announced his. But that's never claimed in the referenced source, in fact Stewart stated the contrary on another occassion ("Stewart also revealed that he booked the National Mall right after Glenn Beck's rally was announced", http://www.tbd.com/blogs/tbd-arts/2010/10/-daily-show-taping-jon-stewart-correspondents-baffled-by-d-c--3686.html). Also, that a deposit was made in March is moot, as Beck first mentioned a mall rally the previous Nov (http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/33398/). I don't think these references or facts need to be in the article; I just think the "even though..." half of the sentence should be removed. Pablum (talk) 15:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The correct sequence of events would be important for the sake of accuracy. The sentence should be rewritten to provide accuarcy and clearity.

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

Truncating the sentence would be clear and accurate. So, specifically, what should be left: "The October 31 Rally To Restore Sanity and/or Fear in Washington, hosted by Comedy Central personalities Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, was conceived as a parody of Beck's earlier Rally to Restore Honor." The correct sequence of events is present there. Pablum (talk) 05:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

High IQ?

How come there is no mention of Beck's extremely high IQ (almost as high as Ann Coulter's) in this article? Timothy Horrigan (talk) 23:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Source? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I trust no IQ claims since the Bush IQ hoax made its way into articles. Collect (talk) 01:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

IQ scores are hard to reference. Typically these tests are given when the person is in high school and the scores aren't released. Other circumstances where an IQ test might be given are protected by privacy laws. This would be interesting to confirm or deny, but I don't think it likely one could get accurate information easily.

71.53.195.160 (talk) 21:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)DWright

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 15

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)
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference RDBrooks was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Israelsen-Hartley, Sara (December 5, 2009). "BYU professors: Glenn Beck doesn't speak for all Mormons". Deseret News.
  3. ^ Skousen, Cleon (1963), The Communist Attack on the John Birch Society
  4. ^ a b c d e f Zaitchik, Alexander (September 16, 2009), "Meet the Man who Changed Glenn Beck's Life", Salon Magazine
  5. ^ a b c d The Two Faces of the Tea Party by Matthew Continetti, The Weekly Standard, Vol. 15, No. 39, June 28, 2010
  6. ^ Glenn Beck Show Transcript from November 21, 2007 Glenn Beck to Bill Bennett
  7. ^ Skousen, Mark (March 19, 2009), "Glenn Beck Re-Energizes the Conservative Movement", Human Events
  8. ^ Common Nonsense: Glenn Beck and the Triumph of Ignorance, by Alexander Zaitchik, John Wiley and Sons, 2010, ISBN 0-470-55739-7, Chapter 12: "The Ghost of Cleon Skousen" on pages 210-234 Books Preview
  9. ^ Past is Prologue: Glenn Beck's "Rally for America" Redux by Alexander Zaitchik, adapted from Common Nonsense: Glenn Beck and the Triumph of Ignorance for The Huffington Post, July 5, 2010
  10. ^ a b Confounding Fathers: The Tea Party’s Cold War Roots by historian Sean Wilentz, The New Yorker, October 18, 2010
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Glenn_Beck/Archive_15&oldid=1257417033"