Talk:Mark Belling

message: Someone deleted the wetback controversy section, so I reverted it and am referring them here so they can express the exact nature of their objection and see if it can't be addressed through consensus.  From my view, the material is sourced (and if any specific info is considered soft on sources, we may be able to dig it up rather than delete it), verifiable, neutral WP:NPOV, and it is definitely WP:DUE - this event is the single most covered single event in Belling's career.  So I think we can surely find a way to keep the general information contained here freely available.  If anyone has issues, lets work them out instead of obliterating the info altogether. --Izauze (talk) 20:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it is a slur, but it is a slur he said, which is well documented, and which he admits to - there is and was controversy about it.  It's in quotes, so I don't see the problem.  Eliminating it via a slightly inaccurate "hispanic controversy" is simply POV pushing as far as I can see, unless you can point me towards some sort of wikipedia policy that says you shouldn't put such things in subject headings, but I don't think there is.  I also don't see this big conversation about it in the past here - you'll have to provide me with diffs.  And I remind you of course that "consensus can change".  Additionally, please follow wikipedia's BRD model in the future and get consensus here before making any further changes to this section.  I will be restoring this section until we can find a consensus here. --Izauze (talk) 15:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

text: btw, here is a diff of the change that is being proposed:   If anyone has any additions, concerns, etc. - please speak up now.  --Izauze (talk) 20:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: People keep try to delete this, but it's just obvious POV pushing/vandalism.  Someone always catches it and puts it back though - no biggie.  76.208.147.124 (talk) 02:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please stop posting the slur controversy section.  As discussed many times before, a full section concerning that single topic violates Wikipedia's NPOV undue weight & peacock terms policies; and basicallly everything in the BLP page. If you disagree please state your case here as to why it does not violate those three rules (note the BLP page is huge so there's a number of sub-topics to cover).  Wiki takes BLP seriously in order to prevent libel so let's be cautious here.  72.135.238.173 (talk) 05:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wetback section blanked 

message: IP, please state your case.  Continually deleting material off this page without explanation, and reverting over and over again will only get you in trouble.  What is your reason for saying that an undisputed direct quote covered by multiple well respected sources is in any way a violation of BLP?  If we are to solve this without the administrators involvement, we require at the very least your participation.  If there is no discussion, there is no room for movement, and someone else will have to be called in.  Please help avoid that.  Thank you.  Izauze (talk) 08:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I am simply supporting the comments of the following users: 174.102.247.134, 76.208.147.124 and 72.135.238.173.  I agree with them.  Their comments have already encapsulated the point: Izauze deletes the comments of others on talk pages to suppress them, deletes vandalism and edit war controversies posted on his/her own talk page to suppress criticism against Izauze, and makes edits without supporting them.  Where is Izauze's argument that a gigantic section that covers 1 week of the BLP's life need be included in the article?  Where is Izauze's argument the same controversy not only take up one quarter of the BLP even though it took up less than 0.001% of the BLP's life, but should be posted twice, once in a different section superfluously, on the BLP's page?  How is modifying a page that has had a long-standing consensus with a laundry list of edits that are clearly Izauze's personal POV not violative of Wikipedia's NPOV policy?  Izauze's argument that the slur controversy should be included seems to be "because it happened" or "because I think so"; this is in contrast to my argument that it ought not be included due to the stringent requirements of Wikipedia's BLP policies (slander/libel issues, undue weight subsections) and NPOV policies (no citations to multiple good-standing articles, only to one minor, biased source).  BTW, are the "multiple well respected sources" the one website called "Democratic Underground"?  The following areas would be in violation of the BLP page with Izauze's edits: 1) Presumption in favor of Privacy, subheadings Avoid victimization, Public figures, Subjects notable only for one event; 2) Where BLP does and does not apply, subheadings Non-article space, Categories, lists and navigation templates (esp. false light); 3) Maintenance of BLPs, subheading Importance of maintenance.  I believe each of these 7 BLP factors need be addressed (and on each point would fail) before we can move on to the NPOV issue, which would also fail, before Izauze's edits could be made. 70.92.140.153 (talk) 20:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the IP.  Izauze has not made any argument in support of his position.  He has also professed a [verbal] hate for Belling in the past, in part for political reasons; and in part because Tom/Izauze is a Nihilist and resents Belling's open Christianity.  I would say his personal bias should suggest greater scrutiny over his posts on this article (and any involving Christianity, IMHO).  Ikeinthemed (talk) 06:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The "wetback slur" incident is only the most easily sourced of the many cases where Belling has been caught displaying the attitude which is his stock in trade; that's why, I think, so many IP addresses want to remove it (not sure how many actual human beings are involved), since they can't deny it happened, they just pretend it doesn't matter. And Ike, I deeply resent the strong implication that Belling's profession of Christianity is why people oppose him and his policies. It is because of my profound Christian beliefs that I oppose Belling and all those like him (not that that has anything to do with this article). If you weren't trying to imply that Belling's opponents are anti-Christian bigots, then I request you retract or rephrase the "resents Belling's open Christianity" part. --Orange Mike  |  Talk 18:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just for the record, I've reinstated the sourced material. I did not do so because of any personal feeling or beliefs, I did so because it's properly sourced and seems notable. If the IPs insist on removing the material, I would suggest they come here to the talk page and make their cases, to try and sway consensus. Doing so in an edit summary is not sufficient for discussion. Dayewalker (talk) 19:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I replaced it for the same reason. It's properly sourced (and other sources can easily be found), and seems a significant item. It's hard to tell how many editors are behind the IPs as IP addresses change. If anyone wants it removed they need to get consensus. Dougweller (talk) 19:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: All of you are expressing opinions as to whether the sourcing is proper and regarding notability.  None are addressing the many points addressed by the IP 70... above.  Furthermore, the only cite I have seen is a single citation by an old newspaper archive that is not meant to encapsulate a major event in this minor, local celebrity's life ([WP:SOAPS] - scandal mongering).  According to , multiple sources are expected (emphasis added).  I am told there are multiple sources on this event, but I'm afraid I've only noticed the SF Chronicle one.  I did do a Google search for a number of words combined with Belling s/a slur, wetback, etc., and the SF paper was the only one that was even remotely NPOV (the remainder included, but were not limited to, Media Matters and Democratic Underground).  I did find some other major publications but all of them sourced or drew from, verbatim, the same AP report which only counts as one source (bootstrap us back to the multiple reliable source point above).  I expect the following, in a list: 1) Address the lack of citations, and not with POV cite sources, and not with papers that use the same AP story (including citing to it - easy to miss!), 2) Refutation of how this isn't an incredible breach of []/WP:BLPSOURCES/WP:GRAPEVINE/WP:BLPREMOVE/WP:BLPGOSSIP!!!  3) Address how this event is in any way worth noting: .  In summation, those advocating the inclusion of this non-notable event for their POV reasons are only expressing opinions, but not including any Wikipedia guidelines in their positions - just "what they want" or "feel".  I think it is fair to say that it violates Wikipedia's guidelines ... to fail to follow Wikipedia's guidelines.173.89.18.89 (talk) 07:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The notability guidelines relate to whether an article should be deleted from Wikipedia or not. The policies which relate to this dispute is WP:NPOV, WP:IRS, WP:V, and WP:UNDUE, the last of which says: Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. The text in the article satisfies that condition. — goethean ॐ 14:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought that was a well-written post Goethean.  I have reviewed the notability guidelines and I think you're right; since there already an article, notability inclusion is no longer relevant.  However, there are still other points that need be addressed for inclusion, IMHO.  With regard to WP:V, WP:IP, WP:UNDUE, and your quotation from the latter, I have as yet only seen one reliable citation on this event.  I have seen a number of very-POV sources (again, I'll reiterate Media Matters and Democratic Underground), and a number of newspapers that either repeat the AP source or rehash it in their own words, none of which count as a second source.  Remember, multiple sources are expected (emphasis added). So I'm still waiting on that >1 reliable source that several people tell me is out there ... but I can't find.  Furthermore, with regard to the same latter subheading (WP:UNDUE), this event is clearly a "discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic."  I don't know how anyone could argue otherwise.  Remember, Wikipedia's rules are usually to be interpreted liberally in favor of inclusion - except for a living person.  In the case of a living person, as applies here I believe, the rules are to be interpreted strictly.  According to WP:NPOV "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.  Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing."  Emphasis not added.  Look at how this event violates: WP:BLPSTYLE, WP:BLPSOURCES WP:GRAPEVINE WP:BLPREMOVE and WP:BLPGOSSIP per my initial conversation, plus WP:WELLKNOWN.  I thank Gothean for being the first user to discuss this on this discussion page rationally, rather than simply telling us all "what they feel like" or that we supposedly should be banned because of a percieved political position. 173.89.18.89 (talk) 16:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

text: The material is well sourced. I'm supposed to AGF, but when the editors objecting to this are basically all IPs, some, like you and 70. from the same area and using the ISP, it raises questions. But raise it at WP:BLPN by all means if you think there's a BLP violation. I think you're wrong but if other experienced editors disagree, so be it. Dougweller (talk) 16:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The material is not sourced by a NPOV source.  NPOV isn't just about the article, it's also about the source.  You couldn't say, concerning a member of the Saudi Family "This appears in the Saudi Royal Family Times seven times, therefore it is NPOV."  I'm not even sure you could say it is well sourced.  As to Mark Belling's removal from the air, it is sourced by the SFGate.  The SFGate's parent company is a direct competitor to Mark Belling's company!  We're talking BP saying something bad about Exxon/Mobil in their company newsletter and saying it's a good source.  This is a bit odd in that Hearst's main product is a newspaper, but it's still one mass media corp. commenting on another mass media corp. in their paper.  That is not NPOV.  I vote removal. 64.179.60.10 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 19:49, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't expect sources to meet our NPOV criteria. Dougweller (talk) 09:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is supposed to give due weight to neutral versus biased sources. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Biased_or_opinionated_sources 12.233.74.2 (talk)   — Preceding undated comment added 16:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  is another. Dougweller (talk) 09:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: The Case for deleting the controversy section?

message: Okay any right-winger who is deleting sections simply on the basis of political disagreements will be warned and quite possibly banned. Belling has said numerous racially-motivated and hateful comments in the past that do not give him a pass (http://mediamatters.org/research/200812120009). The least he deserves is a controversy section. Anyone who reverts any attempt to establish a controversy section for this individual will be put on notice. It is an insult to the integrity of Wikipedia that you all walk around spreading your bias, which would in all fairness be much more suited here: http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page
--Drdak (talk) 20:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reinstate the controversy section 

message: I think it's fair to say we've heard the arguments for and against the controversy section.  I'd like to build a consensus, one way or the other, on whether to keep the Slur section.  I think, maybe, about 4 weeks is appropriate to allow input?  So to make it simple, input through the end of February 2012?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.89.18.89  (talk • contribs) 16:25, 3 February 2012
:No. The Controversy covers a 2 week period of time of a program that lasted over 23 years.  That is less than 0.2% of the program's lifetime, and even less of this person's career or life.  Considering this is a BLP, it's too fractionally small to be worth mention, it may violate NPOV, and does not rise to the level deserving of a Wikipedia article (ie it belongs in Wikinews or Wikigossip, if the latter even exists).173.89.18.89 (talk)
:Yes, of course - highly revelatory of his real attitude towards a large portion of the American people. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anyone other than Orange Mike actually agree with this?  I don't know what evidence there is this reveals any general attitude.  A bad word, used once in however many years this guy's been on the air, shows any kind of attitude?  When it is his job to talk for a living for hours every day?  Seems to me that after so much talking with only saying an inappropriate word once shows an attitude of 'not' being prejudiced.  Additionally I haven't been able to determine what the context was - for all I know he was quoting someone else, and given this is a bio of a living person I'd assume the best until I I have a source that says otherwise as not to get Wikipedia on the slander/libel hook.  The purpose of this section and the talk page is to build consensus for the article page.  OrangeMike is the only one who wants to keep that section and he's making a comment I can't understand.  Perhaps you could help us understand your position a little better OrangeMike because from my perspective, right now, it seems like you're the one prejudiced against the bio subject.  But maybe I'm coming late to the party so please do enlighten us as to how you formulated your opinion.  12.233.74.2 (talk) 17:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

text: No. This is clearly being reposted up there by obscure sociopaths who have it in for the guy, Orangemike being an obvious such individual.  For example, what evidence does Orangemike have this is indicative of the guy's personal beliefs?64.179.60.10 (talk) 23:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

text: Personal attacks are not a good substitute for argument. He was suspended for a week, that's a significant thing in the career of a journalist. Dougweller (talk) 09:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

text: No.I also agree with Dougweller that Orangemike is aiming at making a personal attack on Belling.  I don't agree with him that being suspended for a week is a "significant thing in the career of a journalist."  This comment is twice in error.  First, Belling is a commentator, not a journalist.  Second, being suspended for one week is far less significant than many things Belling has done over his career.  Until those things are all cited and posted, it doesn't really make sense to post the one-week suspension.12.233.74.2 (talk) 21:55, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that this IP added No before my comment, which I've of course removed. I wasn't commenting on Orangemike who is an excellent editor. Dougweller (talk) 08:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

text: No. Per http://www.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/stories/2007/04/16/story6.html, the remark was not a serious violation of any rules.  The individual this bio covers was not sacked.  No person of importance condemned him (that I could find a citation to).  Seems like a total non-story to me.  And Wikipedia is supposed to be particularly stringent about criticisms of living people so as to avoid slander or libel - stringent in the sense that the preference is to not include such statements.12.233.74.2 (talk) 17:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slur Controversy Input Wanted 

message: "he has broken stories, usually covering Wisconsin politics." - had no source.
"When aired, the television program received higher ratings than WDJT's nightly prime-time newscasts, despite being in the Sunday morning timeslot" - "Belling, Mark, Mark Belling Late Afternoon Show, 23 June 2011; fifth segment." may be his claim, but we'd need something meeting WP:RS, not his own claim.
"he has broken stories, usually covering Wisconsin politics." - checked the sources, they didn't confirm this.
And the stuff about what he discusses, being a music fan, etc - trivia that doesn't belong in our article unless discussed in some depth by a reliable source. Dougweller (talk) 08:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Material I removed 

message: "1986 finalist for "Journalist of the Year" in Illinois as awarded by United Press International."
"Radio-Television News Directors Association award"
I can't source either of these. If reliable sources can't be found, they will have to be removed. Dougweller (talk) 09:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced still in article 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Mark Belling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101204165708/http://www.american-partisan.com/cols/2004/rollins/qtr4/1119.htm to http://www.american-partisan.com/cols/2004/rollins/qtr4/1119.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121104024357/http://www.belling.com/pages/archived_links.html?feed=281681&article=8088858 to http://www.belling.com/pages/archived_links.html?feed=281681&article=8088858
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:57, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The posting of Mark Belling as a "graduate of the University of Wisconsin–La Crosse" appears to be unsubstantiated and should be removed. I am posting it here for the article watchers to take note and comment if they can, before I remove it for being unreferenced. Not even Mark Belling's own website mentions his university attendance. I couldn't find it elsewhere either, through a search, so at some point in the future I am going to remove it, since it appears to be made-up information by an editor (probably anonymously)...Stevenmitchell (talk) 16:38, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unverified college attendance and degree