Talk:Rachel Marsden/Archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

What talk pages are for

See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#What may talk pages be used for?. As much as possible, we should keep our discussion here to the content of collaborative work on Rachel Marsden and related Wikipedia articles, not Rachel Marsden qua Rachel Marsden. (For discussion of Rachel Marsden qua Rachel Marsden, there's no shortage of Internet fora...) Samaritan 02:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

needs stub sorting

As a member of WikiProject Stub sorting, I request that this page be sorted out of the general Cat:Stubs. {{Canada-journalist-stub}} would be much more appropriate. Thanks. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 20:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


The Stalker is Being Stalked

Looks to me like this has gone past a dispute and pretty deeply into pathology. TWO pages now on Donnelley-Marsden? This was not the crime of the century. My solution: a barebones Marsden entry and a Donnelly-Marsden dispute entry. The present Marsden article has grown into a ludicrous mess, with external links and sourcing that would be justified at the Nuremberg War Crimes entry but hardly fits here. The long version is poorly written, with many redundancies and the inclusion of trivia. I have contacted Wikipedia to ask for some kind of arbitration.

Mark. First, sign your comments please. (And when you do forget, please add them.) I don't agree with your suggested solution of stripping this to the bare bones--there has to be enough here that readers can understand what the issues were. (And no, this is not the crime of the century. It's a very complicated he-said she-said case. It is the complexity of the case that results in the length.) If you think it is poorly written, improve the writings; by all means point out what you think is redundant or trivial and work towards incremental improvement. It strikes me that many of your suggested edits would improve the article. But when buried in the midst of a series of blankings and deletions, they inevitably get reverted. Bucketsofg 20:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
That's ridiculous, why should an article be truncated just because it's not "important enough" You're advocating making it harder for people to understand the issues, and hiding things, which is the exact opposite of what wikipedia should be about. User:Chad_okere


I could see this much detail if there wasn't a second page. Don't get me wrong, a second page is a good idea. Much of the text of this entry has been cut and pasted onto the new Donnelly-Marsden page. I think there should be a barebones entry on Marsden, with mention of the Donnelly stuff, and a prominent link to the new page. Keep this in perspective. This is a once-a-week columnist who has been writing regularly for less than a year. Why does she need a page longer than Paul Wells's, or someone like Charlie Gordon of the Ottawa Citizen, who's written three or four best-selling books, won a handful of awards, and is actually somewhat famous? Or someone like Ken Whyte or John MacFarlane? Her entry is four times as long as the entry for the editor of the Globe and Mail. If the sexual harassment story is the most important thing, then maybe it should, as you say, stand alone. Maybe there should be no Marsden-as-journalist page at all, or a 10-line entry, relevant to her status as a journalist, and link to the entry on the SFU fight? That, to me, would be more reflective of reality. Keep in mind, though, that the SFU fight is now ten years old. If it is important, why is it important outside of SFU, and, since Wikipedia is a world-wide encycvlopedia, why are any of these things important outside Canada? I still haven't seen anything that tells me whether a situation like Donnelly's would or would not happen again. I'd also really like to know more about the other eleven cases, or at least see them mentioned, so that readers know that this stuff did/does happen all the time. In that regard, I honestly don't know. I do know people are much more careful (Donnelly says he had her in his apartment twice ?!?), but people don't exactly go around proclaiming they're up on sexual assault charges. On the other hand, I haven't heard of anyone being fired for it.

As an aside, from a professorial point of view, you don't have to footnote things that are not controversial or debated. For instance, no one disputes the fact that she graduated from SFU with a degree in biology. And you don't need her minor, really, since she is neither a biologist nor a French teacher. Those things are facts, but not particularly important. Sorry for not signing the earlier entry. It was a lapse. Mark Bourrie

"Looks to me like this has gone past a dispute and pretty deeply into pathology."
Mark, if you look at my edit history or those of your other interlocutors you'll see that a very small percentage of our edits are directly or indirectly related to Rachel Marsden. Looking at your edit history, it seems over 90% of your edits are Marsden related. When you speak of pathology and obsession I think you should consider the biblical saying "Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but don't consider the beam that is in your own eye?"Homey 21:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
(1) I'm glad, Mark, that you agree that a second page is a good idea. I started that article because in order to give a fair account of both sides of the story and in order to explore its significance and context appropriately, we needed much more space than is here. That said, I'm not sure that we can cut much out of the Marsden article before the episode became unintelligible. And we have a responsibility to the readers of this article to give them enough information that they can understand the issues at hand. (2) I don't think the comparison to other columnists is a very good guide of how long an article should be. How many articles are there about Paul Wells or any of the other columnists that you've mentioned? Very few. There are hundreds of articles about Marsden: first the Donnelly affair, then the aftermath, then Morgan, then Grewal, then her journalism career. And many of those articles are in fact outside Canada. (3) Thanks for your 'professorial' advice. But there's another thing that footnotes do: they tell your readers where they can find out stuff for themselves. Trim away what you think is unnecessary (though others, including myself might put it back). But it was only a week ago that you were complaining that too much of the narrative depended on the Western Standard and Fraser Institute. I've just provided better sources--presumably those that those sources used. Again, I encourage you to work incrementally. Make small changes (e.g., deleting the guilty plea in the opening paragraph--which I agree with you about, btw), discuss them and look for compromise. Bucketsofg 22:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

This is a good candidate for mediation or arbitration. This is an awful article.Craigleithian 23:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

still more 20/20 (moved from 20/20)

With all due respect Bucketsofg, I think you've misread Ianking's point. Mark got the right reference. The "June 2003" episode is where Marsden claims to have been a production assistant. This contradicts her earlier claim that she worked there as Connie Chung's assistant in 2000. See? I want it back in the article, but with all the ongoing revert wars I'm waiting for a quiet day before doing any further editing. --Cyberboomer 01:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Marsden's claim to have worked at 20/20 and been Chung's assistant go back to before 2003. See her old webpage [here], archived at wayback from 2001. I'm not sure what the evidence for the 2003 date is. Bucketsofg 04:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I see what you mean. If you click on various episode titles, Marsden has gotten herself listed as a Production Assistant. For example, Paul and Linda McCartney interview (1979). Not bad considering Marsden was only 4 going on 5 at the time. --Cyberboomer 20:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Go back and look at the page again. The crew list is for the entire series. The first episode was in 1979. Please start being careful with facts, Cyberboomer. Ceraurus 20:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC) I think iMDB posts Marsden on a list of crew for all or many of the 20/20 shows. I suppose if someone submitted that she worked on 20/20, they probably just do a search and add the credit. If you look at the "host" list, it appears to be every host that was ever on the show. But I don't know, I've never watched it. If you do look at this iMDB entry, you'll see a person listed in the production section with (1999) beside his name. The same criticisms of iMDB have been made about Wikipedia. The difference, I suppose, is that iMDB does not rip into people's privacy and iMDB people don't stalk critics on the Internet. Ceraurus 15:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I am careful with the facts, Mark. "The crew list is for the entire series. I think IMDB posts Marsden on a list of crew for all or many of the 20/20 shows. I suppose if someone submitted that she worked on 20/20, they probably just add the credit." That's my point exactly. --Cyberboomer 21:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

removed 'claims never adjudicated'

I've removed the sentence "In the end, Marsden's claims were never adjudicated by a court or a reconstituted university sexual harassment committee and no charges were laid against anyone involved in the controversy." This is, I think, either misleading or wrong. The arbitration process that Donnelly applied for in June/July 1997, the first step of which was mediation. In commenting on the process, Donnelly's and SFU's lawyers released a statement quoted in the Vancouver Sun, Jul. 17, 1997 that said: “The mediation process will take into account the harassment panel’s conclusions but will for the first time hear the evidence of Mr. Donnelly and other witnesses in defense of him”. Bucketsofg 21:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

That's true, but it's hardly a "she lied" or "he lied" or "this was a relationship gone off the rails" ruling.Ceraurus 15:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

The mediator's report (here, accepted by both parties here) says "The findings of the harassment panel were based on Ms. Marsden's credibility. Inconsistencies between her statements before the panel and her response to Mr. Donnelly's harassment complaint cast doubt on her credibility." Bucketsofg 22:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

That's hardly definitive. The mediation was between the university and Donnelly. Who was protecting Marsden's position/rights at this body? Look, I'm sure Donnelly was right, but I still am nagged by what Marsden was doing at his apartment -- twice -- and his original refusal to recognize the sexual harassment system's jurisdiction at all. I would chalk that up to arrogance, or, at least immaturity. As for him doing that at the request of counsel, that's pretty hard to believe, though the authors of this mess are prepared to believe anything said about Marsden and any allegation (and most of the "dirt" in this entry is no more than allegations) made against her. I'm awfully glad I don't live in a society where decisions are made based on a "consensus" of anonymous people. A Wikipedia world would be the worst kind of tyranny. Ceraurus 23:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


Looks like the loser brigade can't address this issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.191.39.125 (talk • contribs)

Retractions re: Marsden:

1. A story published in the Ottawa Citizen on November 28th headlined "Tories Woo Convicted Stalker to Run Against Jack Layton" contained incorrect information. The subject of the article, Rachel Marsden, was not convicted. Ms. Marsden received a conditional discharge for criminal harassment, fulfilled the conditions of the discharge and is deemed not to have been convicted. The story also stated that Marsden was "found to have been stalking" Liam Donnelly. No such findings were ever made. Further, the article stated that Marsden was "terminated" by the Conservative party from a job on Parliament Hill. Marsden has never worked on Parliament Hill. The Citizen regrets the errors.

2. An Oct. 13 article regarding the guilty verdict against Rachel Marsden for harassment referred incorrectly to Marsden as having been fired from her job in the office of MP Gurmant Grewal. Grewal said at the time she was not fired, but he simply ran out of work for her. Her departure from Grewal's office occurred shortly after news media learned she was working for the MP under a different name.

3. A story published Oct. 13 referred to allegations by a Simon Fraser University swim coach that he was stalked by former SFU swim team member Rachel Marsden. In fact, the allegations were not proven and SFU declared its investigation into both parties' claims of harassment null and void because of flaws in the process The Province. Vancouver, B.C.: Sep 9, 2004. pg. A.3

4. On Sept. 5, The Province incorrectly reported that a Simon Fraser University swim coach accused of sexual harassment by Rachel Marsden in 1995 was fired after Marsden took her allegations to the media and that the coach was then reinstated after an investigation cleared him. The case was actually heard by a university tribunal. The coach was reinstated after flaws were found in the investigation process that led to his dismissal. Ceraurus 20:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


Moved from Articles for Deletion

Moved from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Marsden2 to this page since it's a dispute over the content of this article. Fagstein 18:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


Pasboudin, Wiederaufbau, HOTR and Bucketsofg will not entratin any changes to this article to reduce innuendo and POV, and have gone out of their way to stifle discussion on the talk page and in the earlier deletion attempt. This artice was immediately re-nominated because because there was no chance to discuss this because the editors/perpetrators of this vicious article used the "speedy keep" process to subvert real debate. Both "speedy keep" votes have been made by people who insist on keeping this article as POV as possible and who have not taken the reservations of others on Wikpiedia into account. They have been censured by Jimbo Wales (see the long discussion page), yet they continue to torque this article and have created a second article on the Donnelly/Marsden dispite that contains large pieces of this article that have been cut and pasted into the new one. This article is a disgrace to Wikipedia. It is mysoginistic, extremely biased, and is beoming worse all the time. I have reverted it several times to an earlier version that contains all of the facts without the POV, only to have it reverted back to this version, with warnings.Isotelus 16:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

How does the text of the article contradict those retractions? The article includes Gurmant Grewal's claims that Marsden's contract had ended; notes that SFU found both complaints null (reversing its original decision) and that she was not convicted but was discharged following ther completion of probation. The article on the whole does not paint a positive picture of Marsden, but given her well-documented track record, that is not surprising, nor is it an NPOV violation. The accusations of misogyny are baseless. Ianking 01:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I'd like to know that too. See also my edit here. On a general note, hopefully everyone will be able to put aside their opinions soon and get on with writing articles. It is an encyclopaedia after all and energy expended in internecine squabbling could be much better applied elsewhere, I'm sure. Anyway, there's my tuppence! Badgerpatrol 02:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


Donnelly revision

There are parts of Donnelly episode that in reality came in two stages. E.g., the public knew that someone had subscribed Donnelly to Playboy before it was learned that Marsden was in fact behind it. So, too, with the emails. He claimed that she had sent them, she subsequently admitted them. I think we can shorten this section quite a bit if we elide these two stages into one and have revised it that way. (Change it back, if you disagree.) Bucketsofg 14:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Boyd section

I'm confused about the Boyd section. It says: "In 1998, Marsden returned to SFU to study criminology. In May 1999, when she moved into residence, she was warned by the university not to frequent any location where Neil Boyd, a criminology professor at SFU, might be found." Why was she warned not to avoid Neil Boyd when she moved in? There is nothing in the article about him before or after that section to explain it. -- Kjkolb 10:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I've think you've inadvertantly added an extra negative (which I've struck through in your post). She was told to avoid (and told not to frequent). I've tried to clarify this by adding that she had been asking Boyd for dates.
That makes more sense. Thanks, Kjkolb 13:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Moving more to archive?

Now that the sockpuppets have been identified, I was wondering what others thought about moving two more sections of this discussion page to the archive, specifically the sections 4 and 7, titled "Moved from Articles for Deletion" and the "The Stalker is Being Stalked". . I dare say we'll need the space on the 12th, when Mark's block comes off...


Please sign your posts. Ceraurus 20:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Rearrange it in any way you deem sensible. It's a wiki world, y'know. You might consider splitting the archive into "2005" and "2006-1" (representing the earliest archive of 2006 blather; if cooler heads prevail, we shouldn't need to create a kazillion archives) in order to keep each individual page manageable. Ianking 00:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Free dominion ref

I deleted the footnote that read: 'Free Dominion discussion about Marsden's prospective candidacy. Several posters claim to have written the Conservative organizer warning her that this is a serious error. The site admin writes, This has to be a publicity stunt. I just can't believe any regional organizer would be stupid enough to consider RM as a potential candidate.' It strikes me that FD's opinion is not worth including here. Bucketsofg 21:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you think FD's opinion is worth including here? Marsden has a history with the site. It is relevant as a measure of how conservatives view her and her potential candidacy. --Cyberboomer 21:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
It comes to notability, imo. Is FD really indicative of 'how conservatives view her'? First, if I remember that thread correctly, opinion was mixed. Second, even if opinion were uniform there, FD is not, imo, part of mainstream conservativism. Moreover, once we start quoting Connie's opinion of Marsden, should not we be quoting everybody's, including fans? I think it is best to leave it out. Stick to the facts (as best as we can reconstruct them); leave opinions to the talk pages. Bucketsofg 21:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


I'm sure no one need worry about you quoting any "fans". :) Ceraurus 23:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

As usual you get it all wrong. Rachel_Marsden#Media_controversies features this sentence: The Western Standard has been highly critical of her, while Judi McLeod, editor of the website Canada Free Press, calls Marsden a "personal hero" and describes her personal controversies as "trouble with bogus boyfriends." As I said before, not that you care to listen, The Canada Free Press article defending Marsden has long been a core part of the Rachel Marsden Wikipedia page. We even link to it. --Cyberboomer 20:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


Zowie. At last, a point you'll address directly. Yea, Judi Mcleod. Talk about damning Marsden with faint praise. Ceraurus 21:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I thought you were on McLeod's side. Now you don't seem to think highly of her. Which is it? If I've misinterpreted your comments, please correct me. --Cyberboomer 21:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
We do address points directly. --Cyberboomer 01:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Very, very rarely. No one has addressed many of the issues raised elsewhere on this page. And I do enjoy the collective "we". Ceraurus 14:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Toronto Sun

The Toronto Sun is referred to as a "tabloid" at least twice on that article's entry without any NPOV debate that I can see. Why is it POV when used here? Pasboudin 03:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

It struck me as gratuitous here. But if you disagree, by all means put it back in. Bucketsofg 06:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

O'Hagan and Boyd

Several editors have been inclined to excise the O'Hagan and Boyd sections. I think it might be useful to clarify here why these sections should be included. The two important issues here, I think, are verifiability and notability. In both cases the fact that the incidents were reported in mainstream newspapers when the details became public shows establishes both points. Even if there is some ambiguity about what really happened, the fact of the reports about the events exists. Notability? Again, this was front page news in Vancouver. That makes it notable. Bucketsofg 16:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


You have much more faith in newspapers than perhaps you should. Doesn't the fact that these allegations were investigated and nothing came of them suggest the news stories should be taken with a grain of salt? Shouldn't it be noted that no charges were laid? Does Wikipedia report all investigations against everyone? Is Wikipedia's version of reality one in which "all people investigated by the police are guilty because police don't waste their time investigating innocent people?" 209.217.123.151 00:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


>> Marsden's charges/countercharges at SFU caused the president to go on medical leave and then resign, and caused a lot of damages to other people involved. It was an important issue at the time, and should be viewed as an important case study in how to approach harrassment claims and their legitimacy. BTW - a conditional discharge means that the person involved was found to be guilty, not innocent. She doesn't have a criminal record, but she did the actions she was charged with doing. That's reality.

Reversion

If there are isolated copyright violatoins in the page it'd be better to remove them rather than reverting the page to a much-less informative version. Please describe the problesm with the current page here. Thanks, -Will Beback 22:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

CV Copyright? are you kidding?

Seriously. Is that a joke? --Geedubber 22:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

It's no joke. She wrote it, she owns it and controls her intellectual property. Nor is the photo clear, either. Ceraurus 23:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Read this Wikipedia:Publicity_photos--Geedubber 23:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Image:O'Reilly Rachel Marsden.jpg is still available. Nobody controls the ability of others to cite, in the citers' own words, their published intellectual property. For heaven's sake, Cerearus, you're an investigative journalist and an academic; neither endeavour would exist otherwise. Samaritan 23:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

What are we saying that the subject wrote? This entire article? -Will Beback 23:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
the article cites her cv (curriculum vitae) which is totally okay to do--Geedubber 23:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
A CV is in no way exempt from fair dealing citation. It would be unacceptable if Wikipedia were using her CV in an attempt to imitate her on the job market, but if you were to file a legal claim that citing her CV as a reference source in an article about Marsden constituted some kind of intellectual property violation, any judge on the freaking planet would laugh you out of his courtroom in seconds flat. More desperate stalling tactics from the "any mention of controversy whatsoever, no matter how neutrally worded, is unfair to her" crowd, I see. Bearcat 01:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Copyright Image

If anyone has problems with the copyright of the new image, that should be handled at the image page itself, not by blanking the entire article. But anyway, is this new image an improvement? I kinda preferred the old one with O'Reilly. What do others think? Bucketsofg 03:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

i liked the old one better--Geedubber 03:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Media Controversies

I think some citations are needed regarding the CFP/Standard/McLeod thing. I couldn't find a source for the 'personal hero' quote. Also, wasn't the public friction actually about McLeod claiming the Standard plagiarized sections of their article? If someone could clear that up that would be great --Geedubber 23:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I've read the comments below but will provide a link here on the talk page to prove that the quote was made. "Even (my) personal hero, talk show host/columnist Rachel Marsden checked in with a letter." I believe McLeod accused the Standard of plagiarizing the Toronto Star, if I'm not mistaken. This was one of several complaints she had about the Standard's RM article. --Cyberboomer 22:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Cool. When i googled RM and 'personal hero', the wiki page was the first and only relevant hit so that is why I was skeptical. I am not sure if it worth including though, so I leave it up to you guys. On the 'public friction' note, what I was trying to ask was 'wasn't there more controversy over the fact that McLeod accused a fellow journalist of plagiarism than the Standard's critism of Marsden'. Like, what was the real story: the debate over Marsden? or McLeod ironic dissing of a journalist for dissing another journalist. I might be confusing the issue though.--Geedubber 22:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Frankly, I don't much like this section at all. I don't understand, frankly, why McLeod's professed admiration of Marsden is worth mentioning. Perhaps a line about criticism by the Western Standard and defended by the Free Press. But even if we could source 'personal hero', I don't see why we'd keep it. Bucketsofg 04:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
yeah, plus the Sticks and Stones/fifth estate thing isn't really a 'media controversy'. I am in favour of deleting that section if you want.--Geedubber 04:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I would keep "Sticks and Stones" integrated into the rest of the text - it was significant exposure, and gave her a chance to respond to the personal charges in the context of her work - while the paragraph on CFP and WS, whose treatments of Marsden can be compared in External links anyway, could go. Samaritan 05:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree that "Sticks and Stones" should stay, not least because the CBC is the most significant Canadian media outlet. The Western Standard and Free Press are micro-media. But perhaps the name of the heading should be rethought, too. Bucketsofg 11:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I moved the contents of the section to Education and career in journalism, since all of this coverage centrally commented on her current work in media. I recast it a bit to shorten and contextualize the conservative media/CFP/WS bit - I don't think I mind its retention so much as the implication a schism between the two on the issue of Marsden was a remotely big deal - and tweaked "Sticks and Stones" a tiny bit stylistically because moving it here bumps up the first mentions of Donnelly and Morgan. Samaritan 17:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Coulter and Marsden

I've been thinking all day about IP's recent edit, in which he adds an explicit comparison between Marsden and Coulter. I deleted the first and left the second stand while I had a think. I have two concerns about this. First, if such a comparison is made, should it be made in the opening section? Second, is such a comparison valid or (for that matter) fair to one or both of Marsden and Coulter? My guess has always been that Marsden was trying to position herself as a kind of Canadian Coulter. But I don't think that this is quite fair to Coulter, who (whatever one thinks of her politics) has become a significant media personality with several books, much attention, and lots of TV exposure on a regular basis. Marsden's accomplishments are miniscule by comparison: no books, a handful of TV appearances. So, I think I'm inclined against including such a comparison, though I'd be less concerned about it if it were worked into the media section. Bucketsofg 23:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, the Standard article points out that she tries to mimic Coulter's style. But, I wouldn't exactly say they are contemporaries for the same reasons you pointed out. Maybe, include the comparison to Coulter in the Education and career in journalism section? Plus, she isn't really a TV pundit in Canada, so making it sound like she is the Canadian Coulter isn't right, more like a lesser Coulter in AmericaGeedubber 00:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not particularly invested in this. IP Address 00:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification, IP. Geedubber, I didn't know that the Standard had said this, and I think it's correct to say that: Marsden may have tried to imitate her style, and maybe still is. But I'm not sure that she's succeeded enough that I'd think it merits inclusion in the article. Are there any objections to me just deleting this, at least for now?
Keep it. IP Address 00:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it should be kept with the present wording or present location. Can you think of a way to meet the concerns laid out by Geedupper and me above? Bucketsofg 01:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
You seem to be smart enough on your own. I give support to your actions. IP Address 03:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I feel strongly that the passage should go. What does its inclusion accomplish? --Cyberboomer 22:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

It helps the reader visit another Wikilink with the same "aura". I know, not many are willing to pay attention to outspoken, conservative women. They prefer liberal women, like Janet Reno. IP Address 22:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this is their big chance to hurt a hot woman. Talk about a bunch of wankers. I will out them, one by one, so Marsden can sue them for malicious harassment.

A random outsider's view

Jeez, this is not a very good article, is it? It reads like a tabloid gossip column. Um, don't you think the bulk of the article should have more about her positions or something? The stalking stuff should be about half or less of what it is, we don't need that much detail, this stuff bears on her character and warrents inclusion but its not the most imporant thing about her, is it? What difference does it make if she's crazy if her writing is influential. And the article in total is too long. Herostratus 07:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a very good article. In Canada, she is more known for the stalking stuff than her journalism career. It was on the news all the time here when it happened. Most of the articles written about her by the MSM, even if it is about her journalism career or politics, reference the stalking stuff. Sadly, for Marsden, the stalking thing will always be the elephant in the room. Everthing is cited quite well so I don't really get your gossip criticism. IMO, the fact that it may read like a tabloid column is more the fault of the subject's actions than the contributors' writing. A probable reason for the article's current scope isn't that the contributors have a hate-on for Marsden, it is the fact that we are mostly Canadians.Geedubber 20:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
The 'stalking stuff', as mentioned above, is what made the subject front page news, and therefore -- especially in light of recent efforts to revise or question it -- 'should be' detailed and referenced at length, which it is. The subject's recent career has generated considerably less coverage, and is comprised solely of commentary, so what additional details or citations, besides the link to her own site, would the 'random outsider' recommend? Towelie 01:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there are a few writers here who havwe an obsession with this woman. I suspect they would be as interested in her if she was homely and weighed 300 pounds. This entry is pathetic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.78.64.58 (talk • contribs)

These guys like to hurt women. Here's their big chance to get their jollies and be "politically correct" at the same time. marsden should sue them for malicious defamation.

>> I disagree with the comment directly above. Marsden is what she has done, and what she has done is a matter of public record. It's not defamation to put facts into a column. The fact that so many people are interested in this column shows that it should exist and is a valuable resource.

Sourced info/links

I reverted the page to Revision as of 20:41, April 29, 2006. User:70.25.152.39 took stuff out because it wasn't sourced and then added stuff that wasn't sourced. So I reverted it back to their 2nd edit that contained no unsourced info. My problem isn't that the info wasn't true, but that if you are going to be a stickler for citations then you should include your own when you add info. Geedubber 06:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Plus, that user has identified herself in the past as RM. Whether that is true or not, I think it is a faux pas to write about yourself or who you claim to be. WP:AUTO and stuff. Geedubber 07:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Geedubber. Welcome to the circus where every so often this IP (which as you point out once claimed to be Rachel) or his/her friends comes by. I would be inclined to revert the whole, rather than just to his/her second edit, since one thing that is eliminated by this is the reference with link to Marsden's early c.v. I'm going to revert back; feel free to over-rule me here, but let's try at least to leave the reference in. Bucketsofg ✐ 12:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


This entry is such a piece of shit, written by total wankers.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.191.39.125 (talk • contribs) .

(I'm tempted to remove all these personal attacks per protocol, but I guess for now we ought to let them stay, since they serve no purpose except to make the editor who contributed them look like the total **** he most probably is.) Badgerpatrol 15:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure, let the "wanker" comments stay - it reflects the innability of the poster to offer concrete criticism of the article.

IMDB removed

I've removed from the footnote both the fact that IMDB says that Marsden was Chung's assistant and the note that the IMDB is unreliable. Here is the deleted section:

The Internet Movie Database lists her as a production assistant at 20/20. However, she is credited as having worked on episodes as far back as 1979 [1]. IMDB's own website explains [2] that they depend on third-party submissions. Only 17 staff members are actively involved in validating and processing through the system the hundreds of thousands of lines of presumed information contributed each month. Staff members gauge the validity of contributed data based on the past reliability of the contributor, as none are themselves experts in significantly varied areas of film history to know what is valid themselves. [3]

Bucketsofg✐ 21:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe Rachel was a precocious 5 year-old?Homey 22:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The IMDb articles put long-running series under their first date of appearance; for 20/20 this was 1979. Then when it does a cumulative cast list for the entire show (as in the link above), the entire cast is listed as if under that first year. One way or the other, however, IMDb is not a reliable source--wrong data is easy to insert into it. In this case, the data probably came from Marsden's publicist, who is credited for her IMDb biography (which includes other erroneous data). Bucketsofg✐ 22:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Organization

I've reordered the sections here, putting them in roughly chronological order. Since the "Sticks and Stones" documentary refers to the Morgan affair, the Morgan affair should be mentioned first. Bucketsofg✐ 21:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


Typos and tightening

This piece had quite a few typos. I've fixed them, taken out redundancies, tightened the writing and improved the NPOV.Arthur Ellis 01:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

>> The third reference link is a dead end. (the CV reference).

Welcome back MB

I only noticed three typos. But looking at this diff, I do see that you've removed quite a few sections of content. For example:

You eliminated this line:

Early claims to have written for Maclean's magazine and to have been involved in "strategy meetings with members of the Bush administration" have also been challenged.[1]

I took it out because the reference doesn't back it up. Arthur Ellis 00:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

replaced:

According to subsequently released court documents, they had been in contact since August 2001. In October 2001, however, after she sent flowers and a stuffed bear to Morgan's home, he complained to the police, who advised Marsden that her attention was unwanted. In April, 2002, the two were again in touch, and by May they had begun a physical relationship. In July, however, while Marsden was out of the country, Morgan had begun a relationship with another woman. On her return in October, Marsden tried to renew the relationship, leaving telephone messages for Morgan, some of them "vindictive and threatening", and sending emails both to Morgan and to his family and friends. On October 11, Morgan again complained to the police. During the investigation it was learned that Marsden began stalking him by surreptitiously set up Morgan's email so that she was automatically forwarded a blind copy of his incoming email.

with

They had been romantically involved in 2001 and 2002, but Morgan complained to the police after their break-up that Marsden left "vindictive and threatening" messages on his answering machine. During the investigation it was learned Marsden surreptitiously set up Morgan's email to automatically forward to her copies of his incoming email.

The detail was not important. I think this version is concise, accurate and covers the important issues. Arthur Ellis 00:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

and replaced

In November 2005, the National Post reported that a regional Conservative organizer approached Marsden to run as the party's candidate in the 2006 election against federal New Democratic Party leader Jack Layton in the downtown Toronto riding of Toronto-Danforth, but Marsden declined the opportunity. The offer was quickly withdrawn, however, after the party's central office was consulted.[2] The regional organizer was quoted in the National Post as saying, "We're looking for someone who will help carry the torch, help to build the organization and not detract from that by being too high profile."

I took it out because the organizer's comment and the withdrawal of the offer was made after she declined the offer. Looks like sour grapes-- they approach her, then insult her when she turns them down. If she had approached them and that was their response, I would have left it in.Arthur Ellis 00:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

with

In November 2005, the National Post reported that a regional Conservative organizer approached Marsden to run as the party's candidate in the 2006 election against federal New Democratic Party leader Jack Layton in the downtown Toronto riding of Toronto-Danforth, but Marsden declined the opportunity

and removed this mention of the Toronto-Danforth offer being withdrawn:

The offer was quickly withdrawn, however, after the party's central office was consulted.[3] The regional organizer was quoted in the National Post as saying, "We're looking for someone who will help carry the torch, help to build the organization and not detract from that by being too high profile."

Can you explain why all of this sourced material should be removed? In the meantime, I'm reverting to the last version by Bucketsofg (with the typos corrected, of course) And what does everyone else say to a checkuser on Arty? Wiederaufbau 00:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

You can check me all you want. If you out me, how about outing yourself? Deal with the edits. Stop the personal attacks and guesses.
The old version is wordy, repetitive, full of unnecessary detail (Do we need to know what the gifts were she sent? This is an encyclopedia).
Check my edits. They are rarely reverted.
This article is full of POV and was very poorly written.
For instance, a section called "other controversies" dealt with one interview with Marsden and CBC, and the differing views of conservative media. That's hardly "other controversies", so I changed it to "media profile" because that title better suits the section.
I re-arranged her education because normally completed programs are listed before ones that were not completed (and, for all we know she may have finished it as a distance student and or is still working on it.)
I pared down the (long) lists of gifts Marsden gave people. I put into the O'Hagan section a line about her previously being a Marsden supporter, to show the relationship was complex. I took out the mention of Donnelly's first payment, since we know the total was $60,000. I took out the Maclean's magazine and Bush meetings because the sourcing is to a blog that clips a story that mentions a CV that we don't have. The CV we do have does not mention either of those things. The very convoluted Morgan section has been pared down to the fact that they were an item, they broke up, she harassed him, forwarded his e-mails, was charged and was given a discharge that included in its terms the one-year probation. (The article says she was given the discharge AND probation).
This article is well-sourced but had serious POV and organizational problems and was far too long. It was a classic case of sources being found to buttress the inconsequential Arthur Ellis 00:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

recent changes

Most of Arthur Ellis' changes make the entry better, imo. I have added a few details back where they are needed to understand different players' actions and made a few edits to improve flow. Over all, however, the entry is better now. What needs to be done? First, the opening sentence is still a bit clunky ("blunt Conservative" is not elegant). Also, might someone add a paragraph describing her views as found in her writings? Bucketsofg✐ 02:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for the encouragement. This article really does need a discussion of her writing. I tried "humourous" because the two columns I read on line seemed that way to me. I hope someone can write a good description of her work, as this entry is about her being a columnist. Maybe some links to columns might give people the opportunity to decide for themselves. I'll leave all this in your hands. I see myself as a copy editor and fact checker (part of my actual work life) and I certainly don't want to get mired in this piece. Arthur Ellis 02:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Marriage

While I am sure that it is true, I cannot find any marriage announcements. I've checked NP, G&M, Vancouver Sun and Province, London Times, Toronto Sun and Star, CFP, and her website. I would be willing to waive citation requirements on this one though, since the IP identified herself as Marsden's sister. What do others think? Geedubber 05:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

And, of course, IPs are always who they say they are. Could be a hoax... Marsden hates Wikipedia so she or a friend could well be planting misinformation. Or not. Nevertheless, we shouldn't allow the information without a verifiable and reliable source. Homey 06:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Homey; information passed on by relatives does not count as a verifiable source for Wikipedia purposes, because we have no way of confirming it, leaving it as essentially original research. WP has determined in more than one dispute that even if an editor does happen to privately know that a piece of information is true, it can't be in Wikipedia if there aren't any sources available for other people to verify it. Bearcat 19:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Her website says she will be on the John Gibson show tomorrow, I might watch and see if she mentions it.

Geedubber 06:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


A little obsessed? You'd almost think you guys were stalking her206.191.33.131

You wish. Bearcat 23:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
(Personal attack removed) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.36.153 (talk • contribs)

Can you reveal the name of the lucky fellow? That might help us track down a media reference to verify this. You say she was married in the UK... I wonder, could it be Mark_Collett? Wiederaufbau 19:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

db-atack template

To the anon editor who reverted the removal of the db-attack template with the edit summary "not for an admin to decide arbitrarily", actually it is an admin's job to review the legitimacy of a speedy allegation. For one thing, admins are the only people on Wikipedia who have the power to delete an article, so who else's decision would you possibly imagine it to be? Bearcat 23:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

So all that "communty consensus" stuff is just bullshit for the chumps who write for free for Jimbo, right? The cadres run the show.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.36.153 (talk • contribs)


Rating

This is a dreadful article. It is a complete attack piece that violates wiki rules re: bios of living people.70.68.127.172

This is an appropriate article. Wikipedia should report the deeds AND mis-deeds of people who have been involved in issues or controversies which have had a wide impact. Marsden's impact at SFU was enormous at the time.

Wide impact? Allegations and counter-allegations, all unproven, at an insignificant Canadian university ten years ago. Looks like the people who wrote this B-class article (i.e. substandard, not B-grade) are too close to the story.

Re-editing

This article has been re-edited to comply with the Wikipedia policy regarding biographies of living people (see box top of the page). All allegations that have not been proven in court have been removed, as have all deragotory material, "scandal" not connected to her role as a pundit, and all insinuations.142.78.190.137 15:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

BLP does not entitle you to remove properly sourced material. It entitles established Wikipedia editors to remove unsourced material. "Not proven in court" does not make an allegation that's very much a matter of public record invalid for inclusion in Wikipedia; it only makes it invalid to treat said allegation as a proven fact rather than an allegation.
Oh, and just by the by, I looked up your IP number, and it resolves to the National Library of Canada, which rather severely limits any mystery about this. Bearcat 17:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The writers twist unsubstantiate allegastions and untried claims to discredit a conservative columnist. Bearcat is a supporter of the socialist New Democrats and grinds his axes here. This article violates in both spirit and practice the wiki policy re bios of living persons.Arthur Ellis 19:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

It violates policy in no way, shape or form; the key word that you're obviously not grokking here is unsourced material. BLP does not state that an article cannot contain any potentially negative material; it only states that such material must be properly sourced, which everything in this article is. And any claim that I let personal political biases influence my editing is utterly laughable; in fact, I'm quite well-known on Wikipedia as a person who doesn't let my own beliefs interfere with the responsibility to keep material neutral and verifiable, so much so that even homophobic editors have come to me, an openly gay man, to NPOV overly contentious political statements in biographies of gay activists, because they knew that I'm good at keeping my personal beliefs in check and making sure that articles stay in balance. So you can damn well stuff the attempts to discredit my admin skills in this dispute. Frankly, I don't actually have any personal opinions about Rachel Marsden; my only interest here is in ensuring that Wikipedia's rules are followed, and the only one breaking any of them here is you. Bearcat 21:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't buy it. Can you say you have no biases on this subject? Can you honestly say the entry is NPOV, written as though a Brit or an American wrote it? It's a hack job, and I am not breaking any rules by fixing it. If you think I am wrong, take it to ArbCom. This drive-by smear has lasted long enough. Arthur Ellis 21:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't give a rat's ass what you do or don't buy. The disputed material is properly sourced, and yes, I can honestly say I have no biases either way with regards to Rachel Marsden. Again: the key word under BLP policy is SOURCED; any claim that the disputed material here is unsourced is entirely without basis in fact. Bearcat 21:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Read policy re: bios of living people. Edit block me and I will go to ArbCom and go after your adminship. Ask HOTR what that's like.Arthur Ellis 22:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

For the last fucking goddamned time: the material in question DOES NOT VIOLATE BLP. The BLP policy does not prohibit anything that any random editor considers "negative" material; it prohibits UNSOURCED negative material. PROPERLY SOURCED material, such as the sections you're disputing here, is not prohibited under any Wikipedia policy; REMOVAL of properly sourced material from an article IS prohibited under Wikipedia's vandalism policy. In fact, I don't know how many times we've had to explain to you that Wikipedia's neutral point of view and autobiography policies explicitly PROHIBIT Rachel Marsden herself, or anybody who knows her personally, from having ANY say in the content of this article. Bearcat 22:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


Then let's go to mediation or ArbCom on this. You know this is a smear. You know this article has been criticised by Jimbo Wales. Just because articles are "sourced" does not meen selected facts an allegations have not been strung together to create a smear. All outside people who've read this artice (Wales, the Wiki Bio rating people) say this article is substandard. You are biased. Bucketsofg, with his Grewal fetish (anonymous coward that he is) is also biased on this article. Maybe you should chat with (the late) Homey about smears and smaering.Arthur Ellis 22:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

You will either prove that Bucketsofg and I are "biased" — and not by meaningless conjecture about our political affiliations, but by actual demonstrated facts about our actual editing with regards to Rachel Marsden herself — or you will retract the allegation at once. And again: the material in question DOES NOT VIOLATE BLP; you can repeat the patently false claim that it does until you're blue in the face, but that won't make it true. Let's see a direct quote from the BLP policy page, shall we?
If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. Bearcat 22:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Jimbo's commentsd on the article tone were made in 2005; the article's gone through several hundred revisions since then and his comments that were relevant then are not necessarily relevant to the article's state as of September 2006. Nice misrepresentation, "Arthur". Ianking 17:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's go to mediation or arbitration on this.Arthur Ellis 23:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

There are no grounds for a mediation or arbitration on this; the very policy you're citing explicitly states that properly sourced negative material stays in the article. Bearcat 23:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


WK:BIO Policy: Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. While a strategy of eventualism may apply to other subject areas, badly written biographies of living persons should be stubbed or deleted.

The article should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable third party sources have published about the subject and, in some circumstances, what the subject may have published about themselves. The writing style should be neutral, factual, and understated, avoiding both a sympathetic point of view and an advocacy journalism point of view.

And that is exactly what the article does -- the material is drawn from well-known third-party sources and even court records. This includes the subject's misadventures at SFU, the calls to the police and allegations of further harassment (and the allegations are relevant given her history of stalking and harassment), and the reception from other conservative media. The article overall may leave a negative impression, but that is unsurprising given the subject's well-documented history. The article is not presented in a partisan manner (the only partisanship on this page has been the smearing of one editor), nor is the writing style over-the-top; it is quite subdued. You are conflating lurid subject matter with sensationalistic presentation of same.
NPOV does not mean false balance or that an article must leave a neutral impression. Knock it off with the blanking unless you are able to show that the material should be removed due to verifiable inaccuracy or can cogently argue that it is irrelevant to the subject. Ianking 17:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
The article does document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable third party sources have published about the subject. The writing style is neutral, factual and understated, and avoids points of view. NPOV does not mean you have the right to bury properly documented material just because it's inconvenient. Bearcat 21:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


Then why are you afraid to put that case to mediators?Arthur Ellis 18:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

There's absolutely no fear involved. What there is, quite simply, is the fact that you simply don't have a legitimate case for taking this to mediation in the first place. Bearcat 01:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

This does look like a good candidate for arbitration as it would better define the policy re: biographies of living persons.Craigleithian 23:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Article disputes

I am aware there is some kind of content dispute going on, but what are the problems??

  • 1. What is the nature of the dispute (content, BLP, etc.)??
  • 2. Who are the main participants in this dispute??
  • 3. How can we resolve this peacefully?? (not via RFA, but possibly another mediation case etc.)?

If you are able to answer these 3 questions in a detailed manner, then I can help, hopefully. --LiverpoolCommander 12:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration

A Request for arbitration has been filed regarding the editing of this article, alleging that it is not edited in accordance with Biographies of living people. Thatcher131 20:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


The "Request for Mediation" template I posted has, for some reason, disappeared.Arthur Ellis 17:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Questions

I'm new to this page, so set me right if I am pestering you about something that is already resolved. In the references #3, what does "circumstances of production unclear" mean? I see in several of the references archives at bucketsdata.wordpress.com. What is that exactly? Tom Harrison Talk 00:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

That looks like a blog that keeps reproductions of television transcripts and press articles. I am going to take a wild guess and say it is run by User:Bucketsofg for the purposes of providing linkable citations. Geedubber 00:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration or not, the parts that violate policy need to come out: in particular, controversial material cited to now-dead links. I still have concerns with "circumstances of production unclear," and the use of an editor's personal weblog to store citations. Tom Harrison Talk 16:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The primary issue is that Arthur Ellis has recommenced the very same disputed edits that are the subject of the arbitration in the first place, even though for obvious reasons the arbitrators need to be able to see the material they're arbitrating. I have no problem with a disinterested party making other changes to the article in the meantime; what can't happen is Arthur removing the very material that the arbitrators need to be able to see to review the case. Bearcat 17:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
By all means go through a pull the dead links, and any controversial material that depends on them. If I recall correctly, 'circumstances of production unclear' alludes merely to the fact that we don't know the exact date of production. Bucketsofg 17:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Or anything else about its production. Welcome, Tom, to the Bucketsofsmear. Arthur Ellis 17:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

First, I appreciate your edit summary. No apology is needed. I completely understand that sometimes it is unreasonably difficult to do anything other than revert, even over 'good' edits. I've done the same myself, so no problem there. But, you put back the dead links I commented out, and possibly material that was supported by them. Surely you would want to take them out again, or justify their continued inclusion. It's specious to say that the article must be unchanged so the arbitrators can see it. They can see it perfectly well in the history, with diffs, or by linking to a specific version. If you want the page protected from editing, there is a mechanism to request that. If you want to include a link to her c.v., that's great as long as the reader can verify that it is her c.v.Tom Harrison Talk 19:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Tom. I've removed the references to the old c.v., which if I recall correctly was just a little bit older than the one available in the archive.org version of Marsden's old website. This leaves her work as a young Liberal un-referenced, but that is surely trivial. I'll see what I can do to replace it. Bucketsofg 19:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Critical material is being given undue weight

This article is overwhelmed by critical material. The 'controversies' sections may be well-sourced, but this does not shield the article from concerns about undue weight. This material should be trimmed or other biographical material added to balance out the article. Those opposed to her activities for whatever reason are doing their side no favor by making the article look like it was written by her die-hard opponents, leading those who read it to dismiss its contents out of hand (unjustifiably, since it is well-sourced). - Merzbow 22:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Citations

The reference "2 June 1999, The Toronto Star" does not mention her graduation, degree, or subsequent education. Is it maybe supposed to go somewhere else? Tom Harrison Talk 19:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Hmm. Not sure. It might be a vestige from an earlier version that referred to her returning to campus to study. It perhaps should be replaced with a working link to the internetarchive c.v. Bucketsofg 21:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

This is the paragraph on Marsden from B.C. Business Magazine, November, 2002, by Robin Brunet:

Career wrecker "Fifty per cent of people want to sleep with me, and the other 50 per cent want to kill me," Rachel Marsden confessed to this scribe in November 1997. The SFU student's allegations of sexual harassment by swim coach Liam Donnelly led to his dismissal earlier that year. Then Donnelly triggered a media firestorm by producing evidence that Marsden had harassed him. Marsden was last heard blaming the press for raking her over the coals; which is ironic, since she took a journalism program at BCIT and resurfaced briefly last August to apply for an editorial job at The Vancouver Courier. (Her application was rejected.)

Tom Harrison Talk 20:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

It looks like footnote 3 is her c.v. from 2002-02-01. Anyone think otherwise?

  • Yes, that must be right. Bucketsofg 21:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Note 4, "Brian Hutchinson, "Canada's 'Republican Babe of the Week'...National Post, 9 August 2003, A21, discussed by Antonia Zerbisias, May 2005" - I do not find this article in the National Post. Some other paper maybe? Zerbisias' blog entry is about Marsden, but does not mention such an article. Tom Harrison Talk 20:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

  • The National Post is correct, but for some reason is not in lexis-nexis. If you have access to Factiva, you'll find it there. Otherwise I have an archive copy here Bucketsofg
  • If you look at the Zerbisias post again, you'll find a long quote from this article in the bottom half of the post (right below "Marsden landing at the Post would come as rather startling news, especially since, in August 2003, the paper published a less-than-flattering profile of her.") Bucketsofg 22:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I'll see what I can find. In other circumstances everyone would thank you for maintaining a useful archive(and let you worry about your own copyright problems, if any.) In the circumstances, you probably appreciate that people look askance at you maintaining and citing your own collection of biographical information the subject. Tom Harrison Talk 21:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I can see that, but it makes it easy to consult. Bucketsofg 22:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I found it on Lexis-Nexis by searching all sources. It comes up there, but not in the specific search for some reason. Tom Harrison Talk 22:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
That's useful to know. Thanks. Bucketsofg 22:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

What to do when a reference link "goes dead"

Just so everybody knows the policy, from Wikipedia:Citing sources:

When a link in the Reference section (a link to a source for information in the article) "goes dead", it should be repaired or replaced if possible. External links/Further reading sections are not as important, but should also be fixed. Often, a live substitute link can be found. In most cases, one of the following approaches will preserve an acceptable citation.

  • A very large proportion of pages can be recovered from the Internet Archive. Just go to http://www.archive.org/ and search for the old link by URL. Make sure that your new citation mentions the date the page was archived by the Internet Archive.
  • If this was a non-blind citation of web-only material, it may be worth the effort to search the target site for an equivalent page at a new location, an indication that the whole site has moved, etc.
  • If the link was merely a "convenience link" to an online copy of material that originally appeared in print, and an appropriate substitute cannot be found, it is acceptable to drop the link but keep the citation.
  • If you cannot find the page on the Internet Archive, remember that you can often find recently deleted pages in Google's cache. They won't be there long, and it is no use linking to them, but this may let you find the content, which can be useful in finding an equivalent page elsewhere on the Internet and linking to that.

If none of those strategies succeed, do not remove the inactive reference, but rather record the date that the original link was found to be inactive — even inactive, it still records the sources that were used, and it is possible hard copies of such references may exist, or alternatively that the page will turn up in the near future in the Internet Archive, which deliberately lags by six months or more. When printed sources become outdated, scholars still routinely cite those works

Geedubber 12:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I think controversial material in biographies of living people should be removed, and not replaced until verifiably cited to reliable sources. Tom Harrison Talk 13:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I would agree, but deadlinks do not necessarily equal a poor source. The reason I posted the above info was to inform others that deadlinks can be 'fixed' to meet the guidelines. Geedubber 13:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the only real difference with biographies is the immediacy. If we were talking about King Henry, we could wait a few weeks. Tom Harrison Talk 13:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Removed because it's controversial? No, it should be removed if it can't be reliably sourced, and the lack of a link to a site where the material can be accessed at no charge should not invalidate material -- reliability and proper citation are what matter. That should be the rule for any material, positive or negative, controversial or less so, bio of a living person or a dead one. Ianking 19:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Like it or not, biographies of living people are different. There is nothing wrong with citing stuff available only in print. If the citation is to a newspaper, the cite is still good if a convenience link goes dead. If the citation is to a resource that was only available online, and the online source ceases to be available, the information that was supported by that citation has to come out, unless it is something non-controversial that did not really require a citation in the first place. Tom Harrison Talk 20:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank-you for your attention to this, Tom. The only other point that should be noted is that deadlinks in BLPs are really only problematic if their point is controversial or negative. Obviously,when a link goes dead, it should be replaced with a live one, as has been done here. But if all the old cvs disappear from the Internet Archive, it would not be necessary to remove the fact that the subject's major was biology, no? Bucketsofg 20:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Only if it somehow became controversial. Tom Harrison Talk 20:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
it doesn't really matter anymore (for this page anyways), but the WP:BLP doesn't actually say that explicitly (unless I'm reading it wrong -- I'll ask for clarification on the BLP page). Geedubber 22:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

balance tag

Since an unbalanced tag has been added and neutral/positive information called for, it might be useful if people put below what might be added. Bucketsofg 13:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Very useful would be if someone could add a paragraph on Marsden's political writing.
  • Also useful would be if someone can add something about Marsden's old radio show in Vancouver.
  • At ArbComm, Fred Bauder suggested "What is obviously lacking is strong positive statements by prominent persons such as Bill O'Reilly who admire and support her."

Speedy delete

Fred Bauder says at Arbcom this is a candidate for speedy delete. I agree. Arthur Ellis 18:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of speedy delete proposal

Arthur has recommended this page for speedy deletion[4] arguing that it is an "attack page" and therefore speedy deletable per General Criterion Number 10 of the speedy deletion policy."

  • Oppose: I don't think this case is appropriate for speedy deletion. First, this page is currently the subject of an arbitration that may resolve all issues. Not only would I like to see how that plays out before the page is deleted, deleting the page would prevent the non-admins from using its history as evidence. Second, I don't agree that this is an attack page -- particularly before the arbitration finishes up, I am a long way away from concluding that it was "created for the sole purpose of disparaging" Ms. Marsden. TheronJ 18:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


Perhaps you should read Bauder's comments today.Arthur Ellis 21:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Also, for what it's worth, Fred also thinks that you are barred from editing this page.[6] TheronJ 21:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Not to mention that fact that Fred wants to give editors a chance to clean up the article. Arthur is quoting Fred selectively, I'm afraid. Thatcher131 21:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, Fred's right on some things, wrong on others. Several times, he says this page is a speedy delete candidate. I can't see how this version can be fixed. I will try reducing it to a stub.Arthur Ellis 21:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Best to let it go. Fred Bauder 21:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Revert to Geedubber

I've reverted back to Geedubber. Tom harrison's edit was a revert to October 9th and removed a few small improvements by (among others) Marsden herself. I suggest that for now, pending the outcome of the arbitration case, that we leave it more or less as is. Morgan, at least, has to stay. The fact that she was arrested, charged, and pled guilty is surely relevant to an article on her. The statement of facts was agreed between her lawyer and the crown prosecutor. Bucketsofg 23:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Arthur Ellis' revert

I think this revert [7] by User:Arthur Ellis is not vandalism, but an attempt to bring the page into compliance with WP:BLP, as discussed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rachel Marsden/Workshop. Tom Harrison Talk 00:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but Ellis is banned from the page by a prior arbcom ruling. However, I am not sure Bucketsofg has accepted the direction indicated by Fred Bauder. I am going to take a stab at it tonight per Fred's comments, but I would like to eat dinner first. :) Thatcher131 00:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Oops, before I saw Thatcher's comment, I removed the O'Hagan and Boyd. That is, these two sections:
Marsden's complaint to the SFU harassment office had been handled by that office's director, Patricia O'Hagan, who later claimed Marsden showered her with unwanted attention. However, during the university's examination of its own procedures, SFU's administrator had faulted O'Hagan for her conduct with Marsden (see above). In October 1997, O'Hagan, who at that point had left the university's employ, complained to the Vancouver Sun that over the preceding 12 months, Marsden had sent her gifts and telephoned her some 400 times.[4]

In 1998, Marsden returned to SFU to study criminology. In May 1999, she was warned by the university to avoid locations where Neil Boyd, a criminology professor at SFU, might be found. Four months earlier, Boyd went to the police with copies of e-mail and voice mail from Marsden. He complained she had been asking Boyd, who was married, for dates. The university also asked Marsden to remove comments about Liam Donnelly (see above) from her website.[5] After the initial warnings, no further action was taken against Marsden.
I appreciate Fred's input, and welcome Tom harrison's, too, since he reacted strongly against the article's form. Fred made the point that the fact that something is in the newspaper is not itself sufficiently verifiable in these cases. We have to give serious thought to the reporters' sources, too. These two sections may fail that and so I remove them while we discuss. Bucketsofg 00:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
With all respect to Fred, he is only one of the arbitrators. It would be nice to wait for input from others arbitrators before we enact any major changes. Geedubber 00:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
What struck me was not merely his reaction, but the strength of it. That in itself is a sign that there's something wrong with the article. On the whole it seems to me that Thatcher's doing a good job and I like his version better than the old one and think it can become the basis of a better article. Bucketsofg 01:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Thatcher's version

As I note, I like the Thatcher version. A few notes. The best source for the Morgan business is the court decision, and since that is public, there should be a link to it. Anything else anyone saw? Bucketsofg 01:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Article rewrite

Major changes:

  • More chronological. Her media and current writing were split in two places
  • Removed Morgan, mostly. This is tangential and mainly of interest because of the firing from Grewal's staff. Added Marsden's explanation that Harper didn't like what she wrote about him.
  • Pruned Donnelly affair: since this has its own article, no need to go into a huge hash. Also, I do not consider it healthy to repeat the charges both sides made against each other. The big news is that Donelly was rehired, 11 other cases were overturned, and the president quit.

Minor changes:

  • Converted most of the external links to references and removed external links that are already in the references
  • Moved to more standardized refs (giving a ref a name is only useful if you're going to use it more than once) and converted inline links to citations so the format is uniform.
  • Removed source links that went to sites that arguably violate copyright (two blogs that archived copyright newspaper articles)

The point:

  • The point, to me, is that Wikipedia is not a gossip site. Unless the main thrust of the article is that Marsden is a serial fabricator of harrassment claims, most of that stuff has to go. (If that was the point of the article, it would clearly be deletable since there are lots of people with relationship problems, and Marsden has never actually ben convicted of anything.) She's notable for two reasons, as the focus of a major upheaval at SFU, and as a conservative columnist. Morgan gets, and should get, a tangential mention only. You may disagree, but I also think the Bill O'Reilly article should not mention the naughty phone calls he made to a staffer, and the Hillary Clinton article should not mention persistent rumors of her infidelity. These things have nothing to do with the individual's "claim to fame" so to speak, and are only ever made public in the first place by opponents seeking to embarrass the subject. I am also quite dubious about the neutrality of a newspaper that begins a news story (not labeled as analysis or commentary) with "Rachel Marsden, the sex kitten political pundit whose contract with a B.C. Conservative MP was terminated Friday". I'd love to see the WashPost or NYTimes write an unbiased news article like that!
  • It would also be nice to have an actual encyclopedia article about Marsden's writings, you know, textual analysis and criticism. George Will is an opinion writer, but people also write about George Will. That sort of thing would be quite useful here.
  • I don't get the suggestion to wait for the other arbitrators. You think that an article that reports every salacious allegation, most of which are unproveable, unproven, or rebutted by Marsden, makes for a good article? I'm not even sure we should be citing an article titled The Strange Allure of Ms. Marsden: How does a serial stalker, convict and fraud artist end up Canada's hottest young conservative pundit? Quite easily, actually. What the heck kind of reporting is that? Or is it an opinion piece that happens to be carried in a regular newspaper. Not everything in a reliable source is reliable, sometimes, and I think articles that call the subject a "convict" in the headline (which is technically false, by the way) or a "sex kitten" need to be examined extra carefully. Thatcher131 02:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • selective crossposting of some comments from my talk page Thatcher131 13:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I think there is room for more content in the article. For example, have any media analysts written that Marsden's career as a commentator is due to the fact that the earlier controversy "made her a household name?" (For a U.S. commentator I would look for sources like Jeff Jarvis, Howie Kurtz, or Columbia Journalism Review, who are journalists who write meta-analysis of journalism itself.) I think it may be fair game to mention that earlier in her career she promoted herself partially on basis of her looks, creating a certain image involving provacative dress combined with provocative commentary; provided you can find reliable sources, or Marsden's own writings, that back this up, and noting that she has pulled back from this approach.
  • Anyway, I don't plan on becoming part of a continuing saga, or Marsden's next white knight. I made an attempt to address Fred's concerns while still keeping the essential content. I hope it ends up being useful in some way, if not I will have wasted a perfectly good hour on it. C'est la vie. Thatcher131 05:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
The evidence doesn't support an improper relationship? O'Hagan claimed that Marsden sent her chocolates, flowers, gifts, letters and tapes and called her up to 400 times. Marsden said their relationship was akin to a mother/daughter one, close and affectionate(direct quote). After Stubbs insisted O'Hagan end the relationship, Marsden sent a letter to the president threatening to commit suicide(the Vancouver Sun has a copy of the letter). Geedubber 09:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  1. The exact nature of the relationship is unknowable, even though both sides' allegations are printed in a newspaper.
  2. Even if there is reason to include the allegations, prior versions of the article did not present Marsden's side.
  3. If the relationship was a key factor in the Donnelly reversal, it should be mentioned in that article first. If it wasn't an important factor in the Donnelly case, there is certainly no reason to include it in the Marsden article, unless you want to paint her as a serial harrasser.
  4. It seems to me like the relationship was highly improper from O'Hagan and SFU's side of the equation but not from Marsden's side. Marsden had no particular duty not to date a college official; O'Hagan had every reason not to date a student (or at least recuse herself from the case) who had filed a complaint over which she had authority. (Unless you allege Marsden began the relationship specifically to influence the outcome of the Donnelly case, for which there is no proof whatsoever.)
I took my shot. This is my effort to balance the desire to write an encyclopedia article describing this person's career with the need to be respectful of living subjects and the desire that Wikipedia itself should be more respected than the National Equirer or the UK Sun. Your mileage may vary, of course. Thatcher131 11:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to my world. Arthur Ellis 14:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Western Standard and Canada Free Press

I reverted the U of Ottawa's edits as an obvious sock of Arthur. Nonetheless, I think he's right that this doesn't belong--neither the Western Standard or the CFP is very notable --so after reverting him I've deleted it and replaced it with a stubbish 'canadian conservatives divided'. I think there is room here for other comments from Conservative media: Peter Worthington and Margaret Wente have quotes for one side; not sure about the other. This maybe should be folded into the article somewhere (perhaps at the point of appointment to National Post?) Bucketsofg 17:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


You should cut your losses and leave the article alone. Arthur Ellis 18:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Deletion review of Marsden-Donnelly harassment case

The article on the 1997 Rachel Marsen sexual harassment case at SFU was recently speedy deleted, and is now up for deletion review. You can add comments here: Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_November_17#Marsden-Donnelly_harassment_case. Kla'quot 04:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


Now it's on AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marsden-Donnelly harassment case Kla'quot

Standards

I think the page as it is now satisfies our policy on biographies of living people. Does anyone think otherwise? Tom Harrison Talk 16:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Page protection

I've protected the page because of the reverting between the stub and the article, which often signifies a BLP issue, so we should err on the side of caution. Can someone explain the issue without going into any detail that might violate BLP? If that's not possible, please e-mail me instead. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 20:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

An Arbcom case about this article recently closed: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rachel Marsden. Arbcom felt that the version that existed at the beginning of the case placed undue weight on negative information. During the case, some editors rewrote the article. Nobody has complained about it since then except anon IPs who keep stubbing it.
As a result of Arbcom's decisions, Arthur Ellis (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser) is banned from this article. Tom Harrison's question above asks whether anyone still feels there are problems with the article. If the anon IPs turn out to be Arthur Ellis socks (which they very probably are), the current version of this article has had no complaints except from banned users.
Simplest solution: Switch from full protection to semi-protection to help keep sockpuppets away, and address any issues that are raised on this talk page as they arise. Kla'quot 05:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Kla'quot. Is Arthur Ellis someone with a personal connection to the issue, do we know?
The article does seem to emphasize the negative. One of the problems is that most of the sources aren't linked to; even one that gives the date it was accessed isn't linked. (Dave Breakenridge. "You've got (threatening) mail!", The Ottawa Sun, 2005-02-21, p. 17. Retrieved on November 23, 2006.) It means it's not easy to check that our article reflects the letter and spirit of the source material. Does anyone know why no links are given? SlimVirgin (talk) 05:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I found it on Lexis/Nexis. I don't have a web link for it. One user had been maintaining an on-line archive for linking convenience, but there were concerns about that (which I shared) raised in the arbitration. I don't think the page now is unbalanced toward the negative, but I suppose that is a judgement call. Tom Harrison Talk 14:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion

I've read through the ArbCom case and the talk pages. I think we have a very unfortunate situation here, in that we could construct an article that doesn't violate V and NOR, and yet still have one that violates the spirit of BLP because it would be unfair. If we were to remove the negative material, there wouldn't be enough left to justify an article — not everyone who's had a column published by the New York Post is notable enough for an article, and do we even know what is meant by "columnist"?

The material that's keeping this page afloat is the reporting of a series of embarrassing situations that boil down to inappropriate behavior in a young person, stories that might not have been written were she not an attractive woman, and conservative to boot. I think we should not do anything that resembles the behavior of an attack site, no matter how reliable our sources are, and these articles, even if carefully written, are always going to have that flavor to them.

I would like to err on the side of kindness in this case, and speedy delete this page and the harassment article, then protect both against recreation. Any thoughts? SlimVirgin (talk) 06:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The stories that you think might not have been written if she were not an attractive woman and a conservative were mostly written when she was a liberal. And many of them come from the most respected news sources in Canada.
Right now this article makes some people uncomfortable even though it follows policies. It does not fit our current defnition of an attack page. Perhaps policies could be revised to discourage, for example, including descriptions of embarassing youthful mistakes. However, I'd point out that a lot of well-sourced negative information has already been removed from this article. And we have plenty of bios of living people that are overwhelmingly negative.
Regarding speedy deletion, my thought is NO. Speedy deletion is for uncontroversial deletions and there is no way this would be an uncontroversial delete if it went through AfD. See the recent AfD debate for the harassment article. Let's figure this one out through the usual methods - discuss here and revise policies if necessary. Kla'quot 09:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I think the ArbCom case gives us justification enough for speedy deleting in this case, and in any event, this is a situation where IAR applies well.
The article was created as an attack page because she's right-wing; the same was done to a number of other people on the right. Most importantly, if you remove the harassment cases, there really isn't anything left that shows notability. What does she currently do for a living? Do we even know?
There's no question that her being an attractive young woman informed and directed press coverage, and we should take that into account too. But even newspapers will stop writing about her because she'll stop being newsworthy, and so Wikipedia will end up being the only thing keeping her past alive. Yes, we have other BLP pages that are overwhelmingly negative, but she is not Saddam Hussein. She's a young woman who made a series of bad mistakes in her personal life. To ensure that that haunts her forever is simply unkind and is not what an encyclopedia should be about. The judge in the harassment case ruled that she's of good character and deserves a chance to put this behind her. I don't think Wikipedia should decide we know better than the court.
Some of the previous versions of this article were awful: blogs being used as sources, discussions about her sexuality, about whether she really spoke French. It should, in truth, have been speedied a long time ago. That we now have a least-bad version doesn't mean it's good or viable.
There are several references on the web to the Wikipedia article about her, and even a couple of the websites that themselves criticize her, refer in negative terms to the Wikipedia page e.g. by saying it's "too gleeful," and words to that effect.
I think we need to stop harassing this woman, which is what the edit history of this page amounts to, and let her draw a line under that part of her life. Just to clarify, by the way, I have no connection to her or to anyone who knows her, and haven't even heard of her outside Wikipedia. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Does your logic apply to Daniel Brandt? -- Tuttovenuto 21:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it does. I deleted Daniel Brandt when he first asked that it be deleted, but someone restored it. The situation here is much worse, because the Brandt article wasn't negative; it was just that he didn't want it. This page is almost uniformly negative. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Having compared it to the earlier version, I may be judging this one too generously. If there is substantial doubt, we should err on the side of caution. Given the arbitration, and SlimVirgin's argument, I support speedy deletion per arbcom. If two years from now she is a notable journalist, we can write a balanced article then. Tom Harrison Talk 21:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree. The page has gotten better since I last commented on it above, but it's still mostly negative. If it wasn't for the ArbCom case I'd say it would be a borderline keep, but given the case and that the subject herself has expressed her distress over the page, I say nuke it. - Merzbow 02:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

{{hangon}}, I feel pretty strongly about this. Will write more this evening. Kla'quot 03:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks SV for asking for opinions. As I've commented here, I think an out-of-policy speedy deletion would be very harmful to the encyclopedia, not only because this particular article is worth keeping but also because speedying would have a chilling effect on criticism of public figures.

But she isn't really a public figure. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think IAR applies here. The main purpose of IAR is to prevent policy-creep. In this case, policy should creep. Negative BLPs are common enough to warrant an expansion of policy. Arbcom did not say that the version of the page that existed at closing constituted an attack page.

I forget the exact words but they said any version deemed inappropriate by an admin could be deletede, or words to that effect. Process-wise, there's no problem here. It's a judgment call.

We need clear policy on where the border is between a negative BLP and a harassing one, because decisions made on a gut-feel level will inevitably reflect the biases that we all have. For example, if we had an article on a male journalist, I don't think we'd hesitate to mention that he had served a year of probation for criminal harassment. When the subject of the article is female, the reaction tends to be different.

Yes, it's different and often more negative. We don't mention that she served a year's probation. We dwell on the entire issue over two articles, which is absurd given how borderline notable she is. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

My opinion, reflecting my own biases, is that I do not think this page was created for purposes of harassment. The subject of this article writes a column every week and regularly goes on TV in order to influence public opinion on politics.

Okay, this is what I wasn't able to find out. Can you say how you know she has a weekly column, and how often she appears on television? SlimVirgin (talk) 04:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

This article may have been created to raise questions about her credibility, which I see as fair given that she is in a profession that demands it (note that we don't avoid talking about the personal mistakes of Mel Gibson).

Which profession is she actually in, though? SlimVirgin (talk) 04:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd definitely be inclined to support deletion if I felt that the world would be a better place without this article, but right now I think the world is a better place with it.

I'm not seeing "distress" from the subject; "indignation" is more like it: "The obsession with some Wikipedia editors/participants with my sex and/or personal life has become quite tedious. Although my husband finds it rather amusing."

In summary, I might not object to having this article deleted if policies were first expanded in order to ensure that deletions are applied fairly. I suggest we take this discussion over to Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons where we can speak in terms of "imaginary person x." I have to strongly object to out-of-policy deletion as the potential for chilling effect and bias is significant, and because building consensus/improving policy would be a so-much-better route. There is no urgency to delete a protected stub. I would strongly object to deleting the article on the harassment case and so would at least 13 other people, as the record on that one shows. Kla'quot 04:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

This isn't out of process, if my understanding of the ArbCom ruling is correct. If you look through the edit history and the talk pages, Wikipedia seems to have been involved in harassment of this person. Whether we intended to is beside the point. Whether she's distressed or indignant is beside the point. The fact is that we've written a series of rotten articles using poor sources for some of the points, about a living person whose life we've almost certainly affected negatively. I don't understand how Wikipedia or the world could possibly be better off for this article existing, and ditto the other one. Who benefits from having them? Who might benefit from reading them? There's also been a suggestion that the person involved in the harassment case has edited this or the other article, and a blog belonging to an editor was apparently used as a source. The whole thing is very messy; policy violations as far as the eye can see. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)\

I strongly oppose speedy deletion, which would set an extremely bad precedent. Rachel Marsden is a public figure in Canada, albeit a minor one, and there is no reason why a properly sourced article on the subject should not be maintained. CJCurrie 04:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

What profession is she in?

(breaking this out for clarity, feel free to move it into the thread if you think it's better)

In response to SV's question:

Do we have any independent sources for that material? Also, CJCurrie writes that she is a minor public figure in Canada. Can anyone give an example of an article about her that isn't about the harassment claims? SlimVirgin (talk) 04:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

What "material" do you need independent sources for?? This is Rachel Marsden's own website containing a list of her own appearances and all her columns (as well as the text of the columns themselves). Is there any doubt about what she does for a living, that needs to be cleared up by an independent source? Kla'quot 04:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
The reason I ask is that disputes of this kind are often solved by a rigid application of the content policies, which state that self-published sources may be used in articles about the subject, but only with caution and not where they're unduly self-promoting. Therefore, I think it would be a good idea to find as many third-party sources for the various claims as we can, instead of relying on the self-published stuff. For example, as I asked above, if she's a public figure, are there articles about her in the mainstream press that aren't exclusively about the harassment incidents? SlimVirgin (talk) 04:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
SV, the question I was answering was: "Okay, this is what I wasn't able to find out. Can you say how you know she has a weekly column, and how often she appears on television?". I provided this information from a source that I think you'd agree is reliable even though it is, um, self-published. As for the "various claims," yes we need to have sources for those that are not self-published. Kla'quot 05:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
My suggestion is that we try not relying on Marsden as a source at all, and see what we have left, apart from the harassment claims. My guess is not much, if anything. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Marsden has written several nationally syndicated articles. It's true that the stalking and harassment stories make up the bulk of her media coverage, but that's only to be expected.
In case anyone's unclear on this point, it should be stated for the record that Marsden's harassment claims were a significant national news story in 1997. I could show you over fifty media references to the story from that year alone (and that's not counting the tabloids). CJCurrie 04:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't matter. Articles about living persons should not be overwhelmingly negative, period. This used to be explicitly stated in BLP (not sure why not anymore). - Merzbow 05:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Who says the article needs to be overwhelmingly negative? The best option, IMO, would be to give equal space to her private controversies and to her journalistic work. CJCurrie 05:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Deletion

The arbcom remedy says the article may be deleted by any admin if it violates WP:LIVING, so an immediate deletion is not out of process. The only question would be whether or not it violates WP:LIVING. That is a judgement call, and we should err on the side of caution, being careful in this case to adhere to a conservative interpretation of policy, also per arbcom ruling. I'm deleting the page, but leaving this talk page for now for discussion and feedback. Tom Harrison Talk 16:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Tom, the article you deleted was a two or three-sentence stub saying something along the lines of, "Rachel Marsden is a political columnist." How did it violate a conservative interpretation of WP:LIVING? Also now that non-admins can't see any version of this page except the one cached by Google, how can we engage in discussion and feedback? Kla'quot 16:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Now instead of the two or three-sentence stub, it contains a notice that it has been deleted, which was basically the case before. I understand you object to the deletion. What is the mechanism for appealing deletions made under WP:LIVING? Not a rhetorical question, I really don't know. Tom Harrison Talk 16:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I believe the process is to start by asking the deleting admin to undelete the page. Tom, could you please undelete the page? Can we have at least a one-week amnesty on speedy deletion so that we can continue to have a good-faith discussion? Also I don't understand what you mean by "which was basically the case before" - can you rephrase this? Kla'quot 16:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
The deleted page notice might be more informative than a permanent three-line stub. There has been active discussion of this for some time now, including arbitration. I don't see how undeletion would be useful. Tom Harrison Talk 16:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
You said you are "leaving this talk page for now for discussion and feedback," so I took that to mean that you are not trying to close all discussion. In order to have discussion, we need to be able to see the page history, which nobody except admins can do now. I believe there is something like history-only-undeletion, which will leave the delete-protected notice in front but allow viewing the history tab. Does this sound reasonable? By the way, I know that speedying a page that has been speedy-kept twice is going to be... controversial and I'm surprised that arbcom gave admins a mandate to do it. I appreciate the fact that you guys have a thankless job here. Kla'quot 17:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
And do you still think that the three-line stub you deleted violated WP:LIVING? Kla'quot 17:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I do not think that is the only criteria to apply. Any page could be made compliant as a short enough stub. I think arbcom mentioned deletion as an option becuase that may be a better choice than stubbing. I don't think undeleting material that violated policy would be useful. Undeleting a stub would just show a stub, which is also not useful. Maybe others disagree. Tom Harrison Talk 18:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't think we should have a positive stub, because that leaves all the negative material unmentioned, which would also be inappropriate. The best solution is to draw a line under the entire affair, and have no article at all. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I have managed to read the ArbCom material and I am left wondering why the ArbCom clerk simply did not delete or stub this article and the Marsden-Donnelly Harassment Case article. Both are over-kill and are heavily slanted. Perhaps Canadians believe this case is important, but it really is of no consequence in Canada or anywhere else. There was no great precedent in law here, and someone with an open mind can come to the conclusion that nothing really was resolved. Both sides claimed harsassment by the other, and both sides walked away with a wad of money and their status as student and teacher intact. I suggest ditching the entire thing, and I agree with Slim Virgin's comments. She's not an important enough person to have her scandals reported, and her scandals are not important enough to be used to destroy an unimportant person. Time to move on. Stompin' Tom 18:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if the harassment case page should also come down, or if it can somehow be fixed. Are there similar pages on real, precdent-setting cases in other jurisdictions? Should there, perhaps, be a good Wikipedia entry on sexual harassment in academia, rather than either (a) an entry on this case, which really was never properly settled; and (b) an entry, or entries, on a number of similar cases. If this is the only Wikipedia entry on sexual harassment in academia, or is the sum total of Wikipedia writing on the issue, something is seriously wrong.Stompin' Tom 21:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Should we get a clarification from ArbCom if they want to construe their ruling as also applying to harrassment case article? There's little point in blanking this article but leaving that up there. - Merzbow 21:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the remedy applies to any page that relates to her, but there's no harm in asking. Tom Harrison Talk 23:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
You're right, the remedy titled "Articles which relate to Rachel Marsden" directly applies, there is no need to ask for clarification. - Merzbow 23:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Let's continue this particular discussion on the Talk page of the harassment case article. - Merzbow 23:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the harassment case should be deleted, and the ArbCom ruling certainly applies to it. It set no precedent; it ended up not being clear what had happened; both sides walked away with a sum of money; and there was no international interest that I'm aware of. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

How exactly does it violate BLP to mention a harrassment case that received significant national coverage? CJCurrie 05:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The deletion was perhaps valid under the Arbcom decision, but salting the page and stating that better no article at all than something that could be produced as a neutral piece stating who she is with some reference to both her achievements and her controversies seems overkill to me. A weekly columnist and commentator on major networks in the US should qualify for an article that can meet the BLP considerations. Tony Fox (arf!) 07:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

As a member of the ArbCom I feel the deletion of this article was inappropriate, and runs counter to our efforts to help diffuse the situation and allow a neutral article to be created. While we all suport the principle that a grossly unbalanced biography should be deleted, we certainly did not find that this page in its current state qualified. Work should either immediately begin on a new neutral article, hopefully with participation from all sides, or work should continue on improving the previous one. - SimonP 14:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Let me amend my earlier comment to state that an immediate undeletion is not necessarily in order, but we do need to begin the discussion of what steps are going to be taken to create a neutral NPOV article on Ms. Marsden. - SimonP 16:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I do not think we can write a biography that is balanced, sourced, and conforms to policy. I agree with SlimVirgin that the best thing to do is move on. Maybe in a couple of years there will be the material from which to write a good biography. But, I could be wrong, and SimonP suggests I have misunderstood arbcom's intent. I know little about Canadian politics, so I don't really have much I can usefully contribute here. I'm confident that I have left the article in a state the does not violate policy, whatever else its shortcomings. From this point on, I think the article will be best maintained by people with the interest and knowledge to do a good job. Tom Harrison Talk 20:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
The arbitrators say at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification that protection is inappropriate at this point, so I have unprotected the page. Tom Harrison Talk 22:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't see this until after I'd protected. Tom, feel free to unprotect if you prefer; and also say in the edit summary that I'm okay with it so it doesn't look like you're wheel-warring. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 04:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I've done it myself. Apologies again for not reading this page carefully enough. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
No problem; you naturally mistook my lurching around for purposful activity. ;-) Tom Harrison Talk 15:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Being a lurcher arounder myself, I appreciate your forebearance. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 21:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Getting started again

The article being completely blank looks really bad, and seems to have drawn a bit of vandalism; would everyone be amenable to my creating a very basic stub to replace it along with an "in progress" tag? I'm not sure that I'm the right person to generate a more extensive article, but I can at least put together a couple of sentences that can be expanded on. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

My preference would be to have no article, because I don't see this person as notable enough, the harassment case apart. But if there's to be one, it might be a good idea for it to be written by people not previously involved in this page so that fresh sets of eyes evaluate the source material and start a rewrite from scratch. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I've never touched this article before now, I'm just disappointed that it was deleted so abruptly. I do feel that she's notable enough for an article, as a former columnist with a national newspaper, current columnist for a large paper in Canada's largest city, and with numerous appearances on several Fox News shows including O'Reilly, as well as the national coverage from the harassment case. However, being in the media and from Vancouver, I'm not sure it's a good idea for me to take the lead on this. I have started collecting some online sources, if anyone who's completely outside of the situation wants to give it a shot. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm taking an indefinite break from this article and the harassment article. This discussion has been too stressful for me already. Kla'quot 03:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Tony, I suppose I wonder why someone who has a column is notable enough. We can't have articles on every single person in the world who writes a column. The thing that makes her notable, it seems to me, is the harassment stuff, and that makes it impossible to write an article that's fair; plus she was very young etc etc — all the reasons already given by others. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
She wasn't "very young" -- she was in her twenties. CJCurrie 06:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
My view is that mistakes people make in their early twenties shouldn't be held against them by Wikipedia forever, especially if the mainstream media has stopped writing about it, and if the issue didn't lead to court action. We're an encyclopedia, not a tattoo service. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, she was 28 during the harrassment situation. And the mainstream media hasn't stopped writing about it: the right-wing National Post brought up her controversies during the last federal election. CJCurrie 01:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I thought it happened while she was at university. Regardless, the reason you're interested is that she's right-wing and you disagree with her, which is why the article was started in the first place, and that's what concerns me about this situation. We're not in the business of publishing attack pages. If you don't like someone, the best idea is to let someone else start an article on them. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
28-year-olds can attend university, though I believe you're confusing the two situations.
You also seem to be seriously misinformed as to both my intentions and my past involvement with this page. I've been following the "Marsden controversy" for several months, and am concerned that removing the contested information, which received significant national press coverage and is entirely relevant to the subject, would set a terrible precedent. My opinion of Marsden is not the point at issue; I can assure you that I would have the same concerns if she were a left-wing columnist. I do not believe that we should sensationalize her past, but neither do I believe that we should conceal it.
Also, if you take the time to review the Marsden article's page history, you'll notice that I haven't made a single edit to the piece. Not one. I'm somewhat puzzled, as such, by your assertion that the article was created because I "disagree with her". CJCurrie 04:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I didn't say the article was created because you disagree with her, but because she's right-wing, and you're not puzzled, you know exactly what I mean. You and the editor who started this page worked together on a number of similar articles about right-wing figures you oppose. I think that kind of editing should be avoided, because it causes the subject to feel, rightly or wrongly, that they're not getting a fair deal from Wikipedia. I'm not going to carry on arguing about it, except to repeat that I hope any rewrite is done by people not previously involved in the situation. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Regardless, the reason you're interested is that she's right-wing and you disagree with her, which is why the article was started in the first place. I think you kind of did say that the article was created because I disagree with her, even if you meant to say something a bit different.
In any event, I completely disagree with your characterization of this situation. You might want to review Wikipedia:Assume Good Faith before responding further. CJCurrie 04:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
If you can show me links to highly critical articles about left-wing figures where you've either contributed to the criticism or expressed support for its existence, I'll be more careful to AGF. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
That's pretty inappropriate. Hornplease 07:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I can assure you I have, though I don't feel like hunting for page diffs right now. If you really want proof, I can provide it. CJCurrie 05:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, please, that would be helpful. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, SlimVirgin, the onus is on you to show concrete evidence to back up your assertion that CJCurrie's edit history does betray an ongoing bias problem, not on him to prove that it doesn't. Because quite frankly, having frequently had opportunity to become familiar with CJ's editsy, I can tell you right now: his edits have never, in and of themselves, given away where he would place himself on the political spectrum. He's one of the only editors I can think of, in fact, whose political party affiliations I've never been able to deduce from the balance of his edit history. Bearcat 03:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
The columnist thing - writing for major Canadian newspapers (and I link to that article as it has a large list of linked articles for people, many of whom are just columnists) - combined with, from a search through the *shudder* O'Reilly Factor archives, about 16 appearances on that show as well as other Fox News-related shows, from her IMDB profile, I think provides a good level of notability. The national coverage of her harassment cases and other activities adds to that. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


Almost all support for this article comes from Canada, and most notably Vancouver, and is apparently all male. I would feel more secure about an article on this person if the case set some kind of precedent, or if she was of more notability. This sexual harassment case ended with no real decision, except to re-instate both the student and the teacher and to pay settlements to them both. I would possibly agree to an article if charges had been laid or there had been a civil case. Are there other Wikipedia articles about campus sexual harassment allegations from any other country? Are they broken out into separate cases? The whole thing seems awfully provincial. Just because it was in Canadian newspapers does not make it important. As ArbCom says, better no article than an attack article. I see the earlier versions as feminist-bashing, women-bashing, and a sort of retaliatory rape of Marsden's reputation for having made this accusation. As for her being a Toronto Sun columnist, how many other Sun columnists have Wikipedia entries? Stompin' Tom 23:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad someone else mentioned the gender issue, because I felt uncomfortable raising it, but I did notice that most of those supporting and editing this article are male. Maybe that's true of all articles, because there are more men than women editors. But it adds to my sense of unease. Here we have a right-wing young woman being criticized almost entirely by left-wing young men, and at times being viciously and personally attacked, and her sexuality discussed. As I said before, I think we should have no article, rather than an attack page, but if we must have something, I hope it can be written from scratch by people not previously involved, and preferably by people who don't know or care about the politics. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
and at times being viciously and personally attacked — would you mind terribly enlightening me where and when this happened? Citing chapter and verse of what was said about her that somehow constituted an attack? And would you mind terribly backing up that unsupported assertion that gender bashing had anything to do with it? I'm quite demonstrably one of the most ardent pro-feminists anywhere on Wikipedia, male or female, so you are hereby invited — no, actually, I take that back, it's a flat-out order, not an invitation — to retract the insinuation, intended or not, that my interest in this article had any kind of "feminist-attacking" basis. You're certainly free to think whatever the hell you want, but I'm most certainly not going to stand silent while you spread outright lies about any group of people on Wikipedia that includes me. Bearcat 03:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
You mean you never supported the inclusion of a newspaper article named "The Strange Allure of Ms. Marsden: How does a serial stalker, convict and fraud artist end up Canada's hottest young conservative pundit? Quite easily, actually"? Now that the history is gone, there's nothing concrete to point to, but let's string together some trails of logic from the ArbCom case:
Findings of Fact #7 (passed 6-0): Bearcat and Bucketsofg: ...He was joined by Bucketsofg "revert to Bearcat" "revert (present article conforms to BLP-policy)" [2]. Bearcat [3]. Bearcat then protected the article in its negative form [4].
Findings of Fact #9 (passed 6-0): The negatively biased version: The typical negatively biased version of Rachel Marsden contains elaborate negative information, but very little positive or neutral information. It usually features this external link: The Strange Allure of Ms. Marsden: How does a serial stalker, convict and fraud artist end up Canada's hottest young conservative pundit? Quite easily, actually by Kevin Steel published in the Western Standard, July 11, 2005. (PDF file)
Hmm. If the inclusion of an article of that name isn't a 'vicious and personal attack', then I want to know what is. - Merzbow 03:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Not to beat a dead horse but I have to agree with Bearcat on the gender issue. I generally agree with a lot of what SV has to say but some of that sent chills down my Wikipedian spine. I've always been a big believer in the "anyone can edit" philosophy which welcomes me on the main page every day. I'd like to think that the left-wing males out there have every right to make the same bad edits as anyone else. You're on your own for the rest Bearcat. =) --JGGardiner 10:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I guess if it was in American newspapers it'd be important? Oh well. I was trying to come at this as a neutral party, but from the sounds of that my gender and location are not going to allow me to do that. I'm withdrawing from this discussion, as I feel it's just going to stress me out. If anyone wants them, I'm going to put a few sources I found here. Tony Fox (arf!) 00:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure Canadian newspapers are important, but coverage in and of itself doesn't make something noteworthy, especially a controversy at a single university, and one that set no precedent and ended up without changing the status quo or being resolved in a court of law. Maybe there should be a good, solid article on the issues of sexual harassment and allegations of same on university campuses throughout the world, but even then, I'm not sure this case would be important, since it was left dangling. Stompin' Tom 00:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Exactly right. It led to nothing; no precedents, no court cases, civil or criminal. There wasn't even a clear decision as to what had happened. How many similar cases do we have two articles on? I'm guessing none. How many other weekly columnists for the Toronto Sun do we have articles on? Again, I'm guessing none. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Michael Coren, Eric Margolis, Peter Worthington, Max Haines. There may be more. CJCurrie 08:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

They are all published authors, although Worthington's books on the Sun and the Somalia mission, written with Sgt. Kyle Brown, are not listed. The articles on Coren and, especially, Worthington need some serious NPOV improvement.Stompin' Tom 12:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

They're not people who only have weekly columns in the Toronto Sun. The first three are well-known journalists; not so sure about Haines. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree that a blank article is pointless. It was no longer delete protected, and it looks as if the debate here will sort out what, if anything, happens next, so I've deleted the blank page. This is not an invitation. Guy (Help!) 13:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I asked a female Canadian friend of mine if she knew who Rachel Marsden was today. She told me that she was a right-wing columnist, but that she was more well-known for a controversy involving sexual harassment charges when she was a student. I then asked if she had read this Wikipedia article or knew about the article controversy and she said no. So it certainly seems like this is more notable than some of the people discussing the article here think. Grouse 21:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Are you from the States? Do you know my cousin George in Milwaukee? Stompin' Tom 23:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

President of a....

An anonymous user has repeatdely removed the following sentence from the article. I cannot see anything controversial about it, but I'd be happy if someone could explain to me why we shouldn't use it.

Her website, accessed on December 18, 2006, states she is the president of a "public relations, lobbying and communications business".

Catchpole 15:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

A personal website is typically not a reliable source, especially in an article like this. - Merzbow 18:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I found another source for this information here [8]. Catchpole 19:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I have a slight problem saying that "Marseden claims". I think that we can trust her on this modest claim about her profession. Since this is just about her work, I think using Marsden as a source is fine unless somebody thought it was self-aggrandizing (perhaps an implication it is a large company when it could be just her?). Is that the contention? --JGGardiner 22:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

BLP

Please don't restore or post anything to the talk page that violates BLP. The policy applies to talk pages just as much as to articles. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 17:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Polarized Blinders?

(I've temporarily removed the comment. I see nothing wrong with it but it's been reverted several times and the revert war needs to stop. Let's talk about this. Kla'quot 17:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC))

--Dave702 06:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: The above comment was deleted in its entirety [9]. Please cite your concerns about the comment, or consider editing out the parts that you think violate WP:BLP. If the above gets deleted wholesale again, I think we should take it back to Ar bCom, as I don't see any dispute resolution happening here. Kla'quot 23:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Also, thank you Dave for writing these very insightful and thoughtful comments. Kla'quot 03:47, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
This was just deleted again: [10] with no explanation other than the edit summary, "Revert to SlimVirgin. ArbCom properly calls Sticks and Stones "gotcha" journalism." ArbCom made no reference to the CBC documentary in its final decision; the only thing a single arbitrator said was, "I looked at it. The interviewer obviously had a point to make and skillfully made it. It is strongly biased but I think it is a righteous external link as well as evidence of her close association with O'Reilly. I doubt its usefulness regarding anything else due to its strong bias and gotcha tactics. Fred Bauder 15:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)" Are you saying that based on that comment from Fred, you are justified in blanking anything from this page that makes reference to that documentary?
Aside from the question of whether the source is decent enough to be referred to on a Talk page, there is the very troubling issue of people blanking comments that do not criticize Rachel Marsden, but that do criticize their own decisions. Removing good-faith, civil criticism of Wikipedians' actions, such as, "It was a shock to find the page under a protected delete at the time," is vandalism and highly discourteous. Please stop. Kla'quot 17:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
After yet another revert which blanked everything in this section (including the beforementioned criticism of Wikipedians' actions and my criticism of the blanking of criticism), I have removed the comment from Dave702 in a good-faith gesture to stop the revert war. My blood pressure is rising so I'm going to walk away from this article again for a while. I hope others will be able to bring a fresh perspective to the discussion (which has been more like an edit war than a discussion for the past few days). Kla'quot 17:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Controversy

I have added the following sentence: Before her journalism career began, Marsden was involved in a controversy over an allegation of sexual harrassment she made while at Simon Fraser University. [11]

I think this is sufficiently conservatively stated to not breach any of the Arb Com findings in the previous case. If you change this please discuss why rather than just saying Arb Com. Catchpole 09:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

BLP

Please don't restore or post anything to the talk page that violates BLP. The policy applies to talk pages just as much as to articles. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 17:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Polarized Blinders?

(I've temporarily removed the comment. I see nothing wrong with it but it's been reverted several times and the revert war needs to stop. Let's talk about this. Kla'quot 17:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC))

--Dave702 06:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: The above comment was deleted in its entirety [12]. Please cite your concerns about the comment, or consider editing out the parts that you think violate WP:BLP. If the above gets deleted wholesale again, I think we should take it back to Ar bCom, as I don't see any dispute resolution happening here. Kla'quot 23:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Also, thank you Dave for writing these very insightful and thoughtful comments. Kla'quot 03:47, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
This was just deleted again: [13] with no explanation other than the edit summary, "Revert to SlimVirgin. ArbCom properly calls Sticks and Stones "gotcha" journalism." ArbCom made no reference to the CBC documentary in its final decision; the only thing a single arbitrator said was, "I looked at it. The interviewer obviously had a point to make and skillfully made it. It is strongly biased but I think it is a righteous external link as well as evidence of her close association with O'Reilly. I doubt its usefulness regarding anything else due to its strong bias and gotcha tactics. Fred Bauder 15:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)" Are you saying that based on that comment from Fred, you are justified in blanking anything from this page that makes reference to that documentary?
Aside from the question of whether the source is decent enough to be referred to on a Talk page, there is the very troubling issue of people blanking comments that do not criticize Rachel Marsden, but that do criticize their own decisions. Removing good-faith, civil criticism of Wikipedians' actions, such as, "It was a shock to find the page under a protected delete at the time," is vandalism and highly discourteous. Please stop. Kla'quot 17:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
After yet another revert which blanked everything in this section (including the beforementioned criticism of Wikipedians' actions and my criticism of the blanking of criticism), I have removed the comment from Dave702 in a good-faith gesture to stop the revert war. My blood pressure is rising so I'm going to walk away from this article again for a while. I hope others will be able to bring a fresh perspective to the discussion (which has been more like an edit war than a discussion for the past few days). Kla'quot 17:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to draw the attention of readers to this. CJCurrie 01:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, could someone who deleted Dave702's comment please explain what was wrong with the comment, and work with him towards restoring an acceptable version? SlimVirgin, this would probably have to be you because the only other person who deleted the comment is blocked for the next month. Kla'quot 05:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
There were BLP issues with it, Kla'quot. Also, bear in mind this is a post from an editor with 12 edits to articles. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, we already know that you think there were BLP issues with what you deleted because you gave "BLP" as your (only) edit summary. I am asking for some elaboration on what the BLP "issues" were. You also deleted the parts of Dave's comment that were critical of admin actions that you had taken, and it would be good if you could to find some way to bring those criticisms back to this page. I also wish you would take your own advice in writing for the enemy, and be as vigilant about BLP violations with respect to, say, Jimmy Carter. [14] Kla'quot 05:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't think we need to hear any more from Dave702, and most especially he can not use the talk page to post scandalous information that would not be allowed in the article. I would be very surprised if Dave was not editing from either Magma or Bell Canada in Ottawa, that seems to be where Mark Bourrie and Warren Kinsella edit from, and since Bourrie has staunchly defended this article from BLP issues, I'll lay money on Kinsella. Just because Arthur Ellis in under arbcom sanction for editing this article in violation of a previous ban doesn't mean he was wrong in principle; just his methods. The original article took great pains to portray Marsden in as negative a light as possible, which the arbitration committee recognized. Just because every statement can have a valid source does not mean the article is neutral, balanced and cognizant of BLP.
Specifically regarding BLP issues, you can not put stuff on the talk page that can't go in the article (google and so forth). There is no legitimate reason to equate Stephen Glass, a journalist who fabricate stories as a journalist which were published under his byline, with Marsden, a professional journalist who may have fabricated an allegation of sexual misconduct when she was a college student. I find it amusing that Dave would cite my very words on the subject as if I supported his argument. His pose of, "I just saw the CBC documentary so I looked Marsden up" and "Marsden was the model for the movie Swimfan" is laughable; that wasn't even in the well-referenced but ultimately arbcom-sanctioned version.
What we have here is a minor figure in Canadian conservative media circles who have a number of skeletons in her closet. The question for wikipedia is, while we can write an article that treads very lightly on her current journalistic activities while exposing every single one of those skeletons with multiple reliable sources, should we? The arbitration committee said essentially, no. Quoting:
Removal of poorly sourced negative information or of blocks of grossly unbalanced negative material is not subject to the three revert rule. Such material may be removed without limit.'
In this case, the controversy at Simon Fraser University, was notable in itself, and having been a principal in that affair, the subsequent incidents Rachel Marsden was involved in are notable. However, a number of the specific allegations mentioned in press reports lack a reliable source as they were not independently investigated by the newspapers involved. Which have a sufficiently reliable source is a matter of editorial judgement. Publication in a newspaper or a magazine does not render allegations fact, nor does it support inclusion in Wikipedia in the absence of a reliable source which addresses the fact alleged itself. The notion that unproven allegations may be liberally included in a Wikipedia article is a violation of Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Fred Bauder 18:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I looked at it [Sticks and Stones]. The interviewer obviously had a point to make and skillfully made it. It is strongly biased but I think it is a righteous external link as well as evidence of her close association with O'Reilly. I doubt its usefulness regarding anything else due to its strong bias and gotcha tactics. Fred Bauder 15:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I think it is more likely that they did not realized how serious we are about Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and that the article as it is presently constituted is an appropriate candidate for speedy deletion. Fred Bauder 17:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
As the article stands now it may be reduced to a stub by any user, or speedy deleted by any administrator. It contains almost no information other than designation of the subject as a "conservative" which is not negative. Much of the negative material lacks an adequate source being simply reports of allegations. A great deal of creative effort has gone into hunting up negative material. No effort seems to have gone into identifying and illustrating her political views or documenting those who support her. Fred Bauder 14:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)'
I hope I've made my point. There is much more on the workshop page. (see also Wikipedia:Fact laundering) No one went to any trouble to write anything positive about Masrden; who influenced her career, what influence has she had on conservative thought, etc. However, a great deal of effort went into portraying her as a disturbed sexual stalker and a conservative (as if being conservative was in and of itself a bad thing--guilt by association is not a good way to write an encyclopedia). It's as if the George W. Bush article was 90% about his drunk driving arrest record, or the article on Richard Pryor said, "Richard Pryor was an influential black comedian who had a drug problem" and then went over the drug problems in great detail ignoring the rest of his career. Maybe she is not yet influential enough for third party sources to be available. Maybe someday Marsden will be important enough that there will be sources so that someone can write a balanced article that deals with her journalistic career and places her personal problems in proper perspective. Until then, the arbitration committee has decided that it is better to say very little, or even nothing at all, than to say something that is 99% negative. You can take it up with them, or try to change community opinion on BLP issues, but it gets back to the question, even if we can portray a person in a relentlessly negative fashion using 100% reliable sources, should we? Thatcher131 06:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Well said. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Thatcher131 for your thoughtful comments. All I am trying to do here is unchill the environment around this article. It is possible that Dave is a Kinsella account, but it is also possible that he isn't, in which case we've committed some awful biting of the newbie. In his comment, the Swimfan stuff should go (that was an oversight on my part and I'm very aware that BLP applies to talk pages), but note that he did not compare Marsden to Glass as much as compare how we apply our policies to the two articles. I am not saying whether the article should be 99% negative, or 90%, or 51%, or anything along those lines. I am saying that ArbCom has given us a mandate to create an NPOV article about Marsden and her controversies, and we are sputtering in that mandate. Minimally-explained blanking of entire long comments, threats to speedy this discussion page, and assuming that users are Kinsella (without evidence) do not help us move forward. What will? Kla'quot 07:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Kla'quot, could you please be careful not to give examples of issues that can't be published? In so doing, you are publishing them. Also, you can't compare Jimmy Carter to this situation. He's a prominent public figure; as an ex-president, the most prominent of the type of living person we write about. There's no comparison. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
What example of an issue that can't be published did I bring up? As far as I can tell, both of the issues I just mentioned were brought up by Thatcher131. Kla'quot 00:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Regarding Jimmy Carter, regardless of how prominent he is, we should not allow our pages to call him (SV, please delete the rest of this sentence after you've read it) ... This had been done on a talk page that you edit frequently. I expressed a wish for you to be more diligent about that kind of thing. Kla'quot 00:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I haven't seen him be called those things anywhere. I can't be everywhere at once. But there's also a difference between calling a former president a "kook" (because it will have no effect on him), and republishing allegations that could cost people their jobs. I'm concerned about the latter. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Are you honestly suggesting the publishers of the Toronto Sun aren't aware of Marsden's well-known and well-publicized past? That's just not credible - particularly since they've reported on it themselves. Lotuslander 20:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Above, "Thatcher131" quotes "Fred Bauder" saying "I looked at it [Sticks and Stones]. The interviewer obviously had a point to make and skillfully made it. It is strongly biased but I think it is a righteous external link as well as evidence of her close association with O'Reilly. I doubt its usefulness regarding anything else due to its strong bias and gotcha tactics."

Saying "but I think it is a righteous external link" makes it clear that the documentary can and should be included as an external link in the article, so why isn't it? Lotuslander 02:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Still depends on the editorial judgement of the editors of the article. Fred Bauder 03:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, can you please explain why you censored my latest post since it did not include the links to the Toronto Star, Globe and Mail or CBC articles you objected to and simply made the point that Marsden's actions are well known and have been reported upon by reputable publications? Lotuslander 20:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I've told you why already. Can you please say which other accounts you've edited Wikipedia with? SlimVirgin (talk) 21:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

And no, you have not explained why links to Toronto Star or Globe and Mail are not acceptable? And can you please confirm that you're Rachel Marsden so we can be clear about who we're dealing with? Lotuslander 22:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

  • It shouldn't matter who SlimVirgin is. All that matters is the sources. Please concentrate upon the sources, not the editors. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G 06:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Sources

One approach to article construction that has long served me well is to collect the sources first, and then to expand the article with a whole bunch of sources in hand. Part of the controversy surrounding this article is the fact that many of the sources used for prior versions were bad to the point of being unacceptable. I suggest that editors collect a lot of good sources and cite them here before doing any expansion of the article. I further suggest that in addition to the requirements that all sources be reliable and independent of Marsden herself, all citations employ the conventional Wikipedia citation templates, that no citation be acceptable if any of the relevant template parameters are not properly filled in, and that no source be considered a good source if it has no date or no readily identifiable named author or publisher. In other words: Bare URLs are not acceptable. Links to search engine results are not acceptable. Web logs, home pages, diaries, and discussion forum posts are not acceptable.

It was mentioned in the ArbCom discussion that several retractions were printed. Now is the time to cite where those retractions can be found.

Here's some incentive: Without citations of multiple in-depth published works about this person from independent and reliable sources, there is no evidence that this person satisfies our WP:BIO criteria, and the next AFD discussion will focus upon that lack, and will not result in a speedy keep.

I'll start you off:

Uncle G 06:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

There are sources in the history of this article, but they keep being removed. Catchpole 12:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

  • No, there are not. (And there are no sources cited in any of the three AFD discussions.) As I said, part of the controversy surrounding this article is the fact that many of the sources used for prior versions were bad to the point of being unacceptable. And as I also said, the requirements are that sources be reliable and independent of Marsden herself. The only sources that you have cited, for example, are articles by Marsden herself, such as her potted autobiography at PoliticalUSA. Autobiographical articles do not demonstrate that someone satisfies our WP:BIO criteria.

    I am going to hold this article strictly to our Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policies. This means that edits such as this edit of yours are unacceptable and will be reverted. The only acceptable way to remove a citation needed tag will be to provide a citation of a reliable, independent, source in its place, or to remove the unsourced information from the article.

    And I warn you again: If you do not cite enough sources to demonstrate that this person satisfies our Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies, the next AFD discussion will focus upon that lack, and will not result in a speedy keep. Uncle G 16:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Here are the sources or links to search results that have been removed from the history of this talk page article. I still don't know why use are demanding citations for trivial information that can be verified by the act of buying a newspaper. Catchpole 16:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Then you aren't thinking about Wikipedia's readership. Think of the readers! Uncle G 05:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

List of citations

  1. Jim Kouri. "Meet the new Chairman of the Judiciary Committee: Sen. Leaky Leahy", RenewAmerica, 2006-11-10. 
    • This is a potential source for the fact that Marsden's occupation is as a columnist. But it's not non-trivial, as Marsden is not the focus of the work, but is merely mentioned incidentally in the introduction. This verifiable information is already included in Wikipedia in Toronto Sun#Current Sun writers, and is not enough to justify a whole biographical article.
  2. ROD MICKLEBURGH. "Tables turned on woman who charged harassment", The Globe and Mail, CTVglobemedia publishing Inc., 2004-10-13. 
    • At 109 words (1 paragraph, 3 sentences) this is hardly a non-trivial published work. This source provides exactly three things about the subject: That Marsden is a pundit. That she was once the centre of a controversy at SFU. That she pled guilty to a harrassment charge and was given a conditional discharge. The first of the three things can fit into Toronto Sun#Current Sun writers with ease. The other two are not enough to justify a whole biographical article.
  3. John Ward. "Scandals seem to follow Tory MP", The Spectator - Hamilton, Ont., 2005-06-01. 
    • This article isn't actually about Marsden, and in fact only mentions her in passing. It's actual subject is Nina Grewal, as per its title.
  4. "Vancouver woman charged with harassment", CBC News, 2002-11-21. 
    • At 8 paragraphs (10 sentences), this is, ironically, the longest of the published works cited so far. It tells us that Marsden was charged with harrassment, reports what a policewoman said, and reports what bail conditions were requested. It also mentions the SFU controversy, but, like Mickelburgh above, does not describe it in detail.
  5. http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/sticksandstones.html link to Sticks and Stones, a CBC news documentary that mentions Marsden]
  6. Marisa Babic. "No regrets hiring Marsden: Grewal", Surrey Now, May 12 2004. 
  7. Brian Hutchinson. "Canada's 'Republican Babe of the Week': Rachel Marsden is a sharpshooting political pundit with a sex-kitten image who made headlines in the past over a controversial sexual harassment complaint", National Post, 2003-08-09. 
  8. Mary Vallis. "Conservatives court columnist until her 'high profile' intrudes", National Post, 2005-11-26. 
  9. Peter O'Neil. "Marsden says she's paying for her anti-Harper views: Accused in two stalking incidents, the Vancouver-area woman was hired, then let go, by Conservative MP Grewal", Vancouver Sun, 2004-05-10. 

There are others (results from the major British Columbia newspapers alone are here: [15]). I'm not saying that we must keep this article, and I'm not saying we should expand it. There is a very thoughtful discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons right now. But since you asked, yes I believe she does meet our notability criteria. It's not a borderline case either; there are probably dozens of articles from the past five years in which she is the primary subject, and this is NOT counting the articles about the SFU case. Kla'quot 08:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Then please cite them so that we can discuss and evaluate them for depth, provenance, and reputation of the author(s). As I said right at the start, the intention here is to collect as many good sources as possible. Uncle G 12:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

List of search results

FYI

Removed legal threat. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

This edit is shown by checkuser to share an ip with Stompin' Tom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), an indefinitely banned user who had previously been shown by checkuser to be a sock of Arthur Ellis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), who is banned by the Arbcom from this article. Fred Bauder 14:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Blocking the ip is inappropriate as there is some use by an innocent third party. Fred Bauder 14:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

State of the article

Review of the article shows it to be about as good as can be expected. It would be helpful if she was the subject of more favorable third party comment which could be added to flesh out the article, but that is out of our control. Fred Bauder 14:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed legal threat. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Sources, sprotection

I've archived the list of sources, which looks to me like an excuse to publish them even though they're not in the article. Anyone working on this article can look for them in archive 2. I've also removed the legal threats and sprotected the talk page against the banned user. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I've restored the list of sources. We are collecting and evaluating the sources for use in the article. This is normal editorial process, what a talk page is for, and the approach to biographical articles that policy encourages us to take. Aggressively archiving it whilst the discussion is still proceeding is a mistake. Uncle G 16:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • SlimVirgin, I am offended by your groundless and gratuitous accusation of bad faith. You could explain your actions in terms such as, "I'm doing this for the sake of discretion" without creating bad feelings amongst your fellow contributors. Kla'quot 18:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Sources

One approach to article construction that has long served me well is to collect the sources first, and then to expand the article with a whole bunch of sources in hand. Part of the controversy surrounding this article is the fact that many of the sources used for prior versions were bad to the point of being unacceptable. I suggest that editors collect a lot of good sources and cite them here before doing any expansion of the article. I further suggest that in addition to the requirements that all sources be reliable and independent of Marsden herself, all citations employ the conventional Wikipedia citation templates, that no citation be acceptable if any of the relevant template parameters are not properly filled in, and that no source be considered a good source if it has no date or no readily identifiable named author or publisher. In other words: Bare URLs are not acceptable. Links to search engine results are not acceptable. Web logs, home pages, diaries, and discussion forum posts are not acceptable.

It was mentioned in the ArbCom discussion that several retractions were printed. Now is the time to cite where those retractions can be found.

Here's some incentive: Without citations of multiple in-depth published works about this person from independent and reliable sources, there is no evidence that this person satisfies our WP:BIO criteria, and the next AFD discussion will focus upon that lack, and will not result in a speedy keep.

I'll start you off:

Uncle G 06:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

There are sources in the history of this article, but they keep being removed. Catchpole 12:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

  • No, there are not. (And there are no sources cited in any of the three AFD discussions.) As I said, part of the controversy surrounding this article is the fact that many of the sources used for prior versions were bad to the point of being unacceptable. And as I also said, the requirements are that sources be reliable and independent of Marsden herself. The only sources that you have cited, for example, are articles by Marsden herself, such as her potted autobiography at PoliticalUSA. Autobiographical articles do not demonstrate that someone satisfies our WP:BIO criteria.

    I am going to hold this article strictly to our Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policies. This means that edits such as this edit of yours are unacceptable and will be reverted. The only acceptable way to remove a citation needed tag will be to provide a citation of a reliable, independent, source in its place, or to remove the unsourced information from the article.

    And I warn you again: If you do not cite enough sources to demonstrate that this person satisfies our Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies, the next AFD discussion will focus upon that lack, and will not result in a speedy keep. Uncle G 16:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

    • For the record, the version of the article that was speedily deleted had plenty of citations. They are not in the article history because they've been speedied. Kla'quot 20:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Here are the sources or links to search results that have been removed from the history of this talk page article. I still don't know why use are demanding citations for trivial information that can be verified by the act of buying a newspaper. Catchpole 16:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Then you aren't thinking about Wikipedia's readership. Think of the readers! Uncle G 05:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

List of citations

  1. Jim Kouri. "Meet the new Chairman of the Judiciary Committee: Sen. Leaky Leahy", RenewAmerica, 2006-11-10. 
    • This is a potential source for the fact that Marsden's occupation is as a columnist. But it's not non-trivial, as Marsden is not the focus of the work, but is merely mentioned incidentally in the introduction. This verifiable information is already included in Wikipedia in Toronto Sun#Current Sun writers, and is not enough to justify a whole biographical article.
  2. ROD MICKLEBURGH. "Tables turned on woman who charged harassment", The Globe and Mail, CTVglobemedia publishing Inc., 2004-10-13. 
    • At 109 words (1 paragraph, 3 sentences) this is hardly a non-trivial published work. This source provides exactly three things about the subject: That Marsden is a pundit. That she was once the centre of a controversy at SFU. That she pled guilty to a harrassment charge and was given a conditional discharge. The first of the three things can fit into Toronto Sun#Current Sun writers with ease. The other two are not enough to justify a whole biographical article.
  3. John Ward. "Scandals seem to follow Tory MP", The Spectator - Hamilton, Ont., 2005-06-01. 
    • This article isn't actually about Marsden, and in fact only mentions her in passing. It's actual subject is Nina Grewal, as per its title.
  4. "Vancouver woman charged with harassment", CBC News, 2002-11-21. 
    • At 8 paragraphs (10 sentences), this is, ironically, the longest of the published works cited so far. It tells us that Marsden was charged with harrassment, reports what a policewoman said, and reports what bail conditions were requested. It also mentions the SFU controversy, but, like Mickelburgh above, does not describe it in detail.
  5. http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/sticksandstones.html link to Sticks and Stones, a CBC news documentary that mentions Marsden]
  6. Marisa Babic. "No regrets hiring Marsden: Grewal", Surrey Now, May 12 2004. 
    • At 24 paragraphs, this is a fairly substantial article. Much of it is verbatim reporting of Gurmant Grewal's own opinion of Marsden. What is written is largely positive. This is possibly a good source to use to provide balance and to keep the article neutral. For example: We can, with this, source an opinion that Marsden's recent work will eclipse her past. That's definitely an opinion espoused by one side of the debate about Marsden.
  7. Brian Hutchinson. "Canada's 'Republican Babe of the Week': Rachel Marsden is a sharpshooting political pundit with a sex-kitten image who made headlines in the past over a controversial sexual harassment complaint", National Post, 2003-08-09. 
  8. Mary Vallis. "Conservatives court columnist until her 'high profile' intrudes", National Post, 2005-11-26. 
  9. Peter O'Neil. "Marsden says she's paying for her anti-Harper views: Accused in two stalking incidents, the Vancouver-area woman was hired, then let go, by Conservative MP Grewal", Vancouver Sun, 2004-05-10. 

There are others (results from the major British Columbia newspapers alone are here: [18]). I'm not saying that we must keep this article, and I'm not saying we should expand it. There is a very thoughtful discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons right now. But since you asked, yes I believe she does meet our notability criteria. It's not a borderline case either; there are probably dozens of articles from the past five years in which she is the primary subject, and this is NOT counting the articles about the SFU case. Kla'quot 08:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Then please cite them so that we can discuss and evaluate them for depth, provenance, and reputation of the author(s). As I said right at the start, the intention here is to collect as many good sources as possible. Uncle G 12:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
    • A search of the main Canadian news databases for "Rachel Marsden" brings up 299 results. A few are written by Marsden, about half focus on her and most of the rest are about the SFU case. I'll put the full list at Talk:Rachel Marsden/Reliable Sources. I'm not going to use citation templates. Kla'quot 18:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Potential Parliamentary Candidate

I don't really know all of the details involved but I'm not sure that it is worth mentioning. It looks like one anonymous organizer asked her to run and she declined. I don't see why that is really notable. Is there more to it than I'm aware of (or can remember)? --JGGardiner 08:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion either way. The main idea of the news story as it is written is not so much, "Who is Rachel Marsden"? but rather, "What kind of people are being asked to run in this election, and why?" BTW to correct the facts: In the news reports, the organizer is named (as Georganne Burke). The organizer withdrew the request before Marsden replied to it, saying "We're looking for someone who will help carry the torch, help to build the organization and not detract from that by being too high profile." Kla'quot 18:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. In the old days, I was happy enough to include almost any detail if the article wasn't too long. But I'm not sure if it really says anything about Marsden herself. She didn't seem to do anything, including apparently even decline the offer. I suppose it might say that some organizer thought highly of her. Although as I recall it was raised in the media as more of a bizarre request. I'm not really opposed to it but I'm not sure that it adds anything. --JGGardiner 02:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Some "for the record" comments on previous discussions

I want to go on the record with some comments on Talk:Rachel_Marsden/Archive2. I believe an apology to Bearcat and other contributors is in order. ArbCom has evaluated the conduct of the main contributors to this article, and asked them to interpret BLP more strictly. Aside from editors who are already banned from a wider range of articles or from all of Wikipedia, everyone is officially welcome to participate.

Surely everyone can understand the difficulty of writing an NPOV article about Rachel Marsden. So why bother? Speaking for myself, if Marsden was writing, say, opera reviews, I wouldn't care. However, she writes and speaks about politics, and when it coemes to serious news, many of us think that the question of who writes it is an important one. Attempting to answer the question of, "who is writing our news?" is not a base motive; it is a highly honourable one and an essential part of civic discourse. I am confident that sexism has little or nothing to do with criticism of Rachel Marsden, and I'm a Canadian woman so if I'm wrong about this it I would be failing to condemn sexism in my own society, and that would eventually affect me.

There are probably more widely-read political writers that we do not have an article on, however attention naturally falls on controversial figures and on people who promote unusually extreme views. (yes, there is at least one reliable source saying that her views are unusually extreme).

One of the archived comments from SlimVirgin is, "There are several references on the web to the Wikipedia article about her, and even a couple of the websites that themselves criticize her, refer in negative terms to the Wikipedia page e.g. by saying it's "too gleeful," and words to that effect." A search for ""Rachel Marsden" Wikipedia gleeful"" [19] brings up nothing, and in any case we'd need to see the context and source to evaluate whether there is something to learn from the criticism. Kla'quot 20:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion Review

Please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 January 27#Marsden-Donnelly harassment case for a request to undelete that page. Are folks done enough here to move on to that one? GRBerry 02:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Jan 29 edits

I removed the paragraph about the nomination simply because it's so strange and really isn't about anything Marsden did. I also took out several other non-important facts. The article needs the date of the harassment allegation. Kitty's little helper 11:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Marsden filed a complaint in 1996 which was resolved in 1997. I'm not very familiar with the all of the events but Wikipedia used to have an article, Marsden-Donnelly harassment case, which was deleted (although now under a review). If you'd like to add more Kitty, you might want to see what the consensus is first. This article has a long and complicated history and is probably watched more closely than most.
I think that our current "was involved in" description is possibly vague and confusing. A random user who stumbled by wouldn't know if she was the accuser or accused or somehow peripherally involved. On the other hand, I'm not sure that random users do stumble across this article. --JGGardiner 22:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Kiity is a sockpuppet of User:Arthur Ellis. ~ trialsanderrors 08:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

for the record, I am a random user stumbling by and am interested in hearing more details about the harassment. apparently there is some controversy surrounding this person. I would like to know what it is. Floorsheim 00:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits

An editor with no prior record of activity on this page (AFAIK) posted the "prohibited" version of the Marsden article a few minutes ago. I will assume that this editor was unfamiliar with the Arbcomm decision, which I have since forwarded to him.

I have reverted his changes, and I plan to delete and recreate the page *in its current form* after sending this post. Given this page's complicated history, removing the "prohibited" version from the documentary record seems to be a sensible precaution.

Please inform me if you disagree with my decision. CJCurrie 03:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Because of my significant involvement with BLPs and experience in writing BLPs, I was asked to review the Marsden situation. After my review of the situation, I rewrote the Marsden article using 45 separate Wikipedia sources without reference to any version of the Marsden article. Your statement that I posted the "prohibited" version factually is not true. The article had a significant amount of information and I am unsure how you could have reviewed each piece of information in the article in the context of the ArbCom decision in the less than two minutes that you took to revert the article. Item 9 of the ArbCom decision cites to a negatively biased version of the Marsden article as an example as to what the Marsden article should not be. Your deletion of the page's complicated history affects the ArbCom decision by deleting the negatively biased version to which ArbCom desired to have editors review as part of improving the Marsden article. Since the "prohibited" version was not posted as you stated, your removing the "prohibited" version from the documentary record seems premature and something ArbCom could have done had they so desired. -- Jreferee 04:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi CJC -- I'm a wikipedia editor with no connection to Rachel Marsden, but came across this page after commenting/voting in an AfD regarding her. I want to express my disagreement with your decision to delete (and purge the history) of Jreferee's contribution, and I want to encourage Jreferee to repost his contribution (to the talk page if s/he prefers so as not to start an edit war.) Sdedeo (tips) 00:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I realize that some editors on this page may have found the decision I made yesterday to be surprising, perhaps even bewildering. I'll explain my actions in greater detail now.

In the first instance, it was not my intention to accuse Jreferee of engaging in "bad faith editing" through his contribution to the Marsden article page. I assumed that Jreferee was unfamiliar with this page's ArbComm history, and I do not believe his actions were disruptive or malicious.

It seems that I was mistaken as to the precise nature of Jreferee's edit: it was not the "prohibited" version. As against this, it was similar to the prohibited version and repeated many of the same statements. My first impression, upon reading it, was that it would almost certainly lead to the same criticisms as did the "prohibited" version. Accordingly, I believe that my decision to remove this page (and its history) was appropriate.

If Jreferee believes his preferred version should be restored, I would recommend that he post a Request for Clarification before the Arbcomm.

I should also clarify that most of the Marsden page history (including the "prohibited" version) had already been purged before yesterday. I apologize for having removed several unrelated posts from the page history; these may be restored if others wish it. CJCurrie 01:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi CJC -- thanks for your quick response. Can I suggest that next time instead of removing/reverting, you edit out problematic passages instead? Question: I assume Jreferee is no wiki neophyte when it comes to WP:NPOV and WP:CITE. Am I to understand that someone high-up has decided that wikipedia not mention sourced credible claims regarding RM even when they are presented in the usual NPOV fashion? (This is the only way I can reconcile your actions and Jreferee.) Sdedeo (tips) 01:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
In response: there's an ongoing dispute as to the presentation of certain information relating to Marsden's past. I'd prefer to err on the side of caution on this page, pending resolution. (Under normal circumstances, I agree that removing/reverting would have been the preferred option.) CJCurrie 02:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi CJC -- yes, just cottoning on to that. Seems like there's a bunch of admins looking at what's going on, so I'm sure you'll all figure out what to do. Good luck! Sdedeo (tips) 02:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)