Talk:Warren Kinsella/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 1 Bourie/Kinsella Law Suit 2 Gomery Inquiry Info Missing 3 Relevance 4 2004 Libel Controversy 5 addressing recent changes 6 re: "compromise" 7 re: Joshua's suggestion 8 "NPOV" changes 9 Anti-neo-Nazi activism 10 Kinsella editing page 11 Re:Arthur Ellis 12 Activism 13 Protected 14 What is being disputed? 15 citations 16 Are you working it out? 17 Activism 18 Activism 19 Galarneau 20 $1000 costs 21 Band 22 Gomery 23 July 2 Fun 'n' Games 24 Doug Christie and Lawsuits 25 Music

Bourie/Kinsella Law Suit

Kinsella is suing me for changing this entry (which I do admit to. I changed the part in regards to me.) I have posted the statement of claim on my web site

Mark Bourrie www.ottawawatch.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.25.91.205 (talk • contribs)

Gomery Inquiry Info Missing

Someone, likely Kinsella, edited the page March 3 to get rid of all the material that makes him look bad in the Gomery section.

Why is there no information at all on this page about Kinsella's role in the Gomery Scandal that brought down the Liberal government that he worked for? It's not rumour or innuendo, there is a transcript of the judicial proceedings with statements by the judge about Kinsella. Or does this Wikipedia board only serve as a smear machine against conservatives while propping up liberals by leaving out damning and crucial facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.25.152.39 (talk • contribs)

No, Rachel. As you yourself should know your possibly defamatory statements about Ezra Levant and The Western Standard were quickly removed from the relevant articles. --Cyberboomer 00:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that cute. Geoff NoNick 15:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe Kinsella writes this page. He uses the same words to misrepresent the blog entry that he's suing over (2006). He calims it accuses him of being an "important actor" in a "kickback scandal". A check of the blog entry in question (www.ottawawatch.blogspot.com, Jan. 14) shows the words are taken out of context. In fact, the blog entry says Guite was a key actor in Sponsorship, not Kinsella. There should be something in this entry about Kinsella, Sponsorship, and the Gomery Commission. (George Sestostris)

Relevance

I'm unconvinced that Warren Kinsella is a significant enough figure to warrant an article of this length (or one at all) in an encyclopedia. Without the pictures and sidebar, the article is roughly the same length as Wilfrid Laurier's! Anyone care to comment? Geoff NoNick 20:54, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

He's published several books with major Canadian presses, so I think he deserves an entry, but I agree it should be much briefer. HistoryBA 23:22, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I've tried to group the main body of the article into the two main reasons he's notable - "Politics" and "Writing" - and trim some of the anecdotes ("the Flintstones wasn't a documentary", et al) to bring down the size to something more reasonable. If anyone doesn't like it, revert away. Geoff NoNick 19:31, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Well done! HistoryBA 23:22, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

To me, that's less a reason to trim Warren Kinsella than it is a reason to expand Wilfrid Laurier! -Joshuapaquin 23:40, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

2004 Libel Controversy

I think this section needs a little discussion. Here's how it appears today (Oct 23 2004):

In 2004 Warren aroused controversy when he threatened legal action against Canadian bloggers who he alleged libelled him and his family. For many in the Canadian blogosphere, his resort to legal action, instead of open discussion, was seen as an attack on free speech. The issue was eventually settled without the need for litigation, and is considered a pivotal moment in the Canadian blogosphere's coming of age.

This is definitely an improvement in NPOV over the original wording. I still think two things need to be discussed though:

1) Does anyone else think that the phrase "legal action, instead of open discussion" unnecessarily paints Kinsella specifically as unreasonable, given that no context about the nature of the alleged libel is provided?

2) From what I've read, it looks like most of the controversy took place around October 15, 2004. It is now October 23. Might it be premature to describe this as a "pivotal moment" in the blogosphere?

If no comments on this for a while, I'll unilaterally make some edits to try to improve upon the text. -Joshuapaquin 03:32, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

Changed "Punk Rocker" to musician. The title case was inappropriate, and the term itself overly subjective for an introductory paragraph. Not even Johnny Rotten describes himself as a punk rocker.

addressing recent changes

Hi,

Thanks for editting the original post. You are right, there was alot of NPOV, as it was written very close to events. To address your second point first.

1) Mr. Kinsella sent libel notices to four bloggers over a period of at least two months (if you want me to provide links I will do so). It was only the fourth blogger who decided to "stand up" to him, and this was within the period in October you mention. So this was obviously when heat was generated on the boards.

I believe it is very accurate to describe this as a pivotal moment for the blogosphere. In the case of the fourth blogger, it was only after it became clear that Canadian bloggers from across the political spectrum (I'm an NDP supporter) would come to his aid with money, moral support, technical help that compromise could be reached. This gave the cross-spectrum of bloggers (right to left) involved a sense of community, of purpose, and an idea of what could be done if they worked together. Even those bloggers who were supporters of Mr. Kinsella's party said they were happy, in the end, a compromise could be reached. So there was a sense bloggers negotiating among themselves, without any outside help, could come up with a solution. These are all very important events in the development of any community.

2) Your first point is much tougher, and it might be something that might be difficult for your subject if it is addressed. Most bloggers believed the libel threats, especially the fourth one, were spurious, and were prepared to retain legal help to prove it so. I believe the phrase as it stands accurately describes events, and would be difficult to change without distorting what happened. If you wanted to add context, specifically about the libel allegations, then we might also have to add a qualification about the libel allegations being spurious. As Mr. Kinsella is a lawyer, and spurious legal actions are frowned upon, this might reflect badly on him in his wikipedia entry

I'll conclude by adding some links below. It might be best, if you find the above points difficult to concede to read about what happened. But be warned, it is very involved.

Cheers S.P.

http://www.blogscanada.ca/egroup/CommentView.aspx?guid=4963ee56-c66c-4476-b444-aa4ef74ef040

http://www.blogscanada.ca/egroup/CommentView.aspx?guid=13125679-9bda-4963-84e4-af0e2cce7afb

http://www.blogscanada.ca/egroup/CommentView.aspx?guid=318771cd-d95c-4471-b7c9-340b72d6b78d

I'm troubled by the use of the word "compromised" to describe the way the dispute was settled. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I understood that three of the four bloggers simply backed down and removed the material in question from their blogs. One issued a clarification saying that he didn't mean to say that Kinsella's parents were "retarded." It seems to me, therefore, that there wasn't so much a compromise, but that the four bloggers backed down. I'm not trying to take one side or the other; I'm merely trying to find the wording that will best describe the incident. HistoryBA 13:17, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Proposal for compromise: For many in the Canadian blogosphere, his resort to legal action, instead of open discussion, was seen as an attack on free speech becomes instead For many in the Canadian blogosphere, this response was seen as an attack on free speech. I just think that contrasting "legal action" and "open discussion" carries an inescapable NPOV connotation, especially for those who may not understand how "open discussion" works in the blogosphere.

By the way, I hope you aren't getting the impression that I am a raging Kinsella fan - I used to be, but then he got himself photographed wearing this. I just think the controversy here should be explained in such a way that all parties involved would say "Yeah, that's basically how it happened." -Joshuapaquin 17:39, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

/IMHO/ You're just adding fuel to the fire with this one Joshua. The only one with a law degree that I could see is Kinsella.

Larry Darrell- Oct.27- BA History's latest post and comments on Joshua are quite accurate- A bit of the (Martin) Liberal Youth wing seeping through the original Joshua posts

Larry, I don't understand this exactly. I think HistoryBA's latest modification is a good one, and I would have made a similar one myself, had I more confidence in my knowledge of the details of the issue.

As for alleged "Liberal Youth wing" seepage, I'd point out that I started this discussion because I thought the paragraph was unfairly harsh to Kinsella - check the page history, it's all there. Kinsella is, of course, unabashedly anti-Martin. So it's utterly nonsensical, I think, to label me a Martinite zealot. -Joshuapaquin 00:03, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

Larry Darrell- Oct.28- 1- Joshua,I didn't say you where a Martin "Zealot", now did I ?

                      2- I did say BA History's mod was good, did I not ?
                      3- You are saying " had I more confidence in my knowledge of details of the issue" are you not ? Yet, you flew into this controversy and posted all sorts of material.
                      4- Your comments where posted in conservative blogs as supporting their views.Yet you, proclaim you are a Liberal supporter. Since, it's no secret that Kinsella and Martin aren't great buds, and Mike Robinson pretty well suggested they didn't need (or want) Kinsella in the last election what else I am to conclude ?

Oy. Here we go.

1) When you said that a "Martin Liberal youth wing" was "seeping" into my contributions, I interpreted that as an accusation of pro-Martin bias. I still fail to see any justification for that claim. Please, enlighten me.

2) Yes you did. So did I. So why start an argument? That's what I was really asking in my first response above.

3) My position on this 'controversy' is that of an interested Wikipedian, not a blog expert. I have challenged no one on the facts- I've sought to improve the language.

4) Have my comments been reproduced in conservative blogs? Wow. I'm flattered. Please, send a link! -Joshuapaquin 17:15, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

Here you go, Joshua: http://reviewing.blogspot.com/2004_10_17_reviewing_archive.html

Larry

re: "compromise"

Only the first two bloggers unilaterally took down their posts. The second two negotiated with Mr. Kinsella for changes on his website and on theirs. In the case of the third blogger, Mr. Kinsella mentioned white supremacist hate mail he recieved about the time of the controversy, and said it showed what kind of circles his "detractors travelled in". Kinsella later compromised by changing this to "some of" his detractors after communication with the third blogger

Please see http://www.polspy.ca/items/2004/10/16/841.html

which also includes mention of legal opinions stating Mr. Kinsella's libel threats were spurious.

Mr. Kinsella's logs showed about the time he was saying his critics in this controversy were racist, he was reciving visits on his website from a white supremacist website. In the past, Mr. Kinsella has shown he was capable of reading and understanding his logs. It seem unethical then to many bloggers that he should attempt to smear his critics in this affair as racist when it seemed very likely the hate-mail came from racist organizations he has fought against for many years.

See: http://warrenkinsella.com/stats/usage_200410.html#TOPREFS

and look for the domain "stormfront"

The compromised between the fourth blogger and Mr. Kinsella can be seen here:

http://ianism.com/?postid=227

So I think it is accurate to say most of the parties involved compromised, which I think is also an important lesson for the future in the blogosphere. The blogopshere treats everyone more or less as equal, and this can be distorted when someone who is well-off and a trained lawyer like Mr. Kinsella starts to use these real-world advantages. I think by compormising without using legal action, Mr. Kinsella set a good example, and it bodes well for the future of the blogosophere.

I also urge you to explore many of the links of this page, especially the blogcannada links. Your understanding seems to come from Mr. Kinsella's website, and it might be useful to see the other side.

Cheers,

S.P. --66.38.128.10 18:07, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

re: Joshua's suggestion

Good suggestion. Though I think we could use this entry to educate people a little bit on how the blogosphere works. How about something like: For many in the Canadian blogosphere, his use of legal action, instead of initiating discussion, was seen as an attack on free speech.

S.P. Oct 24, 2004

We're very close to reaching an agreement here! But we can't say he used legal action if he never actually filed a lawsuit, can we? How about, this threat of legal action, rather than further discussion, was seen... -Joshuapaquin 00:33, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

I have to disagree with the suggestion that we "use" this entry to "educate" people on the blogosphere. The purpose of this entry is to provide information on Warren Kinsella. People who want to be educated on the blogosphere should click on the link to that entry. HistoryBA 00:59, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Joshua first:

Yup, we're almost there. Good point about the legal action, you're right there. I think "further discussion" is problematic. Much of the intensity in the whole controversy came from the fact many bloggers percieved Mr. Kinsella as threatening legal action first, before discussion with the community. Thus "further" might not be accurate, because discussion was not offered in the first place. How about For many in the Canadian blogosphere, the threat of libel action, instead of open discussion with the bloggers, was seen as an attack on free speech.

You'll notice I changed "legal" to "libel" which I think is important, because the issue here was free speech in the blogoshere. One of the central dynamics in the controversy was the fact Mr. Kinsella was a well-connected lawyer who could easily back up his threat of a libel suit, whereas the bloggers were ordinary people. Mentioning libel here also underlines the tension that exists in free societies between free speech and defamtory speech.

I also added "open discussion". One of the central features of the blogosphere is the fact that debate takes place in an open and transparent manner with posts, comments etc. It is fact of life in the blogosphere that if someone posts something that is incorrect or silly it is immediately taken apart with the whole community watching. If its okay I'd like to say "open" discussion, because I think its one of the most important features of the blogosphere.

We'll get there yet :-)

S.P.--66.38.128.82 01:15, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

HistoryBA --

I have to disagree with the suggestion that we "use" this entry to "educate" people on the blogosphere

You're absolutely right there, and I apologize if I suggested it was appropriate to hijack Mr. Kinsella's entry for another purpose. I do belive though that some mention of the Canadian blogosphere is appropriate in his entry. Mr. Kinsella is perhaps the most popular political blogger in the Canadian blogosphere, and definately foremost in the public eye. On his website he says he recently went to a conference at Trent U where he spoke as an expert on bloggers. In that respect then, an even-handed description of his activities in the blogosphere is warranted.

Cheers, S.P.--66.38.128.82 01:21, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I went ahead and entered the changes I made above, as other interested parties have made changes in the meantime. Please indicate if you find them acceptable/unacceptable. The qualifer "Some consider the controversy" was added, and I agree this is a good change as it gives a more neutral POV.

S.P.--66.38.128.82 06:18, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with this revision. -Joshuapaquin 21:53, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

Cool. Good luck in the future. S.P.--66.38.128.59 23:35, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page may be buzzing on watchlists again. We've got an anonymous, hit-and-run delete freak. So I'm just going to keep reverting to the most complete version until he has the guts to get a username, or post on the talk page. -Joshuapaquin 15:07, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

To balance the statement of Mr Kinsella's belief that the posts in question constituted libel under the law, I added a statement of the blogger's belief that the posts in question were not libellious. I believe this balance is important for the context of public discourse and how it can be effected by the notion of "libel chill", and how the issue percieved differently by different parties. Please see above for links describing the blogger's POV. S.P.--66.38.128.55 00:03, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

OK, if we're going to put that in, I think we need to restructure the paragraph a bit for readability's sake. Here's a proposal:

In 2004 Kinsella aroused controversy when he threatened legal action against certain Canadian bloggers who he alleged libelled him and his family through blog posts. The bloggers, who believed that their posts did not constitute libel under the law, perceived the threat of legal action as an attack on free speech. The issue was eventually settled without litigation when most parties involved compromised. Some consider the controversy a pivotal moment in the Canadian blogosphere's coming of age.

The only sentence that has been entirely removed, rather than reformed, is that saying Kinsella believes libel law applies to the internet- which I think is fairly obvious after the first sentence. I further propose that we take one of the links S.P. has graciously provided and put it under the External Links section, to substantiate the information in this paragraph. -Joshuapaquin 00:18, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

Oops! I failed to notice that the part I had deleted in my proposal was actually exactly what HistoryBA had added. I'm sorry about that, no slight was intended. But could you (HistoryBA) please weigh in on the above proposal to see how we can fit in that information while keeping the paragraph concise and simple? -Joshuapaquin 00:23, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

OK, so it turns out that HistoryBA and I have been doing some simultaneous editing. How about that. But actually, I'm content with his revision. Let's see what S.P. thinks, and hopefully we can be done with all this. -Joshuapaquin 00:27, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

The statement not all the bloggers in question had made libellous statements is not accurate. The members of the blogosphere involved in this controversy concluded after much discussion (see the first of the E-group posts above) that none of the four bloggers had made libellious statements. Obviously, Mr. Kinsella saw things differently, but the position of the opposite side must be accurately represented. Change to: In the view of many in the Canadian blogosphere, the statments the bloggers made were not libel and the threat of legal action was an attack on free speech. S.P. --66.38.128.183 23:07, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That's fair. Good change. -Joshuapaquin 00:22, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

I agree that S.P.'s proposed change makes sense, though I don't think S.P.'s summary on this page accurately reflects the situation. S.P. implies that there was unanimity among bloggers that none of the posts was libellous. Note, however, the following text taken from one of the sites S.P. listed above: "I don't know if what I wrote meets the legal definition of defamation, and I can't afford to find out, so I've deleted the post." This certainly shows that not all the bloggers thought the all the posts were free of libel. At least one of the bloggers was neutral on the subject. In any case, this is a minor quibble, and, as I say above, I agree with the latest change. HistoryBA 00:04, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi. I think HistoryBA's minor quibble should have some context, beginning with the entire quotation that was pulled. This is the full paragraph, with the missing sentence in italics:

I'm not a lawyer, like Warren Kinsella, LL.B. I don't know if what I wrote meets the legal definition of defamation, and I can't afford to find out, so I've deleted the post.full post

I don't know if the blogger's unfamiliarity with the law can be construed as "neutrality". In any event what was written in the particular post HistoryBA is referring to was considered unlibellous by a member of the blogosphere who had completed a year at Dalhousie Law School. This blogger wrote:

I did read Damian's post that drew the latest threat. It was not anything I saw as being even remotely defamatory. I've only got a year of law school, so my legal knowledge is very small, but I don't think that it would come close.Full post

For the record, I guess. Cheers. S.P.--66.38.128.29 23:08, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, that was the context. The point is that the blogger in question did not have an opinion one way or another whether the post was libellous. I called this neutrality, meaning that the blogger voiced no opinion. The fact that some law student had an opinion does not change the fact that it was incorrect for S.P. to say that all the bloggers in question thought all the posts in question were not libellous. I'm just asking for balance in reporting the story. I'm not arguing over whether or not the posts were libellous. HistoryBA 23:40, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I strongly recommend that the controversial paragraph not be restored. -Joshuapaquin 15:33, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

I guess there's been alot of changes but no discussion. Does anyone know why the latest changes occurred? S.P. --66.38.128.61 05:33, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"NPOV" changes

Is the latest revision by 216.208.161.20 - inexplicably titled "NPOV" - some kind of joke? -Joshuapaquin 16:05, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

It must be a joke. I reverted the edit, using "NPOV" as justification. HistoryBA 19:00, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Anti-neo-Nazi activism

Could somebody please expand on Web of Hate and his conflicts with the far right? I don't want anyone puzzling at his inclusion (at my own hand, a while back) in Category:Anti-neo-Nazi activism... Thanks! Samaritan 03:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Anybody who does such a section might want to look at the criticisms of the book as well if they go through with it. One of these "conflicts" is deciding that anybody who once was photographed shaking hands with an anti-Semite at a public rally was themselves a "far right neo-Nazi". The six degree of separation method, as it were. "Far-right", already a meaningless smear statement itself, further was used to the torture of the English language, as I hope any subsection praising Kinsella's work in this subject balances itself out with the responses by those who discovered they hated the Jews when they read about it in "Web of Hate"

Kinsella has also used neo-Nazi charges to try to discredit opponents in the Liberal Party like Kitchener MP Andrew Telegdi, and recently has tossed around the charge the Bob Rae does not respect the Holocaust because he cheapened it by comparing a recent deal between Canada and the U.S. to the 1938 Munich Pact. He is not taken seriously as a scholar of the Shoah.

Kinsella editing page

I see by the "history" of the main article that Kinsella has made quite a few substantial and inaccurate edits to the page as 72.136.201.103 (see user talk, especially re: Hot Nasties picture). They have been reverted, but they make fun reading. Things must be getting pretty grim for old Warren. Arthur Ellis 19:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I have reorganized the page, taken out facts that were repeated, and removed the line about his family as I know he is protective of his kids.Arthur Ellis 23:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I drastically cut the "he said/she said" stuff out of the blogger suit. Bourrie wrote the entry, Kinsella sued, Bourrie apologized, Kinsella dropped suit. There is no point repeating the libel. Also changed Guite from accused of fraud to convicted.Arthur Ellis 23:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It appears Kinsella made another raid on the page today, this time from a Rogers account, trying to post that Bourrie paid damages in the libel suit. Arthur Ellis 21:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

He's back today as 72.136.201.103. Arthur Ellis 13:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's 72.136.201.103's contribution to Wikipedia. The first post (last on the list) is very informative:

12:39, 24 June 2006 (hist) (diff) Warren Kinsella 03:12, 21 June 2006 (hist) (diff) Warren Kinsella 03:12, 21 June 2006 (hist) (diff) Warren Kinsella 03:07, 21 June 2006 (hist) (diff) Warren Kinsella 03:05, 21 June 2006 (hist) (diff) Warren Kinsella 03:05, 21 June 2006 (hist) (diff) Warren Kinsella 03:03, 21 June 2006 (hist) (diff) Warren Kinsella 22:51, 7 April 2006 (hist) (diff) Warren Kinsella (→External links) 22:50, 7 April 2006 (hist) (diff) Warren Kinsella (→Memo related to sponsorship scandal) 03:56, 29 March 2006 (hist) (diff) Warren Kinsella (→Memo related to sponsorship scandal) 03:36, 2 March 2006 (hist) (diff) Warren Kinsella 03:34, 2 March 2006 (hist) (diff) Warren Kinsella 17:27, 4 February 2006 (hist) (diff) Warren Kinsella 17:16, 4 February 2006 (hist) (diff) Warren Kinsella 17:14, 4 February 2006 (hist) (diff) Warren Kinsella 17:14, 4 February 2006 (hist) (diff) Warren Kinsella 01:32, 4 February 2006 (hist) (diff) Warren Kinsella 03:31, 2 February 2006 (hist) (diff) Warren Kinsella 03:54, 14 January 2006 (hist) (diff) Warren Kinsella 20:48, 1 January 2006 (hist) (diff) Image talk:Hotnasties.jpg

Arthur Ellis 13:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know that "vandalizing" is what he's doing (if that is in fact him); the IP appears to be adding some good information, but is also adding other facts that do indeed start to slip out of the guidelines. (Warren, if that's you, and you read talk pages, do make use of this one to discuss changes before making them wholesale.) Do note that he's also posted a request for people to send him Wikipedia horror stories at his blog.[1] Yay, another blogger bitching about "inaccuracy" and focusing on the bad side of WP when there's so many good editors trying to make this a good information source. Just what we need. Tony Fox (speak) 15:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'd say that Kinsella's spot-on about Mark Bourrie. I don't always agree with him, but he's right in this instance. CJCurrie 00:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you the same J Currie he calls crazy on his Top Ten Jerks list (in the same post with Bourrie)? The IP poster puts stuff on the site about Kinsella running the Liberal war room in 2000, and quite a bit of other material that doesn't check out. In his first post, ge says he's Kinsella nd waives copyright to a picture. Arthur Ellis 01:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not Jay Currie. I don't think I'd want to be. CJCurrie 01:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Why is JCCUrrie reverting accurate material (Kinslla not running war room in 2000, Kinsella not creator of Barney stunt; Kinsella lawsuit threats against bloggers) then adding Kinsella-written ad copy re: his books? Arthur Ellis 03:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Largely because the alternate edit is worse. CJCurrie 03:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The Ellis edit has the fact that Kinsella did not create the Barney prank. It also has an accurate description of Kinsella's attacks on bloggers, a fair description of the Kinsella slap suit against Bourrie, and it takes out all the ad copy Kinsella puts in about his books. 192.197.82.203 14:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think we should inflate Bourrie's ego by implying his situation with Kinsella was particularly important. CJCurrie 23:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Seems important enough for Kinsella to mention quite often on his blog and in his re-writes of this article. BTW seems you forgot to be "Pete Peters" for this post. Arthur Ellis 01:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Arthur Ellis, why aren't the details of the other Lawsuits in there. No point going on a crusade to make sure that you are accepted in the history books. Include the others by specifics, or don't include any of them. It is a waste of space. Pete Peters 01:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Re:Arthur Ellis

I have asked for an indefinte block for vandal Pete Peters. Arthur Ellis 01:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You ask for an indefinite block from me, Pete Peters, and instead all you got punished. I could gloat all I want, but I am a bit more grown up than you. Grow up Arthur Ellis, and don't stop crying wolf.

I also think that Mark has done a disservice to Warren Kinsella on Wikipedia.

Pete Peters 02:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe that Arthur Ellis should not be allowed to make edits on this page. All of his edits are designed to look poorly on Warren Kinsella. His very first entry was to eliminate any reference to the Warren's past relationship with the Hot Nasties, and quipped "Hot Nasties? Who's that?" Later though he edited references out of Warren's family, " ... and [I have] removed the line about his family as I know he is protective of his kids.Arthur Ellis 23:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)" I am confident that if anyone knows Warren's protective nature concerning his family, they would also know his past with the Hot Nasties. Although his edits may be factual, they are only included into this entry if they serve the purpose of looking poorly on Warren.

I would also like to add that the Gomery inquiry should be merged with the Mark Bourrie lawsuit, since they are related to each other. I don't think legal threats should be of a topic on it's own, since it is not that defining. Legal threats occur all the time in this world, and if no trial took place, it is not a big deal.

Also, Warren Kinsella is one of, if not the first person contacted by the media to help explain and get an understanding of any new Racist activity occuring in this country. Perhaps that should be a paragraph along with his Anti-Racist activism. Pete Peters 16:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, newly-registered editor Pete Peters. Maybe Canada's media should go to minorities and NGOs for quotes, rather than lawyer/lobbyists. The article is well-organized now. You should not slag Arthur Ellis when he is blocked from replying. 70.51.52.253 18:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

70.51.52.253 is a sock puppet for Arthur Ellis, one of Mark Bourrie's creations. You are a fraud buddy, don't add to discussion for the sole fact of pretending to be someone else. Fraud. Pete Peters 19:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Activism

There is no excuse to delete Warren's Activist activities. I am sure he is quite proud of that, and I am betting that you are jealous. That is why you reverted the most recent entry. Rather than always reverting, why don't you justify it. Pete Peters 23:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Kinsella has made so many bogus charges of racism that no one could possibly take him seriously. Ask Allan Rock and Dan McTague.Arthur Ellis 02:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Mark Bourrie aka Arthur Ellis, cut it out. I'll never be coward, if I am caught doing sock puppet antics, I would fess up. You are being sued by Warren, this puts you in no position to edit his wiki entry. Pete Peters 02:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Coming in here randomly, it seems that the 'activism' section makes some pretty wild POV claims with absolutely no sourcing, as is required by Wikipedia policy. I went through the article and added citation needed tags. Before changing anything more the starting point should be to add appropriate references (or to remove information or POV that cannot be referenced). - Merzbow 04:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Protected

The page has been protected b/c both of you, AE and PP, are behaving like little children. Please come to some sort of an agreement, and then request unprotection on my talk page or at WP:RFP. Good luck. - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

What is being disputed?

I saw the dispute on this article and it appears that it was just full protected by an administrator, so I come here to see if I can help get a discussion moving about the dispute. So, to get a discussion rolling, what content in the article is specifically being disputed? Cowman109^Talk 04:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

citations

Move from McMillan Binch to Navigator Ltd[2]there are a bunch of others that confirm this CICWEB, McMillan Binch, WK's website

Daisy Consulting Group [3]

Canada Israel Committee[4]. Was the citation needed tag about him being on the board or being a practicing catholic?

Mark Bourrie's apology [5]

Latest Musings[6]

Kinsella's band[7].

Geedubber 11:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Excellent work. Thank you, Geedubber. Now maybe we can get to the facts and get past the personal attacks by Pete Peters and Arthur Ellis. HistoryBA 12:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you working it out?

I am waiting to hear you've come to agreement before I unprotect it. Please hurry - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it might be best to leave it protected for now, as it appears that there are lawsuits a-flyin' in Ontario right now, between the subject of the article and the fellow whom one of the above posters is alleged to be. Tony Fox (speak) 15:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I am never agin going to modify this page again. But if you did lift the ban, I don't think the problem well be solved. Is it possible that people must get permission to edit an entry? I think that could help solve the problem. Pete Peters 17:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

No. It's either protected or it's not. If you post here exactly what you want changed from what to what and why, I'll consider it. - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

This is the situation, look at what he has done to the Pierre Bourque entry. IMO, he'll revamp the whole thing in a not so favourable light. IMO, he'll then expand on this creation, and then revert/prevent any positive additions to the entry from being made. Once again, I'll direct you to Pierre Bourque entry, it is because this is a project in the works. IMO, phase one has been completed on that page, revamp the web page, step two is then expand on his initial version. I believe that this behaviour goes against the spirit of Wikipedia. So when you ask what I believe should be done? I think we should revert back to this edition. Before the Lawsuit to Bourrie occurred, and let users modify it from there. But not revert or revamp the whole page. I am never again going to revert or edit this page again, but I'll report what I deem to be viloations of the spirit of Wikipedia to you, Crzrussion. And oh yeah, could you please revert the last entry made on the Pierre Bourque page. Pete Peters 19:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I am not claiming Kinsella is not called "Canada's James Carville" or The Prince of Darkness. It's a name he gives himself, not one that opponents have given him. That's why I gave the citations from his book.64.26.167.71 23:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I haven't touched the Pierre Bourque entry. I haven't even read it. Not much I want to say or do until "Pete Peters", who has done nothing but harrass me since he registered four days ago, ceases and desists. It seems no administrators can be bothered looking at his contributions: a series of proven false allegations and personal attacks. That said, the old version of this article (pre-Pete Peters) was better organized. It put all the blogger material in one section; the Gomery material in another; listed the books; and did not contain what appeared to me to be vanity copy inserted by Kinsella (see my discussion post above re: Kinsella posting under an IP and please check the first post). The older versions of the article also contain serious errors, such as the claim Kinsella is called "The Prince of Darkness" and "Canada's James Carville" by his opponents. In fact, he, himself, uses those terms for himself (see p. 2-3 of Kinsella's Kicking Ass in Canadian Politics). As well, he did not run the Liberal War Room in either the 1993 campaign (Romeo LeBlanc did; see Kicking Ass in Canadian Politics, p. 20). He did not work in it in 1997 (he was a candidate in British Columbia) and did not run it in 2000, John Milloy did (see KACP, 134). As well, his many lawsuit threats against bloggers has been taken out of the version that's protected. You can see, by scrolling up, that the blogger lawsuit threats is a matter of some discussion. It is also a matter of some note (google the terms "kinsella", "Blog" and "alwsuit" and see that many, many sites have been threatened and it's a matter of some contention among bloggers. Certainly the Bourrie suit material belongs here. It's also been noted that much of the material in the Pete Peters version needs citations. I especially believe the anti-racism activism is questionable as mostly it appears to consist of a ten or fiteen-year-old book on white supremacists and being a "talking head" in the media. However, if it can be backed up with examples and citations, there's no reason to take it out. I simply pared out a lot of uncited material, ad copy for books, etc. I would especially like to see a citation to soemthing that shows real activism (i.e. work with an anti-racism group, pro bono representation of minority people in civil rights cases, etc. Simply being quoted saying "racism is bad" or "John Doe should be deported because he's a racist" and then doing nothing substantial about it does not impress me. If people feel otherwise, then let's proceed. I have tried to make this a better article and all I have received is stalking, accusations and harrassment. I feel Wikipedia administrators really dropped the ball on this. They have let this guy run roughshod on me, they've allowed him to libel Mark Bourrie, who, for better or worse, is not me and does not warrant this guy's abuse, no matter what his status with Wikipedia. Arthur Ellis 22:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

64.26.167.71? Who are you? You have never made an entry on Wikipedia before? Pete Peters 22:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Who dropped what ball, exactly? Administrators who protected a page against 3RR by User:Pete Peters and against blatant 3RR avoidance by at least three separate IPs from the Ottawa area (and then another here who admittedly was User:Arthur Ellis (and who then tried to cover up the fact that he wasn't logged in), or by two children playing "block him!" "no, block him!" and who can't get over their petty little edit war? Go get your own website where you can fight to your heart's content and stop insulting our intelligence by feigning innocence. Simply put, Wikipedia and what it stands for is not for people who act like you two have been... RadioKirk (u|t|c) 22:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I made my point, I am not getting into an edit war with you on any other page. It is a fruitless venture. I agree to not touch this page. If you can do the same, and I mean not by using random IP adresses to make modifications. Then I see no reason why not to lift it. But, please cut it out. I don't understand why you feel the need to do this? Pete Peters 22:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Instead of deleting his Anti-Racism activities, you could have asked for citations. Pete Peters 22:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

If you google "Canada's James Carville" [8] all the results refer to him. And on WK's website he quotes a Toronto Sun review of his book that also refers to him as that. AE if you are tried of being called MB then just volunteer for a checkuser and clear your name cause it doesn't look like PP is going to stop harrassing you. Geedubber 22:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Geedubber, please read this blog. Mark Bourrie has posted it on one of his blogs. The lawsuit clearly indicates that Arthur Ellis is also Mark Bourrie. Pete Peters 22:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Lift the ban if you want. I am out of here for a week.Pete Peters 23:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I recommend that we revert to the article as it stood after CJCurrie's edit at 2:56 on 27 June 2006. It's not perfect, but it seems to be the best of the many recent versions. Are there any complains about that version? HistoryBA 23:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

RadioKirk, where you dropped the ball was on allowing Pete Peters to call me a sockpuppet, harass me on his user page, make a sockpuppet graphic of me on his page with my name, and call me "Mark Bourrie" all over the place. Asfor "feigning innocence", RadioKirk, would you like to back up that accusuation with some facts? As well, he's violated the 3RR rule here many times. If this contributor hasn't been involved in harrassment, I don't know what is. + - A checkuser was declined. Am I supposed to be harrassed until I volunteer for one? Until I have to out myself? + - I have given constructive comments, with citations, and the harrassment continues, this time with a Wikipedia moderator making unfounded and unproven claims. - As for a "lawsuit" claim that I am Mark Bourrie, who says that? Are they threatening a lawsuit against Wikipedia? That's lost on me. - Let's checkuser all of us, including you and Pete Peters. I'm game for that. 64.26.167.71 23:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

the fact you keep saying that PP is trying to "out you", and by volunteering to a checkuser you would be "outing yourself" is quite odd for someone who claims not to be Ceraurus. "Let's checkuser all of us, including you and Pete Peters. I'm game for that." Alright, I would happily volunteer for a checkuser to disprove any sockpuppet allegations against me. Geedubber 02:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Same location, same edits, the evidence is clear: if not sockpuppetry, then meatpuppetry is undeniable. I dropped nothing, except for a trivial argument between two people acting like little kids. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 01:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I am not claiming Kinsella is not called "Canada's James Carville" or The Prince of Darkness. It's a name he gives himself, not one that opponents have given him. That's why I gave the citations from his book. BTW, clicking the apology citation above for Bourrie's blog shows the words hi mom. I suspect tghe case is not resolved and is, in fact, beore the courts, judging by the more recent posts. That's why it should be in the "threats to bloggers" category or Bourrie should be dropped altogether.64.26.167.71 23:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

the apology was there yesterday. i hope he didn't take it down cause i cited it. doesn't matter. i replace the link above with the google cacheGeedubber 02:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry; I don't understand. Why should Bourrie be dropped altogether? HistoryBA 23:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The case looks like it is before the courts. gthe apology is gone and Bourrie's blog says he's still being sued. (BTW, I forget to click "remember me" on my log-in. That's why the IP)Arthur Ellis

As well, the CJ Currie piece is dreadful. The unsubtantiated claims Kinsella was under police protection, the Kinsella-posted ad copy, nothing about his slap suits against bloggers. I do not understand why no one addresses this stuff.Arthur Ellis

Two questions: (1) Is there any Wikipedia policy that says we can't discuss a case that is before the courts? (2) If you don't like the CJCurrie version, is there another one that you think is superior, one that would win a consensus of your fellow editors here on the talk page? HistoryBA 23:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand why no one addresses this stuff.

What you do suppose we're doing now?

Anyway, the "CJCurrie edit" is not a "CJCurrie piece". I didn't actually write the article, I just deleted some stuff that obviously didn't belong there (including Bourrie's self-serving lawsuit reference). If other editors want to remove other dubious-looking material, I won't object. CJCurrie 23:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Kinsella did not "successfully sue" Bourrie. The case did not go to court. The blogger suits belong together. The Bourrie settlement (which now appears to have fallen apart) does not absolve Kinsella in Gomery. Arthur Ellis 01:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Activism

Thanks for everyone's constructive work on this article. Bringing the citation in and checking the original material has made obvious improvements. My only concern is the claim that Kinsella is an anti-racism activist. Is there any proof of that? In the media, he has been critical of white supremacists and Jew-baiters, but does that make him an "activist"? Has he actually done anything -- say, done pro-bono legal work, organize actions, etc. -- other than write about it? Might it be better to say that he has written articles on the issue or ion soem other way be more specific about this activism? Many people feel strongly about racism and are quoted in the press, but that hardly makes them an activist. I think, to be an activist, you must actually do something ("active") being the root word. As for the police guarding him and his family, that definitely needs a citation.

Arthur Ellis 13:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The guy has spent years researching the racist right, has written books exposing them, and gives speeches for free on the subject (he charges for speeches on other subjects). From my perspective, that qualifies him as an activist. HistoryBA 14:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I think WK has testified as an expert on racism at court trials. I couldn't find anything on the web about reprisals, but the far-right certainly doesn't like him. he is dissed a lot on a bunch of radical websites Geedubber 20:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, that makes him an author. We are accusing people -- perhaps unknown, but nonetheless -- of doing reprisals against him and threatening him and his family to the point they need police protection. I say that's a "fact" that needs to be proven. Again, HistoryBA, you've taken something that we know, torqued it, and drawn conclusions. In this case, one book became "books", you've added he speaks for free on this with no proof that he does (and even if he does do this, it's standard for an author selling books), then asked us to take on faith that he's been targetted for reprisals and that he and his family have been so threatened that they needed police protection. Maybe they did. Maybe they didn't. I say "prove it". Arthur Ellis 19:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why the categories of activist and author need to be mutually exclusive. In fact, I would suggest that writing is often an essential part of activism (the pen is mightier than the sword). I've never asked you to "take on faith that he's been targetted for reprisals ...". I didn't put that in the article (though I may have reverted to a version that contained that information), nor have I ever supported that on this page. Please withdraw that erroneous statement. Finally, in a quick internet search, I can't find any evidence that Kinsella continues to appear without charge to speak against racism, but he has done so in the past. See [9] HistoryBA 21:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Kinsella has actually written "books" on the subject. Both Web of Hate and Unholly Alliances are about racist groups. --JGGardiner 21:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Not really. Unholy Alliances is about Libyan terrorism linking up with anti-Semite groups in Canada, a thesis that turned out to be ludicrous, BTW. And if HistoryBA's going to revert to a version that she knows contains errors, she should take responsibility for those errors or edit them out. But I have cautioned her on the quality of her work and lack of responsibility to no avail. Arthur Ellis 22:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

dude, please try to act nicely Geedubber 22:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Arthur Ellis, I don't think you'll find many editors here who would agree with your argument that if one reverts to an earlier version of an article one is responsible for everything in that version. As a frequent reverter, even you would find yourself responsible for a lot of statements that you had nothing to do with. Would you mind if I ask if you are working toward consensus? HistoryBA 23:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Geedubber, thanks for your lates edit. And I want to say that the latest version of this article has been a group effort and has been very well done. Moving the Daisy reference really does improve the piece. I put Sophie Galarneau back in, since many sloppy news reporters often credit Kinsella for devising the stunt when he was part of a team and just executed it. It's historically important because it shows how tough and creative the entire Liberal war room was. This makes Wikipedia a more valuable reference. Arthur Ellis 23:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

the edit doesn't say that he came up with the idea, just that he went on television. I am fine with giving sophie galarneau credit if you can find a reputable source. good hunting Geedubber 23:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of citations, is there one for the $1000? The citation that was there before the change (from "part") doesn't specify the amount. --JGGardiner 23:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Activism

Who deleted the activism paragraph. Oh let me guess? Move on to other things buddy, you are going to miss your kids growing up. Thanks for putting that sockpuppet thing on my user page. I think that I'll keep it.Pete Peters 23:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

i don't get it. you are a sockpuppet of yourself? it is hard to defend against that. you are totally guilty :) Geedubber 23:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I did not put it on my page. Anywho, I am suppose to be on a wiki break. Can you please re add the stuff about the activism, since I do not want to get into a revert war. I do not think 20 hours is enough of a window to justify deleting it. I also think that the far right is trying to deny the actions of anti-racist activists, and deleting it only serves their cause. That is all. Have a good one yall. Pete Peters 23:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

what I meant is that the tag he added accuses you of being a sockpuppet of yourself... which makes absolutely no sense. i'll try to add something about his anti-racism into the writing section. I probably won't add back a whole section unless I can find more sourced info about his anti-racist activities besides writing. Geedubber 23:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I guess Pete Peters is back out of the shadows now that his sockpuppet IP is banned.Arthur Ellis 23:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I live in Toronto, the IP number that you are referring to doesn't even belong in the GTA. Quit goofing around.Pete Peters 00:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Galarneau

Galarneau is sourced at www.kinsellasux.blogspot.com, in a Feb. 21, 2001 National Post column by Paul Wells printed verbatim.Arthur Ellis 23:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

just so you know you will be breaking 3rr if you add the source back Geedubber 23:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

You are acting dishonestly. You know the information is properly sources (the Paul Wells National Post articlew) and you choose to leave misleading information in the article.Arthur Ellis 00:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

no, i am not. a site called kinsellasux is clearly biased. any info from that site should be questioned. how do I know that the article is printed verbatim? what is left in the article now is not misleading, all it says now is "Kinsella gained national exposure during the 2000 federal election when he appeared on television brandishing a toy Barney dinosaur to highlight Stockwell Day's creationist beliefs." which is true. I have done nothing dishonest. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith, because you never ever do and constantly make personal attacks against editors you do not agree with. just find a direct link to the Paul Wells article. Geedubber 00:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I've gone to the public library's newspaper database and have retrieved the article. Here's the key passage: "And what do you remember about his TV appearances? Precisely: the Barney the Dinosaur toy he hauled out of a gym bag to mock Mr. Day's beliefs about creationism. Except the Barney analogy wasn't his. It came from Sophie Galarneau, yet another near-anonymous Grit. Mr. Kinsella only acted it out." Paul Wells, Debunking the Cult of Warren, National Post, 26 June 2001, p. A6. We might also note that Kinsella himself (in Kicking Ass) says that Galarneau's contribution was that she co-authored (with Karl Littler) the phrase "the Flintstones was not a documentary." Finally, I would add my voice, again, to the growing number of editors who would like Arthur Ellis to respect the cooperative spirit of Wikipedia. HistoryBA 00:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Seems you think any personal attacks and false accusations about me are fair game. You have acted dishonestly. You know the Wells article is reprinted verbatim. Maybe you can lie to yourself, I suppose. You have damaged Wikipedia by deliberately taking away the opportunity to set the record straight, that the Barney stunt was not a great Kinsella brainchild, but was a deliberate ploy arranged by a committe. Kinsella is deliberately vague about it, but he admits it was a committee decision on pp. 134-136 of Kicking Ass in Canadian Politics. Arthur Ellis 00:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

it doesn't say he thought it up in the current version. i haven't acted dishonestly, stop making personal attacks. just find a better link. Geedubber

Actually I also went to look up the quote, just to help along. It took me some time to get it because kinsellasux actually has the date wrong. So it is probably best to use the original source when it is available. --JGGardiner 00:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Arthur Ellis, to whom are you talking? Are you calling me dishonest?? I went and confirmed the material that supports your position! HistoryBA 00:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

$1000 costs

the costs figure is in a lawyer's letter reprinted at www.kinsellasux.blogspot.com

Yeah but did you see who the author of the blog is. We should only reference credible sources. IMO, using a site name "KinsellaSux", sounds like a smear site, shouldn't be used. No one has even heard of Lloyd Fister. Pete Peters 00:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Right, Pierre. Ask your friend Kinsella.Arthur Ellis 00:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be said that Mark Bourrie paid $1000 in damages? What do others think? Good one buddy on the Pierre line. Pete Peters 02:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

You could say that, but it would be inaccurate. But, hey, that never... Arthur Ellis 03:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Band

Is belonging to a non-notable band in itself notable? I think the "Music" section should be deleted as a vanity entry.Michael Dorosh 04:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Shit From Hell should get their own wiki page (only 200 google hits), but why on earth would you remove sourced information from this page? It lets us know that he is a musician Geedubber 05:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it tells us he belongs to a band. One doesn't have to be a musician to claim membership in a band. Besides which, I can't see that it has anything to do with his legal or political career - it might rate a "trivia" section entry, but certainly not an entire section. Besides which, the only evidence presented that he actually belongs to this band is a self-referential website. In other words, it is unsourced. I could make my own yahoo group and clai:m I was in a band as well.Michael Dorosh 05:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:BAND. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 05:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

okay then. here is another link http://shitfromhell.com anyways. Geedubber 07:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

That's another vanity link, isn't it?Michael Dorosh 14:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

So much of the original article is a vanity entry. A 45-year-old lawyer-lobbyist playing in a punk band?!? This is worth an entry in an encyclopedia?209.217.123.126 11:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

In his youth, Kinsella was in a punk band, the Hot Nasties. Apparently they were notable in the Canadian punk scene. He's also written a book about Canadian punk music. So I think that his music interests are notable details for inclusion, at least comparable to say Stephen Harper's interest in ice hockey, which is included in that article. --JGGardiner 15:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Gomery

Dare to compare the version that has real, substantial information about what was said and done at Gomery vs. the version Pete Peters, Geedubber and HistoryBA want to use. It says Kinsella was critical of Gomery. Gee, I wonder why? 209.217.123.126 11:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

July 2 Fun 'n' Games

Seems to have been quite a day at the ol' Kinsella pumpkin patch. Thanks to Crzrussian for protecting from vandals. Seems like someone wants to destroy the work that came out of the consensus forged here in the last few days.Arthur Ellis 20:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Really? On your talk page, your conversation with Geedubber doesn't sound consensus forged.

You have done something very dishonest. Kinsella is often credited for the Barney stunt. Wikipedia can set the record straight. You know very well the Paul Wells column is reprinted verbatim. As I said, you should be ashamed for putting deliberately misleading information into the entry and taking out something that can set the record straight. Arthur Ellis 00:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Nor does your conversation with HistoryBA sound consesus forged.

Maybe "brick" would be more accurate. Now please go away.Arthur Ellis 02:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

What you wrote on Geedubber's talk page took the cake.

You acted very dishonestly and maliciously by taking out well-sourced material (paul Wells, National Post) in the Kinsella article. You should be ashamed.Arthur Ellis 00:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

In the end we are left with essentially the same version that Cereuaus created. You edited out the activism part, gave less than 24 hours for editors to fill in the citations. And putting it back in would be a fruitless effort, since a reverting war would occur. So was it a forged effort, no. It is the same version that was protested to begin with.Pete Peters 22:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Lots of things look bad when taken out of context. These are exchanges with three editors who failed to write accurate, sourced material and who sometimes insisted on taking out material that, unfortunately, was not good PR for Kinsella. Everyone had a chance to find material and cite it, and registered users still do. Even you, who've been with us almost a week now. I'm sorry if you have hard feelings. Arthur Ellis 23:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

It is not taken out of context. All three quote where the complete posts. In matter a fact, Geedugger reported the last entry. That is that, no more commenting on this discussion page about that. Pete Peters 23:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Really? Can you do that? Can you say "no more discussion" and that's it? The quotes are out of context. Yes, they are complete, but they are answers to posts made by the three editors who have tried to write something that has some resemblences to a Kinsella vanity piece. I looked at the last version by Ceraurus, and it looks quite different from this version. It's there for anyone to see.Arthur Ellis 23:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of this nature should be done on the User Talk page. That is why this discussion is to end. Pete Peters 00:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to be rude or unkind, but I didn't post them here.Arthur Ellis 01:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Doug Christie and Lawsuits

Why is a lawsuit led by Doug Christie not on this entry? Doug Christie who has defended Zundel. I see by reading the far right web pages, that Kinsella is a big enemy. I would never reference them, because that would only increase their page rank. Yet other lawsuits are on this entry? If Doug Christie is not on this entry, than neither should those blogger suits be on their.Pete Peters 00:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

If such a lawsuit existed, and it went anywhere, then let's have a look at it. It probably won't belong in the blogger stuff, but, especially if it went to court, it's something that should be looked at. But you may be right to not bring it up if it just gives publicity to right-wing nutbars. So far, I found this: http://bethuneinstitute.org/documents/onthemove.html It says Kinsella's publisher made a payment to some person I've never heard of for something in Web of Hate. I'm not sure I want it in the article that Kinsella's publisher made a payment to some fascist for an error in Kinsella's book, but if there's consensus, maybe it will be added. Is there some other suit? Surely, if Kinsella was sued by Christie and the lawsuit went anywhere, there'd be something in the MSN that could be linked to.Arthur Ellis 01:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the Doug Chritie thing should be merged with the other lawsuits. Libel suits should be merged into one. Pete Peters 02:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

But what is the Doug Christie thing? I haven't been able to find anything but the link above, and that has no real details. Can you find a source, something that can be used as a reference?Arthur Ellis 02:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Zundelsite has something on it[10], but it is from the zundelsite..... Geedubber 06:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

People keep talking about a Doug Christie case, but it appears, at most, he was counsel for someone else, Rocan, and actually pried a cash settlement out of Kinsella's publisher -- and that isn't even mentioned in the two articles found so far. It appears the plaintiff was a person named Rocan, and Kinsella was defendant.. Saying it's a lawsuit "led" by Christie is like saying Johnny Cochrane was the defendant in the OJ trial. For better or worse, Christie is still a member of the bar in Canada.

The Rocan suit appears to be some kind of action over a libel made by Kinsella in Web of Hate. In this case, it appears Kinsella's publisher's insurance made some kind of payout to them.

In other words, to put the kindest light on it for Kinsella, some kind of neo-Nazis or white supremacists got money because of a suit they launched over Web of Hate.

Now, it's possible Kinsella falsely accused someone of being a white supremacist or neo-Nazi. He has had to apologize before for labeling people racists (most notably in the 2002-2003 Liberal leadership campaign).

I suppose we could do a new section on that stuff, but this is an encyclopedia entry, not a biography.

Not much detail in either article about the Rocan case, certainly not enough to say anything definitive and NPOV about it. Looking at the wacko Zundel site made my skin crawl. I really don't want to touch it with a barge pole.Arthur Ellis 08:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

A Bit More:

Here are some more nutbar page links:

http://www.fpp.co.uk/Legal/Penguin/witness/Kinsella/Cafe0998.html

http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:F4CNSI8_F_AJ:www.freedomsite.org/pipermail/fs_discussion/2000-August/000796.html+Rocan+Kinsella&hl=en&gl=ca&ct=clnk&cd=6

http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:r8kl_E_c1JEJ:www.theambler.com/apr1-15_06.htm+Rocan+Kinsella+the+report&hl=en&gl=ca&ct=clnk&cd=3

I haven't changed my mind about this being a road down which we shouldn't go.

Arthur Ellis 13:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

If they are nutbar links, then don't provide the links. This only increases their page rank. I agree it is a road that one shouldn't go, just like the legal action paragraph. A lawsuit as big as the one against Dan Brown over the Davinci code derseves mention, not some legal action that never made it to the courts. When I read up on someone, the last thing I want to know is who he has had out ocourt settlements with. If WK sucessfully sued the G&M, then why no mention of that? Why is there mention of someone who I only heard about because of WK filed claim against him? Surely the G&M, Doug Christie are better entities than MB. That is why that section must be taken out, because it is not a big deal compared to everything else. Perhaps we should also include what type of cereal he has in the morning?Pete Peters 14:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

You raised the issue of the "Doug Christie" lawsuit(s) and I asked for sourcing so we'd know what this stuff was about. I was unfamiliar with it/them, and I'm still unclear what happened. I'm certainly not convinced I've seen anything on the Internet with much credibility. As I said, if there's some sort of reputable media source that describes the Rocan action, would you please link to it. If there is another suit where Christie was plaintiff, can you provide useable links to a verifiable source?

If there are other suits that you know of, perhaps you could provide information on them. I know of one Kinsella suit against the Globe and Mail, but it didn't go to trial so it can hardly be said, in that case, Kinsella "won" a lawsuit against them. But, as I've said, please bring verifiable, authoritative material to the discussion.

As for the legal threats against bloggers, that was hashed out many months ago on this page and I don't believe there's a need to go through that again.Arthur Ellis 14:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I see Mr. Peters has dropped this issue and moved on to another topic, without giving us anything we can use in the entry.Arthur Ellis 15:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

from what I could find on the web, Roger Rocan was a salesmen. He was a candidate for the Reform Party, and then created the BC First Alliance party, a BC sovereignty party. I'll let you guys decide if you want to include this topic. Pete are you talking about Jan Wong's article? The G&M pirnted a retraction so i guess he "won", but I don't think it went to trial. If we include that we might as well include the Rocan thing, and create a broader legal history section. Geedubber 15:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I think to "win", you have to get a judgment. Anything else is a settlement. Here's the Globe's response to whatever legal action Kinsella took. To say it's a "retraction" is quite a stretch:

News CLARIFICATION 41 words 27 February 2002 The Globe and Mail Metro A2 English "All material Copyright (c) Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc. and its licensors. All rights reserved." In a recent column about Warren Kinsella, a reader might have drawn the conclusion that Mr. Kinsella used a near-tragedy concerning his child in order to sell books. The Globe and Mail accepts that this was not so.

As for the Rocan issue, there's still no details. Was there a real lawsuit? Did it go to trial? Was there a settlement? What was the settlement? Arthur Ellis

I agree with CJCurrie, we should delete the who legal action stuff, it is only self serving. Pete Peters 16:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. Googe "Warren Kinsella" and 3/4 of the first five pages are discussions on various sites about his lawsuits. His litigousness, especially against the new medium of blogging, is important. Arthur Ellis 16:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Music

Well if other Wikipedia pages refer to Warren simply as "Calgary Punk", i don't think it is vanity at all. The other guy deleted something out about SFH, without knowing you had already deleted the earlier stuff about the Hot Nasties. If both are there, then, I am certain than that guy would have not deleted it out. I also researched a track he has on an Album, which is sourced on Wikipedia. His music is more important that his ability to get MB write an apology. Pete Peters 14:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Leaving aside your fixation with MB, whoever that is, I have tried to put together a compromise entry that lists his band and his remarkable song on the "album". It's called "Barney Rubble is My Double". At the same time, I've nominated the album page for speedy deletion because it appears to be a vanity listing. Arthur Ellis 14:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)