Talk:Rachel Marsden/Archive 1

message: Why is it relevant to keep a running tally of Marsden's appearances on O'Reilly's show in this article?  She is the Canadian Correspondent for the show and has been on at least 3 times in the last 2 months and as such, it seems stupid to keep a running count that would have to be updated with every appearance.
::Above by User:70.25.152.39. Please sign your contributions rather than try to get them through on the sly. Ianking 00:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know offhand of any Canadians that have had recurring appearances on the show; though I know of a couple who have had one-offs. (I don't follow the show too closely, so there may be some recurring Canucks.) I have seen a couple of Marsden's appearances (which looked like they'd done a pre-interview), but have not heard her described as the show's "Canadian Correspondent." As best I can tell, that is what she calls herself. "Occasional contributor" would be neutral and accurate.Ianking 01:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, but "occasional" is a bit there-there. "contributor," I think. (And I've just changed it to Canadian contributor on The O'Reilly Factor.) Samaritan 05:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That sounds to me like a reasonable compromise. Bucketsofg 05:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, I've made it "guest" rather than "occasional guest," since that was what it had become. Samaritan 05:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: O'Reilly

message: Given that the IMDb article does exist, and that it does refer to Marsden working at 20/20 as a production assistant, I suggest that we say something like "Marsden's role as production assistant on 20/20 is difficult to substantiate, and there is no corrobating evidence that she was Connie Chung's assistant.  According to a National Post reporter, ABC denies Marsden worked there in any capacity." Bucketsofg 20:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: suggested compromise on 20/20

message: Hi, Mark.  Listen, here is what IMDb says about itself ():The information in the Internet Movie Database comes from various sources. Though we do some active gathering of information, the bulk of our information is submitted by people in the industry and visitors like you. In fact, about 70% of our staff is dedicated to processing the massive amounts of information we receive and add to the database every week.
In addition to using as many sources as we can get our hands on, our data goes through a large number of consistency checks to ensure it's as accurate and reliable as possible. However, there's absolutely no substitute for an international team of movie buffs with an encyclopedic knowledge of trivia and a large assortment of reference works (and we include in this group many of our loyal contributors). Our main sources of information are on-screen credits. We also rely on press kits, official bios, autobiographies, and interviews.
Given the sheer size (over 470,000 titles and 2 million names) and the nature of the information we list, which is often subject to change especially on yet-unreleased films or long-running TV series, occasional mistakes are inevitable and, when spotted/reported, they are promptly verified and fixed. That's why we welcome corrections and submissions.
However keep in mind that our service is provided for the information of users only. It is not provided with the intention that users rely upon the information for any purposes.In light of this, I think we should be careful about its value.  For all we know, someone may have seen the 20/20 claim in Marsden's c.v. and added it to the IMDb.  I have tried to neutralize this part of her career section. Bucketsofg 02:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, no, Mark.  IMDb clearly got the above entry wrong.  I've sent in a correction by the process described, and Marsen will soon disappear from the Crossfire page.  True, people cannot write their own IMDb page, but they can clearly add incorrect details to the database, as has happened here.  'Rachel Marsden the unidentified female caller' has become 'Rachel Marsden cast member'.  Note, too, that none of the other dozen or so guests or callers have been entered for these programs.  Why?  Because no one bothered to enter the data.  Why?  Again because no one was motivated. Bucketsofg 19:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Go read the IMDb article in wikipedia, especially the criticisms section.  According to that, IMDb has a full time staff of 17 and gets thousands of changes per day.   In that kind of environment, they will be able to catch only the grossest of errors.  The point, Mark, comes down to a question of Quellenforschung (I assume as a history graduate student you understand the term): a source is only as reliable as its source.  What was IMDb's source?   Bucketsofg 19:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I explained elsewhere on this page, what you say is blatantly untrue. "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 00:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Mark.  Time out.  I'm trying to re-reference the whole article from the best contemporary sources available.  But my attempts to slowly rework the article are being written over in the on-going reversion war.
There is a date conflict between IMDB and Marsden's own claims about when she did her stint at 20/20. Marsden's resume, both the one referenced on the page and an archived version from August 2003 from the Wayback Machine claims that she worked at 20/20 in 2000; there was no mention of any additional stints at ABC News. The IMDB entry states that the episode she helped prudice aired in June 2003. In addition, the archived version of her homepage from 2001 has a link to an entirely different 20/20 story than that in the IMDB entry. Ianking 01:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: IMDb

message: There are clear problems with the IMDb article on Marsden (here).  It includes among Marsden's 'filmography' an appearance on a "Crossfire" Episode dated 3 July 2002.  There are complete transcripts for Crossfire on the CNN site, and that episode is (here).  It makes no mention of Marsden.  If you search for Marsden on the CNN site, you get this from the 2 July 2002 episode (here): "UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Good evening Mr. Carville and Mr. Novak. My name is Rachel Marsden (ph), and I'm from Vancouver, Canada.  And this is a question for Mr. Carville. Mr. Carville: How do you respond to comments suggesting that Bill Clinton and his administration blew their chance at capturing bin Laden after the embassy bombings in 1998?" The mistaken date, of course, is trivial. But the characterization of Marsden's role is obviously inflated. Marsden was not cast, but a caller.  Why did IMDb get this wrong?  Because they rely on whoever submits information to get things right. Bucketsofg 03:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, no, Mark.  IMDb clearly got the above entry wrong.  I've sent in a correction by the process described, and Marsen will soon disappear from the Crossfire page.  True, people cannot write their own IMDb page, but they can clearly add incorrect details to the database, as has happened here.  'Rachel Marsden the unidentified female caller' has become 'Rachel Marsden cast member'.  Note, too, that none of the other dozen or so guests or callers have been entered for these programs.  Why?  Because no one bothered to enter the data.  Why?  Again because no one was motivated. Bucketsofg 19:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Go read the IMDb article in wikipedia, especially the criticisms section.  According to that, IMDb has a full time staff of 17 and gets thousands of changes per day.   In that kind of environment, they will be able to catch only the grossest of errors.  The point, Mark, comes down to a question of Quellenforschung (I assume as a history graduate student you understand the term): a source is only as reliable as its source.  What was IMDb's source?   Bucketsofg 19:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I explained elsewhere on this page, what you say is blatantly untrue. "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 00:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Mark.  Time out.  I'm trying to re-reference the whole article from the best contemporary sources available.  But my attempts to slowly rework the article are being written over in the on-going reversion war.
There is a date conflict between IMDB and Marsden's own claims about when she did her stint at 20/20. Marsden's resume, both the one referenced on the page and an archived version from August 2003 from the Wayback Machine claims that she worked at 20/20 in 2000; there was no mention of any additional stints at ABC News. The IMDB entry states that the episode she helped prudice aired in June 2003. In addition, the archived version of her homepage from 2001 has a link to an entirely different 20/20 story than that in the IMDB entry. Ianking 01:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: more on IMDb

message: This is my stab at how this article should start.  "Rachel Marsden (born December 2, 1974) is a controversial Canadian media personality and political commentator, currently a columnist for the Toronto Sun."  That she is controversial is surely well illustrated by the arguments about this article.  'Media personality'?  Maybe, maybe not.  Tell me what you think.  "Political commentator" and "columnist" is there from before.  If you want to change or improve this, say why here. Bucketsofg 22:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: opening sentence

message: It seems to me that in these few sentences we need to tell the reader what is best known about her, which is (I think) the television punditry and harassment cases.  (If you think otherwise, or have something to add) explain why.)  For both these points, however, I think we should leave the details about what TV show and the specifics of the harassment charges to the body of the article below.  Then I think we conclude with her current position. Bucketsofg 22:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 2nd sentence

message: I suggest that we delete "Marsden has formal training in acting and experience as a runway model and portrait photographer" as not terribly relevant, but I'm happy for someone to revert me here if they can come up with a good reason to keep this.  (Please note that 'it is true' is not quite enough to justify inclusion.  Please explain relevance.) Bucketsofg 22:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: acting, modelling, photography

message: I've tightened this up, leaving all the allegations of resume fudging but taking out the quotes. I have no doubt that Marsden worked at 20/20 in some capacity, especially after finding the imdb database entry, which, to me, is as solid a source as one unnamed ABC employee quoted in a newspaper article. I do believe it was for a short time and was almost certainly as an intern. Rather than have the drawn-out Post quotes, I simplified it by stating the resume claims and saying they were challenged by media. MB
: Again, Mark, the imdb article is not beyond question: perhaps one of us should try to insert himself into an entry.  Why would the ABC employee lie?  
Who is the ABC employee? No name, no title. Could be someone who just answered the phone. I really am amazed at how much trust is placed here in newspaper journalism. MB
I have taken out the suggestion she was fired by the Post because no one has proved it. Suffice to say she didn't last long. People who know the Post realize there has been a steady turnover of senior staff and editors. At most, she was canned after her boss was fired, but other sources say she was hired by one of the Asper brothers. There is no proof she was fired for cause or for anything connected with the harassment, as all of that stuff happened before Marsden was hired and surely was known by her employers )if the read their own paper). MB
: I agree that 'fired' is not NPOV Bucketsofg 01:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the strident conservative she is today, I think her past as a Liberal supporter and volunteer, however briefly, is fascinating, and obviously points to an evolution. Conversion stories are always interesting. Speaking of rounding her out, all mention of her commitment to animal rights has disappered... more peripheral, maybe, but interesting, and I daresay she'd probably even agree it's a big part of who she is. Samaritan 01:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm kind of between the two of you on this.  Samaritan, can you find a way to include these details in a NPOV that Mark can accept? Bucketsofg 01:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I reduced the volunteer thing to a bare minimum. Suggestions welcome. Pasboudin 18:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Education and career in journalism 

message: I get the feeling that this is a very anti-feminist article. I also believe it has a strong underlying tone of "she's a bad woman and she gets to be on TV and in the papers. Why not me?" It reeks of envy, mysoginity and of anonymous back-stabbing. I've had enough of this piece. I'm going to ask Wikipedia to read the discussion below and take down the article.
I posted this on Jimbo Wales' talk page:
Something should be done about the "Rachel Marsden" page. In my professional opinion, as a journalist with 25 years experience in Canada, it breaches the Canadian libel laws and leaves Wikipedia open to a lawsuit. It's incredibly biased, uses discredited sources, ignores sources that contradict its negative POV, and appears to be an attempt to ruin the reputation of its subject. Marsden was involved in two harassment scandals, but the article tries to link her private life to her politics and her work as a columnist, and accuses her of lying about her qualifications. Formerly, it published information about a man with the same surname, claiming, without proof, that he was her father (as though that should matter). I have tried to make the article fair but have had it reverted. I don't want to become some kind of crank. It just bugs me that a couple of writers and a Wikipedia administrator perpetrate this entry and continue to defend it. I have never met Masrden and I don't work with her or have professional dealings with her. You have already posted on the dicussion page, but to no avail. I suggest the page come down or be reduced to a minimal entry, as the subject is not a major player in Canadian journalism and the harassment controversies are now of minimal public interest. Mark Bourrie M.J., PhD (cand) Dept of History University of Ottawa, Canada
I've done all I can to make this article fair. It's so obviously biased that I doubt anyone could take it seriously. It is a disgrace to Wikipedia and everyone involved with it should search their conscience and be ashamed.
Mark Bourrie
:User talk:Jimbo Wales  Did you have to put it at the top of Jimbo Wales' page? And for your information, the original link about Claude Marsden proved that he had been convicted in a criminal court.  He was sentenced to 8 months imprisonment in the community. I think this means house arrest. --Cyberboomer 00:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It matters only because you keep mentioning it. You complained about the Claude Marsden reference and so it was removed. And it wouldn't have been mentioned again if not for you. You wrongly claim that the links didn't say anything about a criminal conviction, which they clearly did. --Cyberboomer 00:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest changes 

message: 142.78.56.9 and 142.78.64.223, both from public terminals in the National Library of Canada. Please stop removing sourced content. Wiederaufbau 16:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  National Library of Canada - Sockpuppets 

message: Just for reference, two bits about her education that fell out of the orbit of the main article:
*Started to pursue a diploma (listed as "P.B.D.") in criminology from Simon Fraser. "In Progress" as of 1998 per the old CV listed in External links, which can be seen by Google cache, at least
*Started to pursue a Master's in National Security Studies. This appeared in author tags on her op-eds and a biographical blurb on an Angelfire page.  This would be during the Washington period or shortly afterwards. The university is never identified. Samaritan 23:58, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Educating Rachel 

message: This incident appears to be at the root of this dispute: http://www.provincialcourt.bc.ca/judgments/pc/2004/03/p04_0369.htm
Under BC law this incident may be removed from the records of the court in a few years and she will have no "criminal record". If our editors have not understood this subtlety that is to be expected, see http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/crimrec/pandp_e.htm and http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/44958.html#section-730 from which note:
"2) Alternative measures shall not be used to deal with a person alleged to have committed an offence if the person
(a) denies participation or involvement in the commission of the offence"
So she had to admit to the court that she had committed the offense in order to receive the sentence of "discharge" So the problem in the article is to adequately set forth this rather complicated situation rather than expressing the matter in the bald but inaccurate statement: "She was convicted of stalking." Fred Bauder 14:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: HOTR: Please supply some source that shows that a guilty plea was actually entered. Fred Bauder 19:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Never convicted of a crime

message: The notion that Rachel Marsden engaged in "forgery" seems to have come from http://oldfraser.lexi.net/publications/pps/25/section_06.html which is part of http://oldfraser.lexi.net/publications/pps/25/ The author is David Finley http://oldfraser.lexi.net/about_us/people/david_finley.html
The link forged which while it does not focus on forgery as a felony, unfortunately has the connotation of serious criminal behavior while the actual incident was more of a prank. Another problem is that this is expressed as a bald statement of fact, not an "according to" statement. Fred Bauder 14:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Forgery

message: Please stop removing references to Marsden's guilty plea. In Canadian law a conditional discharge involves a judge finding an offender guilty. Though there is no conviction there is still a verdict of guilt. Please read the conditional discharge article. Since conditional discharges are usually offered only in a plea bargain, they usually involve a plea of guilt from the offender. This was the case with Marsden:
:"Marsden, a right-wing political pundit who has made several appearances on the U.S. network Fox News, pleaded guilty last October to criminal harassment of former Vancouver radio personality Michael Morgan.
:The Vancouver radio host received a conditional discharge with one year of probation.
:Police said the pair were involved in a sexual relationship for about a year, but when it ended, Marsden began a barrage of unwanted phone calls and e-mails.
:Part of her conditional discharge involved an agreement she would not write about Morgan or his family on the Internet, as the pundit has her own website." (You've got (threatening) mail! Online harassment followed romances gone wrong in these cyberstalking cases By Dave Breakenridge -- Sun Mediahttp://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/TechNews/TechAtHome/2005/01/31/915660-sun.html
Again, please stop removing references to Marsden's guilty plea. Homey 15:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Guilty plea

message: Mark Bourie, I've addressed several of your points in my latest edit. I've removed the link to the blog entry. I've removed the reference to Frank magazine which isn't entirely relevant. I also removed the sentence about Marsden receiving several unearned credits. Hopefully with this good faith gesture we can all work together to make this article better. Much of the rest of what you're deleting (and I've reverted) is relevant and referenced with reliable sources, however. Pasboudin 21:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What if we were to shorten the reference to a single setence, as I have done? I'd be interested to hear the opinions of others about this, personally I think it's at least a noteworthy parallel. Pasboudin 02:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Single sentance is fine with me. Wiederaufbau 22:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure we can discount the entire article on the basis of this particular slight semantic inaccuracy. If you check this article's history you'll notice that we ourselves struggled with this detail one as we shaped the article. It took a lot of editing back and forth here to have the word "conviction" removed, for a little time nobody knew which term was more accurate. The "fraud artist" label is probably referring to her other questionable activities (eg. "Elle Henderson" controversy). Pasboudin 02:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Which sentence or paragraph are you referring to, and how would you rephrase it? Pasboudin 02:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: You're free to edit this in with sourced information. As it stands we can remove the mention of Pyette and the result would be something like "In 2005, she was hired as a twice-weekly columnist for the National Post, but was let go not long after." Would you be ok with that? Pasboudin 02:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This sounds good to me. Wiederaufbau 22:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I apologize if the typo offended you, but please rest assured that I am not at all concerned with impressing you. Pasboudin 02:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addressing concerns 

message: :Hahahahhaahhaha.  Riiiiight.  Because someone links to a BLOG, then it MUST be TRUE!  Lol!  Are you people that freaking stupid?!  Or just blindly biased against this Rachel Marsden person? 70.25.152.39
::Hi 70.25.152.39. I'm guessing that the blog links to which you refer are numbers #2 and #4. I assume the original authors used these links because they reproduced newspaper articles they were quoting as sources. In order to dispell any doubt, I have looked up and included the hard copy publication date and page number of each source. The ABC News quote comes from the National Post, Aug 9, 2003 (pg. A.21), and the source for the Grewal material (i.e., hired agains wishes of Conservatives) is the Vancouver Sun, May 8, 2004, (pg. A3). Please feel free to verify these on your own through the Proquest Canadian Newsstand archival system (accessible for free through most public libraries). The Proquest ID for the first article is 640079871, and the second is 637272991. Wiederaufbau 22:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blogs and Newspaper Articles 

message: Interesting, you drop any mention of Marsden being fired by the Post (the way you put it she could have left because she got a better offer), you denigrate the Western Standard but have no comment on the Canada Free Press (or, for that matter UPI). Looks to me like several of your edits are quite POV. Homey 04:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Les Pyette was gone barely five days as publisher of the National Post when it was announced this week that one of his most controversial hires there, political columnist Rachel Marsden, would also be joining the ranks of the unemployed. Like Pyette, Marsden's stint at the Post was brief: two months, compared to his eight. The right-wing pundit, who recently moved to Toronto from Vancouver, told fans on her website Tuesday that the Post was "a bad fit from day one. Given these developments, I'm in the process of looking for a new adventure, and am open to any opportunities or suggestions." Surely a resumé must have landed on the desk of former Post editor/now Maclean's chief Ken Whyte by now. (Globe and Mail, July 30, 2005) Pasboudin 04:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The Internet Movie Database is hardly the authority on who worked as what at ABC News, but as far as I can tell nobody is trying to remove this reference. However, ABC is officially on the record as saying that Marsden was not in their payroll or database, as Homey pointed out, and that simply can not be ignored. Pasboudin 02:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Picking out minor spelling errors in a discussion is poor form. At the risk of being called a hypocrite, I must point out that it was you who spelled isn't as isnt' in the Latest Changes subsection up above . We all make minor spelling errors at some point. --Cyberboomer 22:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mark's POV 

message: Mark 1) why have you removed the (sourced) Grewal material
2) why did your edit note not mention this rather major change?Homey 19:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Grewal

message: Nice edit on the Sticks and Stones documentary, Mark. 
:The majority of letters about the show, posted by the CBC, were from viewers who believed the documentary was unfair.[].
If you bothered to consult your own source, you might have realized that:
 - 5 of the 12 letters posted were negative (majority?)
(I did a recount and found 6 and 6, if you interpret the last letter as hostile to the piece. I realize now its meaning is unclear) MB.
 - 85% of all received letters were positive 
(So the CBC says) MB
But of course as we all know by now, you care very little about the accuracy of your entries. It is clear that you are simply here to push a particular viewpoint with unsubstantiated claims like this one and whitewashing, incredibly while baselessly accusing your fellow editors of the same thing. Your POV-pushing is mind-boggling. Pasboudin 02:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: More flights of fancy from Mark Bourrie. Pasboudin has never contributed to the Judi McLeod entry. Jimbo never complained about my contributions to the McLeod entry. HOTR did. What irony! I also removed an unproven allegation about McLeod's firing from the Sun that some other party posted. Last week I posted information about the award she won in 1983. I polished somebody else's otherwise excellent contribution to remove feelings of bias - which were easily understandable - from the Canada Free Press page. McLeod recently accused Wikipedia of being in cahoots with Kofi Annan. I thought her allegations were worth exploring. I didn't care if she was proven correct and Wikipedia had made a covert edit. I brought it to the attention of several Admins. One of them wrote her asking for details. She hasn't written back. --Cyberboomer 22:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: If anybody needs shaming it is you Mark Bourrie. Least of all for your antics on other message boards which were brought to my attention shortly after you began posting here. I also remind you that Pasboudin - Saint that he is - incorporated some of your earlier suggestions. --Cyberboomer 22:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: And don't forget "the worst kind of coward". Actually, I consider it an honour to have the legendary Mark Bourrie attack me. I'm not offended at all and don't mind his original comments remaining. I'm more concerned about his earlier attack on User:Aunt Clara. He wrote Trying to tar me as Marsden's "friend" is a smear from an a anonymous coward, typical of the garbage that's appeared on this page. MB --Cyberboomer 20:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Elsewhere on this page you write, I know Marsden from a news dicussion (sic) forum, where she posts some pretty funny and self-deprecating stuff, and she invited me onto her radio show, and, I must admit, I had a great time talking to her (by phone). --Cyberboomer 01:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

text: How am I guilty of a personal attack? --Cyberboomer 20:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Essentially accusing you of being a troll? That's your interpretation. And you continue with the personal attacks when you say, "You always work from a double standard. You have a very immature and under-developed sense of fairness." --Cyberboomer 00:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mark's Sticks and Stones "fact" addition 

message: I know Marsden from a news dicussion forum, where she posts some pretty funny and self-deprecating stuff. Mark Bourrie
This is the news discussion forum Mark Bourrie means. Rachel Marsden posts as "Missy Tee". Damn that's some funny stuff there Mark. Touser 01:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Missy Tee