Talk:Rachel Marsden/Archive 2

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

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

message: With all due respect Bucketsofg, I think you've misread Ianking's point. Mark got the right reference. The "June 2003" episode is where Marsden claims to have been a production assistant. This contradicts her earlier claim that she worked there as Connie Chung's assistant in 2000. See? I want it back in the article, but with all the ongoing revert wars I'm waiting for a quiet day before doing any further editing. --Cyberboomer 01:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Marsden's claim to have worked at 20/20 and been Chung's assistant go back to before 2003.  See her old webpage [here], archived at wayback from 2001.  I'm not sure what the evidence for the 2003 date is. Bucketsofg 04:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see what you mean. If you click on various episode titles, Marsden has gotten herself listed as a Production Assistant. For example, Paul and Linda McCartney interview (1979). Not bad considering Marsden was only 4 going on 5 at the time. --Cyberboomer 20:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

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

message: I've removed the sentence "In the end, Marsden's claims were never adjudicated by a court or a reconstituted university sexual harassment committee and no charges were laid against anyone involved in the controversy."  This is, I think, either misleading or wrong.  The arbitration process that Donnelly applied for in June/July 1997, the first step of which was mediation.  In commenting on the process, Donnelly's and SFU's lawyers released a statement quoted in the Vancouver Sun, Jul. 17, 1997 that said: “The mediation process will take into account the harassment panel’s conclusions but will for the first time hear the evidence of Mr. Donnelly and other witnesses in defense of him”. Bucketsofg 21:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The mediator's report (here, accepted by both parties here) says "The findings of the harassment panel were based on Ms. Marsden's credibility. Inconsistencies between her statements before the panel and her response to Mr. Donnelly's harassment complaint cast doubt on her credibility."  Bucketsofg 22:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: removed 'claims never adjudicated'

message: 1.  A story published in the Ottawa Citizen on November 28th headlined "Tories Woo Convicted Stalker to Run Against Jack Layton" contained incorrect information. The subject of the article, Rachel Marsden, was not convicted. Ms. Marsden received a conditional discharge for criminal harassment, fulfilled the conditions of the discharge and is deemed not to have been convicted. The story also stated that Marsden was "found to have been stalking" Liam Donnelly. No such findings were ever made. Further, the article stated that Marsden was "terminated" by the Conservative party from a job on Parliament Hill. Marsden has never worked on Parliament Hill. The Citizen regrets the errors.
2.  An Oct. 13 article regarding the guilty verdict against Rachel Marsden for harassment referred incorrectly to Marsden as having been fired from her job in the office of MP Gurmant Grewal. Grewal said at the time she was not fired, but he simply ran out of work for her. Her departure from Grewal's office occurred shortly after news media learned she was working for the MP under a different name.
3.  A story published Oct. 13 referred to allegations by a Simon Fraser University swim coach that he was stalked by former SFU swim team member Rachel Marsden. In fact, the allegations were not proven and SFU declared its investigation into both parties' claims of harassment null and void because of flaws in the process
The Province. Vancouver, B.C.: Sep 9, 2004.  pg. A.3
4.  On Sept. 5, The Province incorrectly reported that a Simon Fraser University swim coach accused of sexual harassment by Rachel Marsden in 1995 was fired after Marsden took her allegations to the media and that the coach was then reinstated after an investigation cleared him. The case was actually heard by a university tribunal. The coach was reinstated after flaws were found in the investigation process that led to his dismissal. Ceraurus 20:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retractions re: Marsden: 

message: Moved from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Marsden2 to this page since it's a dispute over the content of this article. Fagstein 18:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  How does the text of the article contradict those retractions? The article includes Gurmant Grewal's claims that Marsden's contract had ended; notes that SFU found both complaints null (reversing its original decision) and that she was not convicted but was discharged following ther completion of probation. The article on the whole does not paint a positive picture of Marsden, but given her well-documented track record, that is not surprising, nor is it an NPOV violation. The accusations of misogyny are baseless. Ianking 01:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I'd like to know that too. See also my edit here. On a general note, hopefully everyone will be able to put aside their opinions soon and get on with writing articles. It is an encyclopaedia after all and energy expended in internecine squabbling could be much better applied elsewhere, I'm sure. Anyway, there's my tuppence! Badgerpatrol 02:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved from Articles for Deletion 

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

message: Now that the sockpuppets have been identified, I was wondering what others thought about moving two more sections of this discussion page to the archive, specifically the sections 4 and 7, titled "Moved from Articles for Deletion" and the "The Stalker is Being Stalked". . I dare say we'll need the space on the 12th, when Mark's block comes off...
Please sign your posts. Ceraurus 20:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rearrange it in any way you deem sensible. It's a wiki world, y'know. You might consider splitting the archive into "2005" and "2006-1" (representing the earliest archive of 2006 blather; if cooler heads prevail, we shouldn't need to create a kazillion archives) in order to keep each individual page manageable. Ianking 00:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving more to archive? 

message: I deleted the footnote that read: 'Free Dominion discussion about Marsden's prospective candidacy. Several posters claim to have written the Conservative organizer warning her that this is a serious error. The site admin writes, This has to be a publicity stunt. I just can't believe any regional organizer would be stupid enough to consider RM as a potential candidate.'  It strikes me that FD's opinion is not worth including here. Bucketsofg 21:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you think FD's opinion is worth including here? Marsden has a history with the site. It is relevant as a measure of how conservatives view her and her potential candidacy. --Cyberboomer 21:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It comes to notability, imo.  Is FD really indicative of 'how conservatives view her'?  First, if I remember that thread correctly, opinion was mixed.  Second, even if opinion were uniform there, FD is not, imo, part of mainstream conservativism.  Moreover, once we start quoting Connie's opinion of Marsden, should not we be quoting everybody's, including fans?  I think it is best to leave it out.  Stick to the facts (as best as we can reconstruct them); leave opinions to the talk pages. Bucketsofg 21:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: As usual you get it all wrong. Rachel_Marsden#Media_controversies features this sentence: The Western Standard has been highly critical of her, while Judi McLeod, editor of the website Canada Free Press, calls Marsden a "personal hero" and describes her personal controversies as "trouble with bogus boyfriends." As I said before, not that you care to listen, The Canada Free Press article defending Marsden has long been a core part of the Rachel Marsden Wikipedia page. We even link to it. --Cyberboomer 20:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought you were on McLeod's side. Now you don't seem to think highly of her. Which is it? If I've misinterpreted your comments, please correct me. --Cyberboomer 21:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

text: We do address points directly. --Cyberboomer 01:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very, very rarely. No one has addressed many of the issues raised elsewhere on this page. And I do enjoy the collective "we". Ceraurus 14:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Free dominion ref 

message: The Toronto Sun is referred to as a "tabloid" at least twice on that article's entry without any NPOV debate that I can see. Why is it POV when used here? Pasboudin 03:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It struck me as gratuitous here.  But if you disagree, by all means put it back in.  Bucketsofg 06:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toronto Sun 

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

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

message: Seriously. Is that a joke? --Geedubber 22:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Read this Wikipedia:Publicity_photos--Geedubber 23:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

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

text: What are we saying that the subject wrote? This entire article? -Will Beback 23:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the article cites her cv (curriculum vitae) which is totally okay to do--Geedubber 23:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

text: A CV is in no way exempt from fair dealing citation. It would be unacceptable if Wikipedia were using her CV in an attempt to imitate her on the job market, but if you were to file a legal claim that citing her CV as a reference source in an article about Marsden constituted some kind of intellectual property violation, any judge on the freaking planet would laugh you out of his courtroom in seconds flat. More desperate stalling tactics from the "any mention of controversy whatsoever, no matter how neutrally worded, is unfair to her" crowd, I see. Bearcat 01:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

text: i liked the old one better--Geedubber 03:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: CV Copyright? are you kidding?

message: If anyone has problems with the copyright of the new image, that should be handled at the image page itself, not by blanking the entire article.  But anyway, is this new image an improvement?  I kinda preferred the old one with O'Reilly. What do others think?  Bucketsofg 03:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i liked the old one better--Geedubber 03:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright Image

message: I think some citations are needed regarding the CFP/Standard/McLeod thing. I couldn't find a source for the 'personal hero' quote. Also, wasn't the public friction actually about McLeod claiming the Standard plagiarized sections of their article? If someone could clear that up that would be great --Geedubber 23:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've read the comments below but will provide a link here on the talk page to prove that the quote was made. "Even (my) personal hero, talk show host/columnist Rachel Marsden checked in with a letter." I believe McLeod accused the Standard of plagiarizing the Toronto Star, if I'm not mistaken. This was one of several complaints she had about the Standard's RM article. --Cyberboomer 22:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool. When i googled RM and 'personal hero', the wiki page was the first and only relevant hit so that is why I was skeptical. I am not sure if it worth including though, so I leave it up to you guys. On the 'public friction' note, what I was trying to ask was 'wasn't there more controversy over the fact that McLeod accused a fellow journalist of plagiarism than the Standard's critism of Marsden'. Like, what was the real story: the debate over Marsden? or McLeod ironic dissing of a journalist for dissing another journalist. I might be confusing the issue though.--Geedubber 22:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Frankly, I don't much like this section at all.  I don't understand, frankly, why McLeod's professed admiration of Marsden is worth mentioning.  Perhaps a line about criticism by the Western Standard and defended by the Free Press.  But even if we could source 'personal hero', I don't see why we'd keep it.  Bucketsofg 04:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: yeah, plus the Sticks and Stones/fifth estate thing isn't really a 'media controversy'. I am in favour of deleting that section if you want.--Geedubber 04:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would keep "Sticks and Stones" integrated into the rest of the text - it was significant exposure, and gave her a chance to respond to the personal charges in the context of her work - while the paragraph on CFP and WS, whose treatments of Marsden can be compared in External links anyway, could go. Samaritan 05:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that "Sticks and Stones" should stay, not least because the CBC is the most significant Canadian media outlet.  The Western Standard and Free Press are micro-media. But perhaps the name of the heading should be rethought, too. Bucketsofg 11:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved the contents of the section to Education and career in journalism, since all of this coverage centrally commented on her current work in media. I recast it a bit to shorten and contextualize the conservative media/CFP/WS bit - I don't think I mind its retention so much as the implication a schism between the two on the issue of Marsden was a remotely big deal - and tweaked "Sticks and Stones" a tiny bit stylistically because moving it here bumps up the first mentions of Donnelly and Morgan. Samaritan 17:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Media Controversies

message: Jeez, this is not a very good article, is it? It reads like a tabloid gossip column. Um, don't you think the bulk of the article should have more about her positions or something? The stalking stuff should be about half or less of what it is, we don't need that much detail, this stuff bears on her character and warrents inclusion but its not the most imporant thing about her, is it? What difference does it make if she's crazy if her writing is influential. And the article in total is too long. Herostratus 07:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is a very good article. In Canada, she is more known for the stalking stuff than her journalism career. It was on the news all the time here when it happened. Most of the articles written about her by the MSM, even if it is about her journalism career or politics, reference the stalking stuff. Sadly, for Marsden, the stalking thing will always be the elephant in the room. Everthing is cited quite well so I don't really get your gossip criticism. IMO, the fact that it may read like a tabloid column is more the fault of the subject's actions than the contributors' writing. A probable reason for the article's current scope isn't that the contributors have a hate-on for Marsden, it is the fact that we are mostly Canadians.Geedubber 20:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The 'stalking stuff', as mentioned above, is what made the subject front page news, and therefore -- especially in light of recent efforts to revise or question it -- 'should be' detailed and referenced at length, which it is. The subject's recent career has generated considerably less coverage, and is comprised solely of commentary, so what additional details or citations, besides the link to her own site, would the 'random outsider' recommend? Towelie 01:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A random outsider's view 

message: I reverted the page to Revision as of 20:41, April 29, 2006. User:70.25.152.39 took stuff out because it wasn't sourced and then added stuff that wasn't sourced. So I reverted it back to their 2nd edit that contained no unsourced info. My problem isn't that the info wasn't true, but that if you are going to be a stickler for citations then you should include your own when you add info. Geedubber 06:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Plus, that user has identified herself in the past as RM. Whether that is true or not, I think it is a faux pas to write about yourself or who you claim to be. WP:AUTO and stuff. Geedubber 07:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, Geedubber. Welcome to the circus where every so often this IP (which as you point out once claimed to be Rachel) or his/her friends comes by.  I would be inclined to revert the whole, rather than just to his/her second edit, since one thing that is eliminated by this is the reference with link to Marsden's early c.v. I'm going to revert back; feel free to over-rule me here, but let's try at least to leave the reference in. Bucketsofg ✐ 12:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

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

message: I've removed from the footnote both the fact that IMDB says that Marsden was Chung's assistant and the note that the IMDB is unreliable. Here is the deleted section: The Internet Movie Database lists her as a production assistant at 20/20. However, she is credited as having worked on episodes as far back as 1979 . IMDB's own website explains  that they depend on third-party submissions. Only 17 staff members are actively involved in validating and processing through the system the hundreds of thousands of lines of presumed information contributed each month. Staff members gauge the validity of contributed data based on the past reliability of the contributor, as none are themselves experts in significantly varied areas of film history to know what is valid themselves.   Bucketsofg✐ 21:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The IMDb articles put long-running series under their first date of appearance; for 20/20 this was 1979.  Then when it does a cumulative cast list for the entire show (as in the link above), the entire cast is listed as if under that first year.  One way or the other, however, IMDb is not a reliable source--wrong data is easy to insert into it.  In this case, the data probably came from Marsden's publicist, who is credited for her IMDb biography (which includes other erroneous data). Bucketsofg✐ 22:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  IMDB removed 

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

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

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

message: While I am sure that it is true, I cannot find any marriage announcements. I've checked NP, G&M, Vancouver Sun and Province, London Times, Toronto Sun and Star, CFP, and her website. I would be willing to waive citation requirements on this one though, since the IP identified herself as Marsden's sister. What do others think? Geedubber 05:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with Homey; information passed on by relatives does not count as a verifiable source for Wikipedia purposes, because we have no way of confirming it, leaving it as essentially original research. WP has determined in more than one dispute that even if an editor does happen to privately know that a piece of information is true, it can't be in Wikipedia if there aren't any sources available for other people to verify it. Bearcat 19:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: You wish. Bearcat 23:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.36.153 (talk • contribs) 
Can you reveal the name of the lucky fellow? That might help us track down a media reference to verify this. You say she was married in the UK... I wonder, could it be Mark_Collett? 
Wiederaufbau 19:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Marriage

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

message: I am aware there is some kind of content dispute going on, but what are the problems??
*1. What is the nature of the dispute (content, BLP, etc.)??
*2. Who are the main participants in this dispute??
*3. How can we resolve this peacefully?? (not via RFA, but possibly another mediation case etc.)?
If you are able to answer these 3 questions in a detailed manner, then I can help, hopefully. --LiverpoolCommander 12:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article disputes 

message: A Request for arbitration has been filed regarding the editing of this article, alleging that it is not edited in accordance with Biographies of living people. Thatcher131 20:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Request for Mediation" template I posted has, for some reason, disappeared.Arthur Ellis 17:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitration 

message: I'm new to this page, so set me right if I am pestering you about something that is already resolved. In the references #3, what does "circumstances of production unclear" mean? I see in several of the references archives at bucketsdata.wordpress.com. What is that exactly? Tom Harrison Talk 00:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks like a blog that keeps reproductions of television transcripts and press articles. I am going to take a wild guess and say it is run by User:Bucketsofg for the purposes of providing linkable citations. Geedubber 00:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The primary issue is that Arthur Ellis has recommenced the very same disputed edits that are the subject of the arbitration in the first place, even though for obvious reasons the arbitrators need to be able to see the material they're arbitrating. I have no problem with a disinterested party making other changes to the article in the meantime; what can't happen is Arthur removing the very material that the arbitrators need to be able to see to review the case. Bearcat 17:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: By all means go through a pull the dead links, and any controversial material that depends on them.  If I recall correctly, 'circumstances of production unclear' alludes merely to the fact that we don't know the exact date of production.  Bucketsofg 17:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or anything else about its production. Welcome, Tom, to the Bucketsofsmear. Arthur Ellis 17:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

message: Just so everybody knows the policy, from Wikipedia:Citing sources:
When a link in the Reference section (a link to a source for information in the article) "goes dead", it should be repaired or replaced if possible. External links/Further reading sections are not as important, but should also be fixed. Often, a live substitute link can be found. In most cases, one of the following approaches will preserve an acceptable citation.
* A very large proportion of pages can be recovered from the Internet Archive. Just go to http://www.archive.org/ and search for the old link by URL. Make sure that your new citation mentions the date the page was archived by the Internet Archive. 
* If this was a non-blind citation of web-only material, it may be worth the effort to search the target site for an equivalent page at a new location, an indication that the whole site has moved, etc.
* If the link was merely a "convenience link" to an online copy of material that originally appeared in print, and an appropriate substitute cannot be found, it is acceptable to drop the link but keep the citation.
* If you cannot find the page on the Internet Archive, remember that you can often find recently deleted pages in Google's cache. They won't be there long, and it is no use linking to them, but this may let you find the content, which can be useful in finding an equivalent page elsewhere on the Internet and linking to that.
If none of those strategies succeed, do not remove the inactive reference, but rather record the date that the original link was found to be inactive — even inactive, it still records the sources that were used, and it is possible hard copies of such references may exist, or alternatively that the page will turn up in the near future in the Internet Archive, which deliberately lags by six months or more.  When printed sources become outdated, scholars still routinely cite those works
Geedubber 12:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree, but deadlinks do not necessarily equal a poor source. The reason I posted the above info was to inform others that deadlinks can be 'fixed' to meet the guidelines. Geedubber 13:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the only real difference with biographies is the immediacy. If we were talking about King Henry, we could wait a few weeks. Tom Harrison Talk 13:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Removed because it's controversial? No, it should be removed if it can't be reliably sourced, and the lack of a link to a site where the material can be accessed at no charge should not invalidate material -- reliability and proper citation are what matter. That should be the rule for any material, positive or negative, controversial or less so, bio of a living person or a dead one. Ianking 19:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Like it or not, biographies of living people are different. There is nothing wrong with citing stuff available only in print. If the citation is to a newspaper, the cite is still good if a convenience link goes dead. If the citation is to a resource that was only available online, and the online source ceases to be available, the information that was supported by that citation has to come out, unless it is something non-controversial that did not really require a citation in the first place. Tom Harrison Talk 20:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank-you for your attention to this, Tom.  The only other point that should be noted is that deadlinks in BLPs are really only problematic if their point is controversial or negative.  Obviously,when a link goes dead, it should be replaced with a live one, as has been done here.  But if all the old cvs disappear from the Internet Archive, it would not be necessary to remove the fact that the subject's major was biology, no?  Bucketsofg 20:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Only if it somehow became controversial. Tom Harrison Talk 20:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  it doesn't really matter anymore (for this page anyways), but the WP:BLP doesn't actually say that explicitly (unless I'm reading it wrong -- I'll ask for clarification on the BLP page). Geedubber 22:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What to do when a reference link "goes dead" 

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

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

message: Arthur has recommended this page for speedy deletion arguing that it is an "attack page" and therefore speedy deletable per General Criterion Number 10 of the speedy deletion policy."
*Oppose:  I don't think this case is appropriate for speedy deletion.  First, this page is currently the subject of an arbitration that may resolve all issues.  Not only would I like to see how that plays out before the page is deleted, deleting the page would prevent the non-admins from using its history as evidence.  Second, I don't agree that this is an attack page -- particularly before the arbitration finishes up, I am a long way away from concluding that it was "created for the sole purpose of disparaging" Ms. Marsden.  TheronJ 18:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Best to let it go. Fred Bauder 21:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion of speedy delete proposal 

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

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

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

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

message: The arbcom remedy says the article may be deleted by any admin if it violates WP:LIVING, so an immediate deletion is not out of process. The only question would be whether or not it violates WP:LIVING. That is a judgement call, and we should err on the side of caution, being careful in this case to adhere to a conservative interpretation of policy, also per arbcom ruling. I'm deleting the page, but leaving this talk page for now for discussion and feedback. Tom Harrison Talk 16:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tom, the article you deleted was a two or three-sentence stub saying something along the lines of, "Rachel Marsden is a political columnist." How did it violate a conservative interpretation of WP:LIVING? Also now that non-admins can't see any version of this page except the one cached by Google, how can we engage in discussion and feedback? Kla'quot 16:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now instead of the two or three-sentence stub, it contains a notice that it has been deleted, which was basically the case before. I understand you object to the deletion. What is the mechanism for appealing deletions made under WP:LIVING? Not a rhetorical question, I really don't know. Tom Harrison Talk 16:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the process is to start by asking the deleting admin to undelete the page. Tom, could you please undelete the page? Can we have at least a one-week amnesty on speedy deletion so that we can continue to have a good-faith discussion? Also I don't understand what you mean by "which was basically the case before" - can you rephrase this? Kla'quot 16:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The deleted page notice might be more informative than a permanent three-line stub. There has been active discussion of this for some time now, including arbitration. I don't see how undeletion would be useful. Tom Harrison Talk 16:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You said you are "leaving this talk page for now for discussion and feedback," so I took that to mean that you are not trying to close all discussion. In order to have discussion, we need to be able to see the page history, which nobody except admins can do now. I believe there is something like history-only-undeletion, which will leave the delete-protected notice in front but allow viewing the history tab. Does this sound reasonable? By the way, I know that speedying a page that has been speedy-kept twice is going to be... controversial and I'm surprised that arbcom gave admins a mandate to do it. I appreciate the fact that you guys have a thankless job here. Kla'quot 17:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: And do you still think that the three-line stub you deleted violated WP:LIVING? Kla'quot 17:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think that is the only criteria to apply. Any page could be made compliant as a short enough stub. I think arbcom mentioned deletion as an option becuase that may be a better choice than stubbing. I don't think undeleting material that violated policy would be useful. Undeleting a stub would just show a stub, which is also not useful. Maybe others disagree. Tom Harrison Talk 18:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we should have a positive stub, because that leaves all the negative material unmentioned, which would also be inappropriate. The best solution is to draw a line under the entire affair, and have no article at all. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

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

text: I think the remedy applies to any page that relates to her, but there's no harm in asking. Tom Harrison Talk 23:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, the remedy titled "Articles which relate to Rachel Marsden" directly applies, there is no need to ask for clarification. - Merzbow 23:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Let's continue this particular discussion on the Talk page of the harassment case article. - Merzbow 23:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the harassment case should be deleted, and the ArbCom ruling certainly applies to it. It set no precedent; it ended up not being clear what had happened; both sides walked away with a sum of money; and there was no international interest that I'm aware of. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

text: As a member of the ArbCom I feel the deletion of this article was inappropriate, and runs counter to our efforts to help diffuse the situation and allow a neutral article to be created. While we all suport the principle that a grossly unbalanced biography should be deleted, we certainly did not find that this page in its current state qualified. Work should either immediately begin on a new neutral article, hopefully with participation from all sides, or work should continue on improving the previous one. - SimonP 14:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me amend my earlier comment to state that an immediate undeletion is not necessarily in order, but we do need to begin the discussion of what steps are going to be taken to create a neutral NPOV article on Ms. Marsden. - SimonP 16:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think we can write a biography that is balanced, sourced, and conforms to policy. I agree with SlimVirgin that the best thing to do is move on. Maybe in a couple of years there will be the material from which to write a good biography. But, I could be wrong, and SimonP suggests I have misunderstood arbcom's intent. I know little about Canadian politics, so I don't really have much I can usefully contribute here. I'm confident that I have left the article in a state the does not violate policy, whatever else its shortcomings. From this point on, I think the article will be best maintained by people with the interest and knowledge to do a good job. Tom Harrison Talk 20:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The arbitrators say at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification that protection is inappropriate at this point, so I have unprotected the page. Tom Harrison Talk 22:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I didn't see this until after I'd protected. Tom, feel free to unprotect if you prefer; and also say in the edit summary that I'm okay with it so it doesn't look like you're wheel-warring. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 04:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, I've done it myself. Apologies again for not reading this page carefully enough. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem; you naturally mistook my lurching around for purposful activity. ;-) Tom Harrison Talk 15:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Being a lurcher arounder myself, I appreciate your forebearance. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 21:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion 

message: An anonymous user has repeatdely removed the following sentence from the article. I cannot see anything controversial about it, but I'd be happy if someone could explain to me why we shouldn't use it.
Her website, accessed on December 18 2006, states she is the president of a "public relations, lobbying and communications business".Catchpole 15:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A personal website is typically not a reliable source, especially in an article like this. - Merzbow 18:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I found another source for this information here . Catchpole 19:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  President of a.... 

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

message: (I've temporarily removed the comment. I see nothing wrong with it but it's been reverted several times and the revert war needs to stop. Let's talk about this. Kla'quot 17:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: The above comment was deleted in its entirety . Please cite your concerns about the comment, or consider editing out the parts that you think violate WP:BLP. If the above gets deleted wholesale again, I think we should take it back to Ar bCom, as I don't see any dispute resolution happening here. Kla'quot 23:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, thank you Dave for writing these very insightful and thoughtful comments. Kla'quot 03:47, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This was just deleted again:  with no explanation other than the edit summary, "Revert to SlimVirgin. ArbCom properly calls Sticks and Stones "gotcha" journalism." ArbCom made no reference to the CBC documentary in its final decision; the only thing a single arbitrator said was, "I looked at it. The interviewer obviously had a point to make and skillfully made it. It is strongly biased but I think it is a righteous external link as well as evidence of her close association with O'Reilly. I doubt its usefulness regarding anything else due to its strong bias and gotcha tactics. Fred Bauder 15:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Aside from the question of whether the source is decent enough to be referred to on a Talk page, there is the very troubling issue of people blanking comments that do not criticize Rachel Marsden, but that do criticize their own decisions. Removing good-faith, civil criticism of Wikipedians'  actions, such as, "It was a shock to find the page under a protected delete at the time," is vandalism and highly discourteous. Please stop. Kla'quot 17:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After yet another revert which blanked everything in this section (including the beforementioned criticism of Wikipedians' actions and my criticism of the blanking of criticism), I have removed the comment from Dave702 in a good-faith gesture to stop the revert war. My blood pressure is rising so I'm going to walk away from this article again for a while. I hope others will be able to bring a fresh perspective to the discussion (which has been more like an edit war than a discussion for the past few days). Kla'quot 17:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polarized Blinders? 

message: I have added the following sentence: Before her journalism career began, Marsden was involved in a controversy over an allegation of sexual harrassment she made while at Simon Fraser University. 	 
: I think this is sufficiently conservatively stated to not breach any of the Arb Com findings in the previous case. If you change this please discuss why rather than just saying Arb Com. Catchpole 09:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy

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

message: One approach to article construction that has long served me well is to collect the sources first, and then to expand the article with a whole bunch of sources in hand.  Part of the controversy surrounding this article is the fact that many of the sources used for prior versions were bad to the point of being unacceptable.  I suggest that editors collect a lot of good sources and cite them here before doing any expansion of the article.  I further suggest that in addition to the requirements that all sources be reliable and independent of Marsden herself, all citations employ the conventional Wikipedia citation templates, that no citation be acceptable if any of the relevant template parameters are not properly filled in, and that no source be considered a good source if it has no date or no readily identifiable named author or publisher.   In other words:  Bare URLs are not acceptable.  Links to search engine results are not acceptable.  Web logs, home pages, diaries, and discussion forum posts are not acceptable.It was mentioned in the ArbCom discussion that several retractions were printed.  Now is the time to cite where those retractions can be found.Here's some incentive: Without citations of multiple in-depth published works about this person from independent and reliable sources, there is no evidence that this person satisfies our WP:BIO criteria, and the next AFD discussion will focus upon that lack, and will not result in a speedy keep.I'll start you off: Uncle G 06:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: #  
#*This is a potential source for the fact that Marsden's occupation is as a columnist.  But it's not non-trivial, as Marsden is not the focus of the work, but is merely mentioned incidentally in the introduction.  This verifiable information is already included in Wikipedia in Toronto Sun#Current Sun writers, and is not enough to justify a whole biographical article.
#
#*At 109 words (1 paragraph, 3 sentences) this is hardly a non-trivial published work.  This source provides exactly three things about the subject: That Marsden is a pundit.  That she was once the centre of a controversy at SFU.  That she pled guilty to a harrassment charge and was given a conditional discharge.  The first of the three things can fit into Toronto Sun#Current Sun writers with ease.  The other two are not enough to justify a whole biographical article.
#
#*This article isn't actually about Marsden, and in fact only mentions her in passing.  It's actual subject is Nina Grewal, as per its title.
#
#*At 8 paragraphs (10 sentences), this is, ironically, the longest of the published works cited so far.  It tells us that Marsden was charged with harrassment, reports what a policewoman said, and reports what bail conditions were requested.  It also mentions the SFU controversy, but, like Mickelburgh above, does not describe it in detail.
#http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/sticksandstones.html link to Sticks and Stones, a CBC news documentary that mentions Marsden]
#
#
#
#
There are others (results from the major British Columbia newspapers alone are here: ). I'm not saying that we must keep this article, and I'm not saying we should expand it. There is a very thoughtful discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons right now. But since you asked, yes I believe she does meet our notability criteria. It's not a borderline case either; there are probably dozens of articles from the past five years in which she is the primary subject, and this is NOT counting the articles about the SFU case.  Kla'quot 08:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of citations 

message: *
* Catchpole 13:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: List of search results

message: Removed legal threat. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This edit is shown by checkuser to share an ip with , an indefinitely banned user who had previously been shown by checkuser to be a sock of , who is banned by the Arbcom from this article. Fred Bauder 14:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Blocking the ip is inappropriate as there is some use by an innocent third party. Fred Bauder 14:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: FYI

message: Review of the article shows it to be about as good as can be expected. It would be helpful if she was the subject of more favorable third party comment which could be added to flesh out the article, but that is out of our control. Fred Bauder 14:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed legal threat. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: State of the article

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

message: One approach to article construction that has long served me well is to collect the sources first, and then to expand the article with a whole bunch of sources in hand.  Part of the controversy surrounding this article is the fact that many of the sources used for prior versions were bad to the point of being unacceptable.  I suggest that editors collect a lot of good sources and cite them here before doing any expansion of the article.  I further suggest that in addition to the requirements that all sources be reliable and independent of Marsden herself, all citations employ the conventional Wikipedia citation templates, that no citation be acceptable if any of the relevant template parameters are not properly filled in, and that no source be considered a good source if it has no date or no readily identifiable named author or publisher.   In other words:  Bare URLs are not acceptable.  Links to search engine results are not acceptable.  Web logs, home pages, diaries, and discussion forum posts are not acceptable.It was mentioned in the ArbCom discussion that several retractions were printed.  Now is the time to cite where those retractions can be found.Here's some incentive: Without citations of multiple in-depth published works about this person from independent and reliable sources, there is no evidence that this person satisfies our WP:BIO criteria, and the next AFD discussion will focus upon that lack, and will not result in a speedy keep.I'll start you off: Uncle G 06:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: #  
#*This is a potential source for the fact that Marsden's occupation is as a columnist.  But it's not non-trivial, as Marsden is not the focus of the work, but is merely mentioned incidentally in the introduction.  This verifiable information is already included in Wikipedia in Toronto Sun#Current Sun writers, and is not enough to justify a whole biographical article.
#
#*At 109 words (1 paragraph, 3 sentences) this is hardly a non-trivial published work.  This source provides exactly three things about the subject: That Marsden is a pundit.  That she was once the centre of a controversy at SFU.  That she pled guilty to a harrassment charge and was given a conditional discharge.  The first of the three things can fit into Toronto Sun#Current Sun writers with ease.  The other two are not enough to justify a whole biographical article.
#
#*This article isn't actually about Marsden, and in fact only mentions her in passing.  It's actual subject is Nina Grewal, as per its title.
#
#*At 8 paragraphs (10 sentences), this is, ironically, the longest of the published works cited so far.  It tells us that Marsden was charged with harrassment, reports what a policewoman said, and reports what bail conditions were requested.  It also mentions the SFU controversy, but, like Mickelburgh above, does not describe it in detail.
#http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/sticksandstones.html link to Sticks and Stones, a CBC news documentary that mentions Marsden]
#
#*At 24 paragraphs, this is a fairly substantial article.  Much of it is verbatim reporting of Gurmant Grewal's own opinion of Marsden.  What is written is largely positive.  This is possibly a good source to use to provide balance and to keep the article neutral.  For example: We can, with this, source an opinion that Marsden's recent work will eclipse her past.  That's definitely an opinion espoused by one side of the debate about Marsden.
#
#
#
There are others (results from the major British Columbia newspapers alone are here: ). I'm not saying that we must keep this article, and I'm not saying we should expand it. There is a very thoughtful discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons right now. But since you asked, yes I believe she does meet our notability criteria. It's not a borderline case either; there are probably dozens of articles from the past five years in which she is the primary subject, and this is NOT counting the articles about the SFU case.  Kla'quot 08:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of citations 

message: I don't really know all of the details involved but I'm not sure that it is worth mentioning.  It looks like one anonymous organizer asked her to run and she declined.  I don't see why that is really notable.  Is there more to it than I'm aware of (or can remember)?  --JGGardiner 08:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no strong opinion either way. The main idea of the news story as it is written is not so much, "Who is Rachel Marsden"? but rather, "What kind of people are being asked to run in this election, and why?" BTW to correct the facts: In the news reports, the organizer is named (as Georganne Burke). The organizer withdrew the request before Marsden replied to it, saying "We're looking for someone who will help carry the torch, help to build the organization and not detract from that by being too high profile." Kla'quot 18:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough.  In the old days, I was happy enough to include almost any detail if the article wasn't too long.  But I'm not sure if it really says anything about Marsden herself.  She didn't seem to do anything, including apparently even decline the offer.  I suppose it might say that some organizer thought highly of her.  Although as I recall it was raised in the media as more of a bizarre request.  I'm not really opposed to it but I'm not sure that it adds anything.  --JGGardiner 02:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Potential Parliamentary Candidate

message: I want to go on the record with some comments on Talk:Rachel_Marsden/Archive2. I believe an apology to Bearcat and other contributors is in order. ArbCom has evaluated the conduct of the main contributors to this article, and asked them to interpret BLP more strictly. Aside from editors who are already banned from a wider range of articles or from all of Wikipedia, everyone is officially welcome to participate. 
Surely everyone can understand the difficulty of writing an NPOV article about Rachel Marsden. So why bother? Speaking for myself, if Marsden was writing, say, opera reviews, I wouldn't care. However, she  writes and speaks about politics, and when it coemes to serious news, many of us think that the question of who writes it is an important one. Attempting to answer the question of, "who is writing our news?" is not a base motive; it is a highly honourable one and an essential part of civic discourse. I am confident that sexism has little or nothing to do with criticism of Rachel Marsden, and I'm a Canadian woman so if I'm wrong about this it I would be failing to condemn sexism in my own society, and that would eventually affect me. 
There are probably more widely-read political writers that we do not have an article on, however attention naturally falls on controversial figures and on people who promote unusually extreme views. (yes, there is at least one reliable source saying that her views are unusually extreme).
One of the archived comments from SlimVirgin is, "There are several references on the web to the Wikipedia article about her, and even a couple of the websites that themselves criticize her, refer in negative terms to the Wikipedia page e.g. by saying it's "too gleeful," and words to that effect." A search for ""Rachel Marsden" Wikipedia gleeful""  brings up nothing, and in any case we'd need to see the context and source to evaluate whether there is something to learn from the criticism. Kla'quot 20:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some "for the record" comments on previous discussions 

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

message: An editor with no prior record of activity on this page (AFAIK) posted the "prohibited" version of the Marsden article a few minutes ago.  I will assume that this editor was unfamiliar with the Arbcomm decision, which I have since forwarded to him.  
I have reverted his changes, and I plan to delete and recreate the page *in its current form* after sending this post.  Given this page's complicated history, removing the "prohibited" version from the documentary record seems to be a sensible precaution.  
Please inform me if you disagree with my decision.  CJCurrie 03:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because of my significant involvement with BLPs and experience in writing BLPs, I was asked to review the Marsden situation.  After my review of the situation, I rewrote the Marsden article using 45 separate Wikipedia sources without reference to any version of the Marsden article.  Your statement that I posted the "prohibited" version factually is not true.  The article had a significant amount of information and I am unsure how you could have reviewed each piece of information in the article in the context of the ArbCom decision in the less than two minutes that you took to revert the article.  Item 9 of the ArbCom decision cites to a negatively biased version of the Marsden article as an example as to what the Marsden article should not be.  Your deletion of the page's complicated history affects the ArbCom decision by deleting the negatively biased version to which ArbCom desired to have editors review as part of improving the Marsden article.  Since the "prohibited" version was not posted as you stated, your removing the "prohibited" version from the documentary record seems premature and something ArbCom could have done had they so desired.  -- Jreferee 04:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

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