Talk:Simon Fraser University 1997 harassment controversy

message: I would like to delete both the article talk pages because they're full of BLP issues. I'll wait for a bit because people may want to continue this discussion. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the talk pages should be deleted.  There is carefully researched source material in them useful for rewriting the article and I don't see anything libelous there.  I just started looking at this stuff (I'd never heard of Marsden before) but she appears to be a genuine public figure and not exactly the queen of neutrality herself.  I can't see the deleted article on WP but the currently mirrored version on answers.com doesn't look like an attack article to me.  Checking a news database finds tons of stories separate from the harassment case.  The National Post said the Canadian conservative party sounded her out about running for an MP seat but then changed their mind because she was too "high profile" and that was over a year ago (National Post, Nov 26 2005, p. A5).  If she's too high profile to run for Parliament, I'd say she's a public figure.  I don't understand why the article was deleted and I think this place has gotten too deletion happy. 67.117.130.181 11:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, looking a little further at the database hits, a lot (maybe most) of them are to Marsden's own columns.  Still, that confirms that the columns themselves are real.  Was anyone really doubting this?  Some of the reasoning in this dispute by supposedly sensible people is pretty bizarre.  WP:RS#Self-published_sources_in_articles_about_themselves makes it pretty clear that Marsden's personal site is an ok source for this basic factual info unless someone is disputing that rachelmarsden.com is actually Marsden's site.  67.117.130.181 20:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Talk pages

message: FYI, this article is currently under Deletion Review: Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Marsden-Donnelly_harassment_case. Kla'quot 01:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion Review 

message: The deletion review close included 1) relisting at AFD and 2) determining that the article should not be at the old title.  This specific new title "Simon Fraser University 1997 harassment controversy" is not required.  The cutting down that I did is an editorial decision, but it is one that I believe will help the article adhere to WP:BLP and not create undue weight in violation of WP:NPOV.  I encourage editors to look for further ways to remove biographical content from this article while focusing it primarily on the encyclopedic aspects of the case, which I believe is primarily the impact on the university.  (Sourcing offered in deletion review for the claim that it did have a wider impact on other universities was unconvincing.  I did not pay to read the Phi Delta Kappan article, but it was written in 1997 so can't have been a historical retrospective, and other sources I found were merely expecting such impact, as opposed to documenting it.)  GRBerry 07:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion Review Close 

message: The style guidelines on the lead section state that the lead should summarize the content of the article. Currently the case itself is only covered in the lead, and the sections cover only SFU process and consequences. There is a sourced section discussing the case in the version from November 2006 (the "mutual accusations" section only). Before I restore it, I would like to hear opinions on possible WP:BLP concerns. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 14:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the article would be better with a limited rewrite of that section included; I probably went a bit overboard when I cut back the article after DRV2.  Try to avoid the salacious details to the extent feasible.  We obviously can't copy it, but the summary of the case in the second paragraph of Rick Coe's article for the Canadian Association of University Teachers Bulletin is very much the type of rewrite that I'd be comfortable seeing added.  (Incidentally, the 6th paragraph of that source verifies the recently disputed statement that most of the cases did not involve faculty members.)  GRBerry 14:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Struck two words for stylistic reasons.  No concerns with the rest.  Check to see if all the sources are needed to support the new paragraph; there are a lot of sources separated by only elipsis.  GRBerry 15:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we need all those sources, two are certainly enough. I don't know enough about Canadian media to make the call on which ones are the most reliable though. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 15:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:LEAD]]

message: This entry, over the years, has been a spectacular example of the anti-feminism that plagues Wikipedia's overwhelmingly white, middle-class male "editors". It is a textbook case of men failing to believe a woman and using any source -- including a Fraser Institute "report" written by a conservative university professor for a right-wing Koch-financed "think tank" -- to discredit her side of the story. The entry, and Marsden's, has been filled with "slut shaming" material through the years. The authors have tenaciously fought against this woman and her story through ArbComm cases and have worked to silence or ban those who have stood up for her. It had been an appalling spectacle that would likely not happen in the #metoo years, and it's something Wikipedia really needs to look at. Wikipedia culture biases have harmed the reputations of many, many people who have been victimized by full-time Wikipedia "editors" who know how to use arbitration and administrative functions to their benefit. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 13:01, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Me Too

message: The new source is an Opinon piece in the university's student newspaper.  Is it really reliable enough to use?  GRBerry 17:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questioning new source