Talk:Warren Kinsella/Archive 1

message: Someone, likely Kinsella, edited the page March 3 to get rid of all the material that makes him look bad in the Gomery section. 
Why is there no information at all on this page about Kinsella's role in the Gomery Scandal that brought down the Liberal government that he worked for?  It's not rumour or innuendo, there is a transcript of the judicial proceedings with statements by the judge about Kinsella.  Or does this Wikipedia board only serve as a smear machine against conservatives while propping up liberals by leaving out damning and crucial facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.25.152.39 (talk • contribs) 
::No, Rachel. As you yourself should know your possibly defamatory statements about Ezra Levant and The Western Standard were quickly removed from the relevant articles. --Cyberboomer 00:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't that cute. Geoff NoNick 15:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Gomery Inquiry Info Missing

message: Only the first two bloggers unilaterally took down their posts.  The second two negotiated with Mr. Kinsella for changes on his website and on theirs.  In the case of the third blogger, Mr. Kinsella mentioned white supremacist hate mail he recieved about the time of the controversy, and said it showed what kind of circles his "detractors travelled in".  Kinsella later compromised by changing this to "some of" his detractors after communication with the third blogger
Please see  http://www.polspy.ca/items/2004/10/16/841.html
which also includes mention of legal opinions stating Mr. Kinsella's libel threats were spurious.
Mr. Kinsella's logs showed about the time he was saying his critics in this controversy were racist, he was reciving visits on his website from a white supremacist website.  In the past, Mr. Kinsella has shown he was capable of reading and understanding his logs.  It seem unethical then to many bloggers that he should attempt to smear his critics in this affair as racist when it seemed very likely the hate-mail came from racist organizations he has fought against for many years.
See:  http://warrenkinsella.com/stats/usage_200410.html#TOPREFS
and look for the domain "stormfront"
The compromised between the fourth blogger and Mr. Kinsella can be seen here:
http://ianism.com/?postid=227
So I think it is accurate to say most of the parties involved compromised, which I think is also an important lesson for the future in the blogosphere.  The blogopshere treats everyone more or less as equal, and this can be distorted when someone who is well-off and a trained lawyer like Mr. Kinsella starts to use these real-world advantages.  I think by compormising without using legal action, Mr. Kinsella set a good example, and it bodes well for the future of the blogosophere.
I also urge you to explore many of the links of this page, especially the blogcannada links.  Your understanding seems to come from Mr. Kinsella's website, and it might be useful to see the other side.
Cheers,
S.P. --66.38.128.10 18:07, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  re:  "compromise" 

message: Is the latest revision by 216.208.161.20 - inexplicably titled "NPOV" - some kind of joke?  -Joshuapaquin 16:05, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
:It must be a joke.  I reverted the edit, using "NPOV" as justification. HistoryBA 19:00, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "NPOV" changes 

message: I see by the "history" of the main article that Kinsella has made quite a few substantial and inaccurate edits to the page as 72.136.201.103 (see user talk, especially re: Hot Nasties picture). They have been reverted, but they make fun reading. Things must be getting pretty grim for old Warren.
Arthur Ellis 19:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know that "vandalizing" is what he's doing (if that is in fact him); the IP appears to be adding some good information, but is also adding other facts that do indeed start to slip out of the guidelines. (Warren, if that's you, and you read talk pages, do make use of this one to discuss changes before making them wholesale.) Do note that he's also posted a request for people to send him Wikipedia horror stories at his blog. Yay, another blogger bitching about "inaccuracy" and focusing on the bad side of WP when there's so many good editors trying to make this a good information source. Just what we need. Tony Fox (speak) 15:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I'd say that Kinsella's spot-on about Mark Bourrie.  I don't always agree with him, but he's right in this instance.  CJCurrie 00:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

message: There is no excuse to delete Warren's Activist activities.  I am sure he is quite proud of that, and I am betting that you are jealous.  That is why you reverted the most recent entry.  Rather than always reverting, why don't you justify it.
Pete Peters 23:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Coming in here randomly, it seems that the 'activism' section makes some pretty wild POV claims with absolutely no sourcing, as is required by Wikipedia policy. I went through the article and added citation needed tags. Before changing anything more the starting point should be to add appropriate references (or to remove information or POV that cannot be referenced). - Merzbow 04:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Activism

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

message: I saw the dispute on this article and it appears that it was just full protected by an administrator, so I come here to see if I can help get a discussion moving about the dispute. So, to get a discussion rolling, what content in the article is specifically being disputed? Cowman109Talk 04:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is being disputed? 

message: Move from McMillan Binch to Navigator Ltdthere are a bunch of others that confirm this CICWEB, McMillan Binch, WK's website
Daisy Consulting Group 
Canada Israel Committee. Was the citation needed tag about him being on the board or being a practicing catholic?
Mark Bourrie's apology 
Latest Musings
Kinsella's band.
Geedubber 11:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent work.  Thank you, Geedubber.  Now maybe we can get to the facts and get past the personal attacks by Pete Peters and Arthur Ellis.  HistoryBA 12:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: citations

message: I am waiting to hear you've come to agreement before I unprotect it. Please hurry - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it might be best to leave it protected for now, as it appears that there are lawsuits a-flyin' in Ontario right now, between the subject of the article and the fellow whom one of the above posters is alleged to be. Tony Fox (speak) 15:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am never agin going to modify this page again.  But if you did lift the ban, I don't think the problem well be solved.  Is it possible that people must get permission to edit an entry?  I think that could help solve the problem. Pete Peters 17:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. It's either protected or it's not. If you post here exactly what you want changed from what to what and why, I'll consider it. - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the situation, look at what he has done to the Pierre Bourque entry.  IMO, he'll revamp the whole thing in a not so favourable light. IMO, he'll then expand on this creation, and then revert/prevent any positive additions to the entry from being made.  Once again, I'll direct you to Pierre Bourque entry, it is because this is a project in the works.  IMO, phase one has been completed on that page, revamp the web page, step two is then expand on his initial version.  I believe that this behaviour goes against the spirit of Wikipedia.     So when you ask what I believe should be done? I think we should revert back to this edition.  Before the  Lawsuit to Bourrie occurred, and let users modify it from there.  But not revert or revamp the whole page. I am never again going to revert or edit this page again, but I'll report what I deem to be viloations of the spirit of Wikipedia to you, Crzrussion.  And oh yeah, could you please revert the last entry made on the Pierre Bourque page. Pete Peters 19:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

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

text: Who dropped what ball, exactly? Administrators who protected a page against 3RR by User:Pete Peters and against blatant 3RR avoidance by at least three separate IPs from the Ottawa area (and then another here who admittedly was User:Arthur Ellis (and who then tried to cover up the fact that he wasn't logged in), or by two children playing "block him!" "no, block him!" and who can't get over their petty little edit war? Go get your own website where you can fight to your heart's content and stop insulting our intelligence by feigning innocence. Simply put, Wikipedia and what it stands for is not for people who act like you two have been... RadioKirk (u|t|c) 22:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I made my point, I am not getting into an edit war with you on any other page.  It is a fruitless  venture.  I agree to not touch this page.  If you can do the same, and I mean not by using random IP adresses to make modifications.  Then I see no reason why not to lift it.  But, please cut it out.  I don't understand why you feel the need to do this? Pete Peters 22:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Instead of deleting his Anti-Racism activities, you could have asked for citations. Pete Peters 22:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

message: Thanks for everyone's constructive work on this article. Bringing the citation in and checking the original material has made obvious improvements.
My only concern is the claim that Kinsella is an anti-racism activist. Is there any proof of that? In the media, he has been critical of white supremacists and Jew-baiters, but does that make him an "activist"? Has he actually done anything -- say, done pro-bono legal work, organize actions, etc. -- other than write about it?
Might it be better to say that he has written articles on the issue or ion soem other way be more specific about this activism? Many people feel strongly about racism and are quoted in the press, but that hardly makes them an activist. I think, to be an activist, you must actually do  something ("active") being the root word.
As for the police guarding him and his family, that definitely needs a citation.
Arthur Ellis 13:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The guy has spent years researching the racist right, has written books exposing them, and gives speeches for free on the subject (he charges for speeches on other subjects).  From my perspective, that qualifies him as an activist.  HistoryBA 14:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

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

text: I don't see any reason why the categories of activist and author need to be mutually exclusive.  In fact, I would suggest that writing is often an essential part of activism (the pen is mightier than the sword).  I've never asked you to "take on faith that he's been targetted for reprisals ...".  I didn't put that in the article (though I may have reverted to a version that contained that information), nor have I ever supported that on this page.  Please withdraw that erroneous statement.  Finally, in a quick internet search, I can't find any evidence that Kinsella continues to appear without charge to speak against racism, but he has done so in the past.  See  HistoryBA 21:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kinsella has actually written "books" on the subject.  Both Web of Hate and Unholly Alliances are about racist groups.  --JGGardiner 21:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

text: the edit doesn't say that he came up with the idea, just that he went on television. I am fine with giving sophie galarneau credit if you can find a reputable source. good hunting Geedubber 23:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking of citations, is there one for the $1000?  The citation that was there before the change (from "part") doesn't specify the amount.  --JGGardiner 23:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Activism

message: Who deleted the activism paragraph.  Oh let me guess?  Move on to other things buddy, you are going to miss your kids growing up. Thanks for putting that sockpuppet thing on my user page. I think that I'll keep it.Pete Peters 23:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i don't get it. you are a sockpuppet of yourself? it is hard to defend against that. you are totally guilty :) Geedubber 23:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hey, I did not put it on my page.  Anywho, I am suppose to be on a wiki break.  Can you please re add the stuff about the activism, since I do not want to get into a revert war.  I do not think 20 hours is enough of a window to justify deleting it.  I also think that the far right is trying to deny the actions of anti-racist activists, and deleting it only serves their cause.  That is all.  Have a good one yall. Pete Peters 23:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: what I meant is that the tag he added accuses you of being a sockpuppet of yourself... which makes absolutely no sense. i'll try to add something about his anti-racism into the writing section. I probably won't add back a whole section unless I can find more sourced info about his anti-racist activities besides writing. Geedubber 23:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I guess Pete Peters is back out of the shadows now that his sockpuppet IP is banned.Arthur Ellis 23:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I live in Toronto, the IP number that you are referring to doesn't even belong in the GTA.  Quit goofing around.Pete Peters 00:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Activism

message: the costs figure is in a lawyer's letter reprinted at www.kinsellasux.blogspot.com
: Yeah but did you see who the author of the blog is.  We should only reference credible sources. IMO, using a site name "KinsellaSux", sounds like a smear site, shouldn't be used. No one has even heard of Lloyd Fister. Pete Peters 00:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: $1000 costs

message: Is belonging to a non-notable band in itself notable? I think the "Music" section should be deleted as a vanity entry.Michael Dorosh 04:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think Shit From Hell should get their own wiki page (only 200 google hits), but why on earth would you remove sourced information from this page? It lets us know that he is a musician Geedubber 05:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it tells us he belongs to a band. One doesn't have to be a musician to claim membership in a band. Besides which, I can't see that it has anything to do with his legal or political career - it might rate a "trivia" section entry, but certainly not an entire section. Besides which, the only evidence presented that he actually belongs to this band is a self-referential website. In other words, it is unsourced. I could make my own yahoo group and clai:m I was in a band as well.Michael Dorosh 05:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text: WP:BAND. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 05:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  okay then. here is another link http://shitfromhell.com anyways. Geedubber 07:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's another vanity link, isn't it?Michael Dorosh 14:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Band 

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

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