Talk:Rachel Marsden

Archives will remain deleted

If you are looking for the old talk to this article, please note that it contained too many unsourced allegations and violations of the Wikipedia biographies of living persons policy to be undeleted. Chick Bowen 18:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Criminal Harassment Charge

If this exists then what is the problem with adding the criminal harassment charge to this article? This is one of the sources. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

There would be two problems with adding that material to the article. First, the source you have provided is a primary source. Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Well_known_public_figures specifically states that if controversial information "is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out", and further advises editors to

Exert great care in using material from primary sources. Do not use, for example, public records that include personal details--such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses--or trial transcripts and other court records or public documents, unless a reliable secondary source has already cited them.

Unless the claim above is supported by a third-party reliable source, it should not be included in the article. Furthermore, even if adequately sourced, there would be a more subtle problem with including the above material in the article at the present time: both WP:BLP and WP:NPOV mandate that biographies of living persons be written in a fair and balanced manner. This necessarily implies that these articles cannot contain excessive amounts of criticism -- negative material must not be allowed to become disproportionate in quantity to the remainder of the article. Exceptions, obviously, are made for people only notable for negative events, such as serious criminals. As Rachel Marsden is NOT such a person, her Wikipedia biography cannot be treated as such. If we were to add the material above to the article, without expanding the content favorable to Rachel Marsden, I am concerned that we might throw the article out of balance. It's worth observing that almost all of the previous revisions of this article remain deleted because they were so severely imbalanced as to constitute a serious WP:BLP violation. If readers want to know all the dirt on Rachel Marsden, they can read the article in Salon.com -- Wikipedia is held to a higher editorial standard. John254 05:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

To respond to the specific example given, Svend_Robinson#Theft_conviction is placed in the larger context of an article which includes far more information favorable to Svend Robinson than our relatively short article on Rachel Marsden does. Moreover, the negative material is supported by references to third party reliable sources, namely, [1] and [2] -- not original court documents. John254 05:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Third Party Sources

I haven't actually looked at any of these to be honest, I am just looking at a copy of the old article at archive.org. However, the above appeared to have been supported by the following:

• Rod Mickleburgh, “B.C. woman faces charge of harassment: ex-SFU student who accused swim coach now suspected of stalking busineman,” Globe & Mail, Nov 22, 2002.
• http://web.archive.org/web/20060526202300/http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/TechNews/TechAtHome/2005/01/31/915660-sun.html

If someone were to verify the above, could we add it? In terms of positive information, we can add what the judge said about here being intelligent and a model student no? Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 05:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

An observation made by a judge in a criminal court with respect to a defendant coming before him is hardly high praise. We're going to have to do a little better than that if we want to expand the favorable portion of the article. John254 05:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Charges

It's a pretty minor charge and not particularly important to her career. Just because there's "dirt" available on someone doesn't mean you have to put it in a Wikipedia bio. This stuff happened before she became a pundit. There's nothing here about her newspaper column writing. Maybe someone can add that she wrote for the National Post and the Toronto Sun, Mike Bate (talk) 01:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, suggest a wording. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe there's nothing here about her newspaper column writing because there's nothing about her newspaper column writing in third-party sources. We'll see what can be found. –Pomte 21:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Major events only

As I said in my close of the deletion review for this article, a comprehensive biography of Ms. Marsden is in itself a violation of the undue weight clause, since she is a marginally notable figure. Please limit this article to genuinely major events only. Administrators, please enforce this limitation. As it stems from the deletion review, the limitation should be considered a condition of the article's existing at all. Chick Bowen 02:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is the first time I've heard of NPOV applying across articles rather than within. Could you please provide another example, or a centralised discussion of some sort with support for that view? Relata refero (talk) 07:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It is applying within the article in this case. For a marginally notable figure, an article should concentrate on what makes that person notable. This is a perfectly standard interpretation of NPOV. Chick Bowen 19:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree with your general point but I'm surprised that you read that from WP:UNDUE. --JGGardiner (talk) 21:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep, this isn't a standard interpretation of WP:NPOV at all. We usually interpret NPOV to mean that the article should reflect the distribution of coverage in reliable secondary sources. Can you point me to a discussion about marginally notable figures that substantiates your point of view. (Which is, I should addan unhelpful approach here, as this person seems notable mainly as a lightning rod for criticism.) Relata refero (talk) 06:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this is ridiculous. Marsden is highly notable. We've had a lot of good material. Like Kent Hovind, if the person's notability is highly negative, that's life. Followup, and the fact that we now have no Wikipedia article that mentions her later harassement issues is simply off the wall. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, now I'm even more annoyed. Reading the DRV it looks like you closed it where there was a clear consensus to have an article about her and adding your own signing statement that had no basis in the DRV discussion. Explain to me why I shouldn't ignore it and start systematically reincorporating info from the most recently deleted version? JoshuaZ (talk) 04:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I would think harassment and stalking are major events, as reported in the news. Five articles about this in the last month. If the article does not say what she is known for, then it has undue weight going the other way. –Pomte 00:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily agree that this is what she is known for. I happen to think she is best known for being a Canadian columnist that is an American Republican party enthusiast. I tried adding this prior to the deletion and restore of the article but it had been reverted without an explanation. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 05:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

She seems to me to be well known for both issues. If I had to summarize her I call her a Canadian columnist known for supporting the neoconservative wing of the American Republican party and know for her past issues related to stalking and harassement. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

My edits

I hope my edits are OK. I want to include the Dennis Miller Show material and put both the Salon and Simon Fraser piece in context. The Salon piece can hardly be seen as objective, and the Simon Fraser article was written by a prof at the very university where the harassment case happened. These facts should be kept in mind. Kurt. Kurt Turkulney (talk) 15:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why the Salon piece is assumed to be any more non-objective than anything else. There are several articles available about Simon Fraser, so pick another one if concerned. Relata refero (talk)

Arbitration

Well, folks, let's go to Arbcomm. This is getting way out of hand again. Mike Bate (talk) 16:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

How does this violate BLP? –Pomte 17:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I have filed an Arbcomm request re: this page. Arbcomm has dealt with it before. It's on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration

Mike Bate (talk) 17:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I may be wrong but I think that arbitration is supposed to be a last resort. I think that you may instead want to ask for a clarification of the original one. --JGGardiner (talk) 21:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Info to go under the career and education sections

Growing up in Vancouver, British Columbia, Marsden was inspired by Canadian radio personality Jack Webster. She swam in national competitions, setting records within British Columbia.

She attended the National Journalism Center.

In 2002, she worked for the Free Congress Foundation, and resigned when her employer learned of the harassment charge against her.

She worked as Elle Henderson in the constituency office of a Conservative member of the Parliament of Canada until May (2003 or 2004?).

There was on-air tension between her and Red Eye host Greg Gutfeld. (may be typical of a talk show of that nature, and thus not worthy of mention)

---

---

–Pomte 17:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Two more sources about the harassment charge

• "Former accuser Marsden charged with harassment". CTV News. 2002-11-21. Retrieved 2008-01-20. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

• Lynne Cohen (2003-01-06). "Rachel Marsden charged with criminal harassment" (fee required). The Report. Retrieved 2008-01-20. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

–Pomte 17:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Descriptive information from deleted version. - Suggested addition.

She has written several columns criticizing the concept of anthropogenic global warming, and often pokes fun at celebrities. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This is just one column, and not third-party. –Pomte 20:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so we can add more columns. If we're going to give a reasonable summary of what she's written... (her site gives many other similar columns). This might be the sort of data we are normally allowed to simply use the person's own sourcing for as long as it isn't controversial. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, the Salon article says she's a global warming skeptic (is that sufficiently uncontroversial that Salon would be an ok source for that?). . JoshuaZ (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The Salon description is fine with me. (It could be argued as original research to say that she frequently writes about such-and-such if she does not explicitly say that, even if her website lists a bunch of articles about such-and-such.) –Pomte 21:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, ok. So I'll add that mention citing the Salon article, without mentioning the celeb matter. Do we have enough of a consensus that I can stick this in over the protection? JoshuaZ (talk) 21:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I have concerns about WP:UNDUE in this article, regarding the "stalking" stuff, particularly as it relates to the most recent news stories, which seem to me to be nothing more than tabloid trash. (He said, she said, the authorities looked into it and nothing happened, it isn't even a story but at most a lover's quarrel that the tabloid media pounced on because they love trash.) But in any event, one thing that can help with undue weight issues is the adding of actually interesting and verifiable information like this, so I encourage further efforts in this area. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

"Actually interesting and verifiable" applies much more to the multitude of stalking issues than any of her other projects, most of which are not verifiable (nor interesting, to non-Republicans). "Lover's quarrel" is speculative as the man denies they were even lovers in any meaningful sense of the term. An officer's career being on the line for leaking secrets is not your average trash, and there's a separate ongoing internal investigation about this. The national newspapers are not known as tabloids. You may have your personal opinions, but I see nothing here that actually goes against WP:UNDUE. –Pomte 07:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I think some of it is. The SFU episode was a huge news story in Canada and especially BC. It did make Marsden a household name here. I think that section could be expanded as long as it is carefully-worded. But some of the other stuff... An allegation that she was thrown out of a building? And allegation of "erratic behaviour"? I don't even know what that means and it may not be true. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

And what really gets me about all of this is that I think we're having this huge problem over nothing substantial. The article was actually deleted and protected and quite a few of the editors at DRV wanted to keep it that way. I have spoken with "Mike Bate" and I think that the issues are really minor: the two boyfriends and the FOX termination. And for that we almost lost this article. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Before trying to expand the SFU controversy here, I would wait until Simon Fraser University 1997 harassment controversy has it right, so there aren't two efforts doing the same thing, but that's just me. Since that is a blue link it should be pretty obvious that there being one sentence here doesn't mean it's not a big part of her notability, or that the weight is intentionally subdued on it.

The "erratic behaviour" is unusual. Without it the reader would be left to assume that she switched jobs in a prolific manner like any other journalist when that isn't the case. It can go under Career rather than Controversy, like how she resigned from two previous jobs due to controversy. This is balanced with the more positive aspect of how many big name programs she has worked on despite these events.

At the same time, that quote of praise from the Red Eye producer Shelly Stevenson does not inspire balance because it's the sort of thing you expect from someone working to promote the same program. There's an interview not including Marsden on The O'Reilly Factor where, incidentally, they say that the Canadian liberal media has made personal attacks against Marsden for things unrelated to her writing, not unlike what is said here. Although there may be a conflict of interest there, this is the only source I have found to promote this view, and you may wish to put this in. –Pomte 10:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your analysis: we include the "erratic behaviour", so that readers don't assume that she changed jobs normally. But that's exactly my problem: we don't know that she didn't change jobs normally. A vague allegation, which usually wouldn't deserve to be in an encyclopedia article if it were true, is included to lead the reader to a speculated conclusion. That isn't NPOV. --JGGardiner (talk) 21:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a thought: Rachel Marsden is a writer, isn't she? Why does the article focus so much attention on her personal life, rather than what she's written? Can anyone post a sentence or two from anything she's written? And is everyone in the public spotlight going to receive this treatment at Wikipedia, or will it only be the conservatives? 209.221.240.193 (talk) 15:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

What has she written? We could read through all her columns and synthesize her recurring arguments, but that would go against policy. The global warming skepticism reported by Salon is a good start though. You should help us out if you're so concerned.

Not everyone in the public spotlight has these sorts of issues, but I'm sure you can find non-conservatives with similar media attention having articles that mention their controversies; not all the problem articles listed at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard are conservatives. –Pomte 15:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Here are a few quotations from her opinion columns which may be helpful:

• "Terrorism isn't a new phenomenon, but now that it has hit far too close to home, Canada can ill-afford to be apathetic. We must continue to back the US and its counter-terrorism measures. This is a war."[3]
• "There was nothing more disturbing than watching gays flitting around Toronto with rainbow-colored "just married" signs, and flashing matching groom wedding bands. If they want to invent some kind of civil event to cement their commitment to each other, then fine; but to make a mockery of a sacred event that is, by its very definition, the most meaningful possible union between a man and a woman, is absolutely unjustifiable." [4] (July 6, 2003)
• "There is no point retreating from Iraq, or ignoring the fact that they really, really do hate us over there. Yes, the war on terrorism is going to be costly--but it's a price that needs to be paid now, or the invoice will be sent to us later in some form or another--perhaps pasted to the back of some swarthy extremist hell-bent on martyrdom. And America's traditional allies need to quit with the hand-wringing, realize that they're targets--no matter how much they figure that distancing themselves from the US and any offensive action in the war on terrorism will spare them--and start fighting this war." [5] (August 21, 2003)

These are some fairly inflammatory quotes, and I found them by spending 10 minutes looking at her website. This says a great deal more to the reader about who Rachel Marsden is, and what she stands for, than any tabloid style recap of "he said, she said, the police investigated and didn't do anything." No violations of WP:SYN are needed, or wanted by me. All we need to do is collect a few key quotes from her columns and this article will look a lot better. If she's won any awards, those should be mentioned early. Just my two cents. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 15:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

This isn't going to become a puff piece for her any more than it is going to be an attack piece. That's not what NPOV is about. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

An article about an architect such as Frank Lloyd Wright examines his work. An article about a politician such as Nancy Pelosi examines the legislation she has sought to make into law. An article about a renowned author such as Ralph Waldo Emerson contains at least one paragraph-length quotation from his works. Those are not "puff pieces." They are encyclopedia articles, and they're good ones. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 20:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

An article about FLW talks about his work because we have reliable sources that summarize it. We don't have secondary sources making any similar summaries for Marsden and so NOR applies. (Oh, and by the way, who are you? You seem to be a returning editor given your knowledge level). JoshuaZ (talk) 23:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Comparisons to Ann Coulter

• Salon article

• Campbell Robertson (2007-04-10). "At 2 A.M., Dark Humor Meets the Camera Lights". The New York Times. Retrieved 2008-01-20. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

• Glynnis MacNicol (2007-03-30). "Rachel Marsden: Fox News Rising Star, Former Canadian Stalker". The Huffington Post. Retrieved 2008-01-20. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

To potentially source a claim that "She has been compared to Ann Coulter." The third is from a notable blog though. –Pomte 21:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Article too negative

I suggest we remove the 2007 event as it looks like a ex-lovers quarrel and is not noteworthy in a biography. I also suggest we add some positive stuff say if Bill O'Reilley said something positive about her. Someone compared her article to Kent Hovind however a fairer comparsion is Sean Young. Young is an actress who is known for stalking her colleagues and yet there is one sentence in the article about it and that's it. If Marsden was just a serial stalker, she wouldn't be notable however what really makes her notable is that she is a Canadian that supports the neocon wing of the Republican party and is also compared to Ann Coulter. The stalking is noteworthy for the article but currently it's taking up most of the space in the article. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

We have no obligation to make articles that are unduly positive for an article subject, nor should we per NPOV. The fact that the most positive thing we can find is maybe a comment by O'Reilly says more about Marsden than anything else (it might be arguable). The Sean Young comparison falls at three levels: 1) Young is someone who is highly notable completely indepedent of the stalking matter, whereas Marsden is a definitely notable commentator but not as notable as Young once the stalking is taken away and 2) The Young article in fact should spend more time on the stalking issues 3) Marsden's stalking/harassment is in fact more notable than that of Young. Striking the third point based on these this google search and this one as well as this pair. The first two remarks still stand. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

We've been trying to find additional content to add (and have had some success). Instead of complaining it might make more sense to suggest more neutral or positive content rather than vague remarks about maybe adding something from O'Reilly. Just draft something, put it here, and see what responses you get. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Not complaining, just making suggestion on improvement of the article. Do you disagree with removing the September 2007 event? Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 05:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I would disagree with that considering a) how many news sources covered it and b) the severity of her accusations. Accusing someone of trying to leak highly classified documents is not a simple lovers' quarrel. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The thing is that these types of baseless accusations occur by the thousands ever since September 11. My cousins ex-wifes father made a similar accusation against him just out of spite. Also, remember what someone said at the deletion review about local bias in reporting these types of events. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 05:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if they occur "by the thousands" certainly I'm aware of multiple cases in the news where people have labeled someone else a terrorist or involved with terrorists, but that seems a bit different than a prominent commentator claiming that a government official was giving her classified documents. As to the local bias issue- this got national reporting and Canada isn't exactly a small country (indeed, this got covered somewhat in the US as well I think). JoshuaZ (talk) 05:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, the man rejects that they were lovers. –Pomte 14:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The article unambiguously says that they were. Someone should correct that if it is in error. I'm not familiar enough with the details to do so myself. --JGGardiner (talk) 23:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I still don't see why something that's just allegations should take up about a quarter of the article. I say that this gets removed (without predjudice to more information coming up down the road) based on WP:BLP, WP:UNDO WP:UNDUE, WP:CHILL, and WP:NOT#NEWS. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 23:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

They shouldn't take up a quarter of the article if we can find information about her that can fill up more space. As to your claims, there's no BLP issue (per DRV and the fact that this is in multiple reliable sources). WP:CHILL is more or less irrelevant. WP:UNDUE(I think is what you meant rather than WP:UNDO) has the same relevance as the others- the solution is to add more material about her other activities; otherwise this is due weight if such sources don't exist. And you seem to be misunderstanding- WP:NOT#NEWS - this means we don't generally write an article based off of a single news event. However, for many notable people, their notability is essentially a string of loosely related news events. Even when it isn't the times a notable person gets in the news are generally noteworthy. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I got WP:CHILL and WP:NOT#NEWS from what user:Pomte said above that "there's a separate ongoing internal investigation about this". In my view, it's best to wait and chill until more information is available before adding to the controversy section. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The internal investigation is on the officer, I presume, due to it being internal and from the context of the news articles. Her side of the event is probably done. –Pomte 01:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I expanded that paragraph with crucial facts just to avoid this sort of complaint that it's "just allegations." Consider that if the man didn't file a complaint, it would go under "Career" as part of her notable self-published work. There are many more words about what she did than the allegations, which is merely a consequence relevant to her actions, so we mention it. There's nothing unethical about straightforward reporting of what a person does.

Please unprotect so we can expand the other sections. –Pomte 00:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:SELFPUB

JoshuaZ, please read WP:SELFPUB. This is Wikipedia policy. It allows inclusion of these Marsden opinion column quotes in the article. If that isn't enough, consider the fact that all of these columns were published in newspapers Marsden worked for, such as the Washington Times. That satisfies any worries you may have about WP:NOR. It seems to me that one of the ways to make this article less negative is to start focusing on her work. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 13:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant. There's no compelling reason to see these pieces as particularly more noteworthy. Deciding which pieces to pick out leads to serious POV concerns. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Choosing to post information about unproven allegations leads to serious POV concerns. Writing an article that contains more words about unproven allegations about post-relationship dust-ups than words explaining the importance of the person leads to serious POV concerns. Using material that is written by participants posting as experts at "think tanks" or appears as a hostile opinion column in Salon leads to serious POV concerns. Having contributors who write blogs trashing the article subject leads to serious POV concerns. I could go on and on and on, but, really, the POV here is so shameless that I'm wasting my time. 64.230.114.73 (talk) 19:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

If the unproven allegations are discussed extensively in reliable sources, then there's nothing we can do. If the notability of the person is as linked to coverage about their personal life or problems as it is to their rational 'importance' then there's nothing we can do. (If there was, I'd be voting delete on several articles. If most published opinion in RSes is considered 'hostile' then there is nothing we can do. It's problem if the entire world appears to have a negative POV, but, speaking as an individual editor, there's nothing I can do. Relata refero (talk) 16:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Since when is anyone's "personal life" encyclopedic? Would any real encyclopedia print crap about people just because it's been reported on P. 6 of the New York Post? 209.217.79.61 (talk) 23:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

No, and neither does WP. We're prohibited from using tabloids for sensitive information. However, personal lives are discussed in non-tabloid sources as well these days. There's nothing we can do about that. Relata refero (talk) 07:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

We can refrain from including it here. Personal information does often make it into the news but that doesn't always make it newsworthy, let alone fit for an encyclopedia. Obviously some of it is but we don't have to include everything that we find in reliable sources. --JGGardiner (talk) 08:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Without violating WP:UNDUE one way or the other, we have some latitude to exercise our good taste in a manner the MSM does not. Relata refero (talk) 09:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Well nobody ever accused the MSM of having good taste to begin with. I suppose that is what makes it mainstream.

But I think that beyond UNDUE and BLP and everything else, some things are just not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia article. We have too much tolerance for trivial knick-knacks that bloat the bios to the point that they simply cease to function as encyclopedia articles. I hope that one day there will be heated argument between two good Wikipedians and one will direct the other to read WP:CONCISE. But I am an eventualist I suppose. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, the "fired for erratic behaviour and escorted from the Fox building" comes only from the Post, a tabloid, and from its gossip column at that. And I marvel at how Wikipedia editors are so convinced of the veracity of anything they find published on the 'net, whether from some think tank (read hired academic guns) or any newspaper that posts its material on the Internet. I bet the Encyclopedia Britannica is a little more careful.

Jimbo wanted to put a free encyclopedia into everyone's hands. Do you really think this type of entry is what he had in mind? 99.246.48.27 (talk) 12:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Also NY magazine and the Toronto Star, which printed her denial. Unfortunately, that's news.

I am not convinced at all at the veracity of this. I am, unfortunately, convinced that most of the sources are reliable by our, necessarily imperfect, standards.

That this isn't what WP was intended to be doesn't change the fact that this is what a lot of people come here to check. We owe it to them as well as to the subject to ensure that this at least sounds neutral, informative, uncensored and encyclopaedic in tone. Relata refero (talk) 12:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that a part of the problem is the common acceptance of trivial information. If you allow "positive" trivia but want to exclude negative trivia, then BLP is your only defence. For example, Arthur E wants to exclude the Rachel stuff but, were he still with us, I might remind him that he included some pretty trivial things on the Mark Bourrie article. I don't mean to call Arthur a hypocrite but I just have to say that the root problem, in my opinion, is a high tolerance for trivial details. --JGGardiner (talk) 19:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Remember the Lyndon Johnson school of "call him a pigf**er and make him deny it" school of political smear? Let's not use it here. I bet she denies she's an ax murderer and that she sells crack to school kids... the big dope-selling ax-murdering stalker... Is that the kind of "encyclopedia" we really want Wikipedia to be? 209.217.79.61 (talk) 01:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.217.79.61 (talk)

Personal attack by 209.217.79.61 removed by User:JoshuaZ. Further such remarks will result in blocks. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Back to semi-protect?

Can we go back to semi-protection? I think the edit warring was caused by a sock that has been banned. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Requested edit

{{Editprotected}} Remove the following: "Marsden was one of twelve women involved in the Simon Fraser University 1997 harassment controversy." and replace it with "Marsden was involved in the Simon Fraser University 1997 harassment controversy." The chronology is that the Marsden-Donnelly case ended with Donnelly's rehiring in July 1997. At that time, John Stubbs, president of the university, took leave for depression. Throughout the fall, criticism of SFU's handling of that case continued. It was only in December of that year that SFU contacted complainants and respondents from 10 other prior cases and offered to reopen them. For privacy reasons, little was made public about the other 10 cases (which have been mistakenly reported on Wikipedia to be 11 cases), and I know of no source that indicates the number of women involved in those cases. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 12:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Also the Salon article entitled, "Fox's Ann Coulter 2.0" needs to be restored as a citation since it is the source for the following -

A producer on Red Eye praised Marsden, saying that "she has very passionate opinions...she's articulate, intelligent, and we get a lot of favorable mail about her".

Catchpole (talk) 12:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

As there have been no objections to either of these proposed changes in a reasonable time period, I've gone ahead and implemented them. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Backhouse

I am tidying the order of events in respect of the Backhouse issue, as the net effect was somewhat confusing, and a WP:BLP concern was raised. As far as I can see, the order was:

1. Marsden blogs that Backhouse leaked secret documents
2. Investigation of Backhouse ensues
3. Backhouse retaliates with harassment claim, de rigeur with Marsden, by the looks of it
4. Harassment claim is dismissed
5. Investigation fails to provide enough material for a case against Backhouse either

The stuff about "the officer laid charges which were later dropped" needs to be removed. NO CHARGES WERE EVER LAID against Ms. Marsden. Only a complaint that was thrown out. Also, if you read the actual sources, you will see that the officer is not "cleared" and that he is currently under investigation for the leaked documents. A mention should also be made to the info in the National Post article that describes some of the documents he leaked to her (as provided to the National Post) as field op information, a classified document pertaining to terror suspects detained under 'security certificates', etc. 14 February 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.114.232 (talk) 04:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It's complicated by the fact that Ms. Marsden seems somewhat mercurial, and inclined to colourful language when describing her ex. When someone finds a really good overview with a proper timeline, please do cite it, most of the sources thus far are distinctly tabloidish. Thanks, Guy (Help!) 19:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Yup.

You can try unprotecting now. Relata refero (talk) 19:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Marsden Back on FOX: February 18, 2008

Rachel Marsden was back on the FOX Business Network, at 7pm Eastern Time on February 15, 2008. She was on an in-house panel, at the FOX News studios in NYC, discussing the subprime mortgage crisis, credit rating agencies, and Alan Greenspan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.114.232 (talk) 07:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Launch of GrandCentralPolitical.com

- Marsden has launched a new Web 2.0 business as CEO and Editor-in-Chief of GrandCentralPolitical.com political/media talent scouting and magazine. Says the objective is to "extend the traditional corridors of political power and opportunity into cyberspace." Press Release: http://www.prweb.com/releases/2008/2/prweb679554.htm Another article: http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/50858