Talk:Rachel Marsden

This article is also subject to special scrutiny in this regard. An Arbitration Committee case remedy (#2) authorizes any editor to stub the article if it violates Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Admins are also encouraged to be especially willing to delete articles mentioning her. However, community consensus has determined repeatedly that there should be a article, so stubbing and seeking consensus for deletion might be advisable.

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)

There's nothing to be found, because all she wrote were letters to the editor. She trumped up her bio based on these. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.59.220.182 (talk) 03:51, 22 February 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)

{{editprotect}} Regardless of what we think of the other edits by IP 69.86.114.232, the comment above is correct in that no charges were laid in this incident: Charges were requested by someone who happens to be a police officer. While we are at it, there are a several other problems:

• Regarding the officer himself, the Toronto Star says, "The OPP's criminal investigations branch recently cleared the officer of any wrongdoing in relation to Marsden's accusation of passing secrets. A separate internal investigation into the matter is ongoing." These things have been incorrectly summarized as "an internal inquiry resulted in no charges against the officer."
• The current version of the article omits the important fact that Backhurst was an undercover operative and therefore affected to an unusual degree by having his picture posted on the web.
• Backhurst disputes having a two-year affair with Marsden; he says it was much shorter. We have an NPOV problem by giving only one person's version of events. I recommend not mentioning the length at all as it's not really important.

Please change the last paragraph of the Controversy section to "In September 2007, on her blog Marsden wrote about and posted a picture of a counterterrorism officer for the Ontario Provincial Police with whom she had had an affair, claiming that he had leaked secret anti-terrorism documents to her. Her claims led to an investigation of the officer. The officer filed a complaint with the South Simcoe Police and requested that the Crown lay criminal harassment charges against Marsden. Backhurst's lawyer said that Marsden had put the officer, an undercover operative for antiterrorism, at risk by identifying him and posting his photograph. Police later declined to lay charges."

Regarding Guy's complaint about tabloidish sources, the Backhurst story can be told entirely from National Post and the Toronto Star articles which are already used as references. I strongly recommend re-footnoting the section to use these two sources as much as possible as they are highly reputable, and dropping the rest. I would do it myself if I could edit the article.

Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 05:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Editprotected requests are not for large changes. Please wait for protection to expire. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with large scale changes on protected pages if there is a consensus to the change. Are there any objections to these changes? They seem reasonable to me. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

As the person who inserted these problems into the article shortly before it became protected I stress the importance of fixing them. One thing I'm having trouble verifying though is the affair bit. He disputes having a two-year relationship, but he seems also to have avoided saying whether they had an affair at all. "Obviously I can't get into all the details but I can assure you there was no relationship as she categorizes it for two years." (National Post) Can we take from this that saying they had an affair isn't giving only her side of the story? Also, since there were concerns of wordiness it may be possible to remove details like the mention of South Simcoe Police. –Pomte 03:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

"Backhurst... acknowledges a brief love affair with Marsden two years ago – not one that continued until nearly three months ago, as Marsden maintains." (Toronto Star, Dec 21, already used as a source). Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 06:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I probably read that and forgot. –Pomte 17:02, 2 March 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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.114.232 (talk) 07:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion request

My name is Rachel Marsden. I am the subject of this article, which I consider to be a violation of my privacy and I'm asking that it deleted immediately, with no potential of ever having it recreated. Thank you .... originally posted (at the top, as a title, and all in capitals) in this pair of edits by 69.86.114.232 on 28 February 2008

If you are Rachel Marsden you may want to make you issue clear at WP:BLP/N and possibly contacting wikipedia at through Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject). --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 21:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello Rachel, we've been over this before and the community has reached a consensus through multiple discussions that you are sufficiently notable that we must have a Wikipedia article given your extreme notability as a public figure. Incidentally, I've removed the all caps in the section heading since on the internet all-caps is generally considered shouting (frankly people are more likely to pay attention if it doesn't look like the person is shouting). If there are any specific issues in the article that you think should not be included or you think do not meet our neutral point of view policy you are of course welcome to make comments here explaining those concerns in detail. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it worth noting that all posts by 69.86.114.232 (talk · contribs) were made after the most recent edit to Rachel Marsden. In the first, second and third Marsden is referred to in the third person. The article appears to have been acceptable during this period and yet isn't considered so now. Might it be that the IP address is accessible by more than one person? If not, why the change of heart? Victoriagirl (talk) 22:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

My name is Rachel Marsden. I am the subject of this article, which I consider to be a violation of my privacy and I'm asking that it deleted immediately, with no potential of ever having it recreated. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.114.232 (talk) 01:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC). Replaces an earlier message posted in this series of edits by 69.86.114.232 and removed in this edit by Mhking, all on 29 February 2008.

You're merely repeating yourself, and are apparently choosing not to digest the clear, amicable and helpful advice you got the first time around (several lines above). -- Hoary (talk) 03:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Marsden and Jimbo

The rumour has been posted at Radar (which links to the unreliable Valleywag) and Anorak (self-identified tabloid). Under these circumstances the article has less reason to remain protected. –Pomte 00:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

None of these are sufficient for BLP purposes. Simply because a marginally reliable source links to a self-identified gossip rag is doesn't make us need to deal with it. This matter is also irrelevant to why the article was protected in the first place. I'm not in favor of that protection but that has nothing to do with this salacious gossip. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree; all of them combined are nowhere near sufficient for reliability let alone BLP. I just mean that we have the content with which to improve the article here, and it is not practical letting it sit while there is no ongoing substantial dispute. Protection is not a solution even for editors who think the current content violates BLP. We could make edit requests, but making such an edit request would be more complicated than it's worth, at least for me. The only relation with the rumour that I was getting at is that more people are coming to read this article. Interestingly, one of the links given by the IP above from American Chronicle appears to have gotten its info about Marsden from this article. –Pomte 00:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Well given the attention this article would have, it would almost certainly be indefinitely semi-protected so I'm not sure that the level of protection matters that much for random individuals. Indeed, I imagine that we'd like need to semi or full protected it for the next few days even if it were not. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement from Jimbo admitting relationship with Marsden

He admits being separated from his wife, and to the relationship with Marsden in this statement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Statement%2C_March_1st%2C_2008 This should be added to his page, as it is definitive, first-hand proof, straight from the horse's mouth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.77.91.6 (talk) 03:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Not a third-party source. –Pomte 03:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

(Removing BLP violation- no reason to believe that transcripts are genuine)- agreed. While this is as good sourcing as one could imagine as a primary source- there's no evidence that this is really notable. If it gets covered in a decent source, say a mainstream newspaper and not a gossip rag we could consider noting it. (It isn't really relevant to Marsden's notability, so even if a mention made sense in the Jimbo article it might not here). JoshuaZ (talk) 06:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that BLP is paramount here. Not just for Wales or Marsden, but also for Wales' wife. I also agree that this doesn't pass a "notability" standard at this point. --Elonka 07:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

No evidence that it's notable? Uh. Please. I'm not going to do the change, but let's not pretend it's not: 1) credible and 2) notable. OptimistBen (talk) 07:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Elonka. Happy editing, SqueakBox 17:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I suspect a lot of gossip columnists, trash tabs, etc. will disagree. Interesting how the New York Post gossip page is a good enough source for this bio but Jimbo Wales' own statement is not. The credibility of Wikipedia has sunk through the floor. 192.197.82.153 (talk) 20:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It isn't even relevant. A statement published on wikipedia is not a good source for someone else's biography on wikipedia. It'll be in the register soon enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.80.142 (talk) 21:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

This will soon be picked up by the mainstream media. And when it is, it should be sourced and added here. 67.49.87.194 (talk) 01:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Canadian pundit, Wikpedia founder in messy breakup 207.112.85.247 (talk) 02:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note, this Canadian Press article is a reliable, 3rd party source. Cla68 (talk) 02:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• How very whelming. So, this tidbit can be "sourced", and therefore its inclusion wouldn't seem to violate one or two of WP policies. But why should anyone other than the two or three people directly involved give a hoot about it? The woman's of some notability as a polital talking head; what effect does her love life have on this? Or perhaps I misunderstand and this is Tittle-tattle-opedia. -- Hoary (talk) 02:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• If you could care less about this, then why did you come comment about it here? Cla68 (talk) 03:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I also question how this new piece of information is notable enough to include within the article. The only way I can see it's notability is that it's the first time anyone has broken up with someone by making an anouncement in wikipedia. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Personally I am wondering about the whole selling Mr. Wale's belongings on ebay? That is definatly a first! Sethie (talk) 03:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Cla68, while I don't give a hoot about Marsden's (or Wales's) love life, I do rather care about Wikipedia. I'd hoped that Wikipedia was a collection of information that wasn't only sourced but was also of some note. The burdening of articles with tittle-tattle (even "sourced" tittle-tattle) depresses me. (Over a year ago, I spent a considerable time attempting to get "Personal relationships" within the Elvis Presley article -- which seemed to treat Presley as drug taker, failed Lothario and general whacko first, musician and film star second -- to a sensible scale, but eventually conceded defeat and left it to the Hollywood Babylon contingent.) Of course sourced tittle-tattle can be significant about some people. (One class of these: those religious bloviators who make a career out of preaching monogamy/chastity and are then caught with their pants down.) For Marsden, it doesn't seem to. Incidentally, I've had this page on my watch list for quite some time: I'd never heard of Marsden (perhaps because I'm not in north America) but I think I read on WP:AN/I of some silly nonsense going on here and decided to devote ten minutes of my life into an effort to stopping it. -- Hoary (talk) 03:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Bloviators? :) Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Bloviators. -- Hoary (talk) 04:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

207.112.85.247 has provided a suitable source for inclusion. Hoary, how is this not "of some note"? I can't tell myself, and I don't care about her love life either, so I leave it up to major national news sources to decide. For readers who do care, there it is. Incidentally enough, Marsden has been known repeatedly to be involved in these sorts of events. Do you want to wait until she goes through 10 more of these incidents and reporters to write extensive bios of her connecting those incidents? The CBC article already gives a mini-version of this. –Pomte 03:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, Marsden herself in the news story said that she doesn't really care what her Wikipedia bio says, saying "I don't really pay much attention to it anymore. It's pretty ridiculous. I view it as a giant graffiti board for people with axes to grind — or for guys named Jimbo Wales who want to dump their girlfriends." Not a notable event? Cla68 (talk) 03:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Or for people brainwashed into thinking that coverage by a TV station confers significance. Not the slightest bit notable, as far as I can see. -- Hoary (talk) 04:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Even a major national news source on a slack day? Wherever any major national news source sinks, Wikipedia must sink too? And what sort of events? When they involve the police, the judicial system or both, they could be significant. Otherwise, they're humdrum. Unless of course you're working for CBC, are asked to produce a story on something, anything, quickly, have no better ideas, and are a bit desperate. -- Hoary (talk) 04:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know whether today is a slack day or whether that is what happened, so I can't make the same assessment. Saying it is humdrum doesn't make it humdrum. Why is it humdrum? Relative to what? I don't see what the police or judicial system have to do with this; it is an event involving two notable people.`One could argue that it is significant due to their respective careers and her past history, but I try to avoid such subjective standards. Of course not all coverage is about significant events, but it isn't obvious at all that this is insignificant in one sentence of one biography. –Pomte 04:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Hoary for now with no predjudice to adding this information later if other events happen that make it more notable. It doesn't seem encyclopedic to me to add every short little relationship that notable people may have. To top things off, Jimbo's stuff isn't really selling for that much, look at the t-shirt, the highest bid is $34. [6] Also, check out the bidder as well. It would have sold for more if this event was notable. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It's humdrum because people have affairs all the time, and affairs break up pretty often, and people put stuff on Fleabay all the time. Yes, this is an event involving two people I'm told are notable (I know little about Marsden). To me, it's an entirely trivial event, but perhaps I'm out of step with the celeb-obsessed times. -- Hoary (talk) 04:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the general rule is we care what is verifiable. That's why we have articles on Pikachu even if you are I think that that's stupid. If the media isn't covering the right things we can't do much. In any event, this has now been sourced in a good source. I don't see a strong argument against non-inclusion (the article itself is also quite interesting for helping source other material in this article I imagine. Note what it says about her relationship with Fox news). JoshuaZ (talk) 04:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah... not-notable. Two quasi-celeberties- have an affair- there are accusations, in major media sources that her online biography, a service which he co-found and is currently one of the biggest phenomena on the internet, was tampered with to her benefit, and then a stormy breakup- which is covered by MAJOR media sources... and she goes and puts his stuff for sale on ebay.

Oh yeah- he broke up with her via an announcement on his huge online encylopedia thing.

Yeah.... nothing much going on here. Sethie (talk) 05:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• The fact of the relationship itself is notable, as a one-line throwaway addition somewhere. The fact that there are signs that said relationship may have influenced JW's on-Wiki attention to this article is very notable, either here or certainly on Jimbo Wales. At first view, he's been really naughty here. I remember thinking it was most odd when Jimbo first intervened in this article some time ago.

If this was any other senior figure but him...I think the excrement would really be hitting the fan right now. Badgerpatrol (talk) 09:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Come come, let's not mince words. Call it "shit". But if (or so far as) what you're saying is true, why discuss it on this talk page? The shit would be directed at him rather than her. -- Hoary (talk) 10:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Sethie, it's clear that you find this story tremendously important and exciting. I now feel guilty about putting any hurdle in the way of the goal of adding it to an article within a "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit".

Me, I'd be more concerned about the recent removal of a great wodge of material about incidents that seem a lot less humdrum. Some of this does look a bit iffy, but there's also what's apparently well sourced material on incidents that are hugely rarer than having a relationship, breaking it up (or having it broken up), and hawking some stuff on Fleabay.

Since I'm not interested in this Marsden person and many of you seem to be, I'll leave you to it. 'Cause remember, all this was in a MAJOR [full capitals, please] media source! -- Hoary (talk) 10:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Pardon my ignorance since I am new here and just came to read her page and wondered why there was no mention of this latest scandal involving Jimmy Wales, but to be clear: the CBC simply ran this story on its website. It was from a reputable news source, the Canadian Press, the country's national news agency, and contains quotes from Marsden. It was picked up by lots of other MSM news outlets. Let's say Marsden, with her long history of going nuts when dumped, was selling Bill Gates's stuff on eBay and he'd put out a statement confirming the relationship. Would THAT information not be in her article? Wikipedia looks bad on this, I am afraid, and now many more thousands of people are coming here and wondering why there seems to be different sets of rules for the Wikipedia founder than there would be for anyone else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeScissorhands (talk • contribs) 13:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There's a clear double-standard. Badgerpatrol (talk) 13:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that the only way to maintain Wikipedia's credibility is to allow the information on the 'relationship' to be posted to the article. Not doing so just makes it look like the sites moderators (and I mean that in a very literal sense) want to distort logic - to rationalise why they don't want information on Wikipedia that makes one of the public figureheads look stupid. Not relevent? come on... who is honestly going to believe that!

From all that I have read and observed on what I used to consider a credible information resource, the Wikipedia ruling clique seem to want to rewrite history because they have the tools to do it. Don't like some information? Never mind... it didn't happen, and won't be included, because it's irrelevent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.97.195.157 (talk)

• Here are my thoughts. 1) Wikipedia is not news - wikinews is the place for breaking news coverage. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. This means that we can wait a bit to see what the overall balance of coverage in reliable sources. 2) That balance may reflect primarily coverage about Jimbo that mentions Rachel, in which case much more should be in Jimbo's article than here, or it might be primarily about Rachel, in which case more belongs here than in Jimbo's article, or it might be balanced. We'll have to wait and see. (Though, strictly as a guess, I'll guess that in Canadian press there will be more emphasis on Rachel than there is in the rest of the world's press.) 3) As editors of this article, we also need to see how the coverage places this incident in context with the rest of her biography. So I see three strong reasons for waiting, or at least being highly tentative about our initial coverage.
• At least as importantly, WP:BLP requires that we take a conservative stance on negative - so we need to err on the side of underplaying the material rather than overplaying it. GRBerry 14:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia / Jimbo Wales controversy and sources

1. The Canadian Press (March 2, 2008). "Canadian pundit, Wikipedia founder in messy breakup". CBC News. CBC. Retrieved 2008-03-03. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
2. Goodman, Lee-Anne (March 2, 2008). "Right-wing pundit Marsden turns to eBay after breakup with Wikipedia founder". CBC News. CBC. Retrieved 2008-03-03. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
3. Goodman, Lee-Anne (March 2, 2008). "Right-wing pundit Marsden turns to eBay after breakup with Wikipedia founder". The Canadian Press. Retrieved 2008-03-03. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
4. Staff (March 3, 2008). "Spurned Marsden selling ex-beau's stuff: But Wikipedia founder admits to only 'brief' liason". The Province. Pacific Newspaper Group Inc. Retrieved 2008-03-03. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
5. Staff (March 3, 2008). "Pundit peddles ex's items online". Winnipeg Sun. Canoe Inc. Retrieved 2008-03-03.
6. Naughton, Philippe (March 3, 2008). "Jilted lover uses eBay to hit back at Wikipedia guru". The Times. Times Newspapers Ltd. Retrieved 2008-03-03. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
7. O'Donoghue, JJ (March 3, 2008). "Wikipedia break-up causes web stir". Webuser. IPC Media. Retrieved 2008-03-03. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
8. Grabham, Dan (March 3, 2008). "Wikipedia founder embroiled in online spat with ex-lover: You really could not make this stuff up". Techradar.com. Future Publishing Limited. p. Section: Internet. Retrieved 2008-03-03. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
9. Megan, McCarthy (March 3, 2008). "Wikipedia Founder Hit With Relationship Trouble, Allegations of Excessive Spending". Wired News. CondéNet, Inc. Retrieved 2008-03-03. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
10. Coleman, Joey (March 3, 2008). "Another chapter for one of SFU's most (in)famous alumni". Maclean's. Rogers Communications. Retrieved 2008-03-03. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Will update as more WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources become available. Cirt (talk) 20:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[7]? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.18.55 (talk) 17:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

All repeating the same "scandal". A small mention of this, would be more than enough. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Well at this point there is not even that much. But anyways I was just using this subsection to compile sources - discussion of what/how to include looks like it is already ongoing in several other subsections of this talkpage. Cirt (talk) 19:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The Double Standard

So scandals and controversy involving a non-name swim coach, a no-name radio DJ and a no-name cop are 'notable' Wikipedia material but a public scandal involving Guru Jimmy Wales is not 'notable'. Either it's all notable or none of it is notable. Your choice. Mine: get rid of it all. This kind of scandal mongering makes Wikipedia look so bad.192.197.82.153 (talk) 14:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, after all the nonsense from the BLP crowd over the last year or so we might as well rename this place Whitewashpedia. 78.86.18.55 (talk) 15:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Now you're talking. Call it Whitewashergate and bring in Ken Starr! -- Hoary (talk) 15:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Marsden's earlier escapades got her in trouble with the law. Has that ever happened to you? It hasn't to me (or any friend of mine that I can think of). She had an extraordinarily brief relationship with someone that fell apart. Has that ever happened to you? It has to me (and lots of friends I can think of). "A public scandal involving Guru Jimmy Wales"? This is febrile stuff indeed -- when I think of public scandals, I think of such things as faking a pretext for invading a nation; and I also wonder if JW has started ashrams and the like when I wasn't looking.

However, it's clear that reputable news sources are getting terribly excited over this non-story. The public thirst for tittle-tattle must be slaked! -- Hoary (talk) 15:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh please, it's not as if not having something in wikipedia will slake any sort of thirst - if it's been reported by reputable sources (as it has), to keep it out on the grounds that it's 'gossip' is bringing a fair amount of POV to the table. Of course, everyone has a different point of view on what's appropriate for wikipedia - but this is notable now. If it turns out not to be notable at a later date, why not readdress it then? 78.86.18.55 (talk) 16:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

True. Whitewashing this would be the equivalent to "I did not have sex with Monica Lewinsky" of Bill Clinton's fame. Even scandals find their way to the Encyclopaedias. 148.240.230.226 (talk) 18:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

um, perspective, pul-leeeeeeze! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.108.48 (talk) 18:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, then. Many of us have been fired from a job. So has Marsden. Take out the stuff about her being fired and supposedly escorted from FOX. Marsden's situation with the cop did not get her in trouble with the law. If that's the standard, the cop stuff should go. 192.197.82.153 (talk) 16:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

If you can find reliable sourcing for it, then do it if you like. 78.86.18.55 (talk) 16:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

sorry, misread you. Would be difficult to justify removal as it is well sourced and neutrally worded. 78.86.18.55 (talk) 17:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Lame removal of material

[[8]] with no edit summary and an in-article message: "!--Specific care _must_ be taken to ensure this page complies with BLP; check your changes for any points of view, undue weight given to controversy, or poorly sourced material.-->"

Which of these refferences have POV issues? Which are poorly sourced? Undue weight? All I see is a few sentences given to each- Rachel is obviously a controversial public figure... and doesn't seem to be slowly down. Sethie (talk) 16:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Affairs? Complaints to police by ex-boyfriends? Frog-marching out of jobs? Thank God for Wikipedia/National Enquirer! You won't find this stuff in the Encyclopedia Britannica! Let's move on now to Lindsay Lohan and Britnay Speers! BTW, just what, exactly, is Marsden notable for?64.230.108.48 (talk) 18:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I am noticing you didn't anser any of my questions. Answer them, anon rotating IP with 4 contributes, then I'll respond to you. Sethie (talk) 19:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

is there a category "gossip"? Notability does seem to be a concern here. 142.46.199.2 (talk) 21:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Protected again

Unsurprisingly, the page was protected again (by Nick) due to edit warring related to the current news flareup. If he hadn't gotten to it, I would have. I encourage people to engage in consensus building. I also again encourage people to wait at least a bit to get a better perspective on how reliable sources (not the blogosphere) is covering this and intergrating it with Rachel's life and work - before they even start that consensus building.

Here is the net change in the article due to the unprotection, editing, and reprotection. Clearly worth 32 edits of our time, eh? GRBerry 19:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Consensus to include mention of Jimbo interaction?

Given that there are now 8 reliable sources (non-tabloids or gossip rags) that have had articles on this subject, can we achieve a consensus for its addition? JoshuaZ (talk) 19:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The addition of what? Sure it seems verifiable she slept with a certain person. But do we list the sexual partners of bio subjects? What is it you want to include, and why is it worthy of a bio. We're not a newspaper.--Doc^g 19:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. feydey (talk) 19:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I am happy to not see the information included. I am less happy about the protection, can we not just agree not to include it. Happy editing, SqueakBox 19:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This article probably should never be fully unprotected, only lowered to semi-protection. See this checkuser request log for a banned editor who got their initial ban over this article, later extended to an indefinite community ban. The next RFCU will be the 18th... GRBerry 20:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Now she's selling Jimbo's stuff on ebay: [9]. Does this not warrant inclusion in her article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rawr (talk • contribs) 21:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE

In relation to the Wales issue, WP:UNDUE without doubt applies. If the issue is worthy of mention at all, the maximum coverage permissible without giving undue significance to this event is the following: "In 2008 she had a brief affair with Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales." Furthermore, 6 or 7 sources do not need to follow this sentence: 1 is sufficient, for instance the CBC source currently used. Any further discussion of this issue in the article violates WP:UNDUE and is simply prurience. BCST2001 (talk) 19:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

What you write is certainly not worthy of inclusion. Happy editing, SqueakBox 19:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I love the way our self-appointed censors use the whole gamut of excuses -- {{WP:BLP]], WP:BLP1E, WP:NOT#NEWS, and now WP:UNDUE -- to suppress negative information about clearly notable individuals. National media deems this to be a significantly newsworthy story that goes well above and beyond your 12-word sentence. Alansohn (talk) 19:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes but we are not a national newspaper, we are an encyclopedia. Happy editing, SqueakBox 19:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be good enough for the dirt on Marsden. It's all fine and good to post the innuendo from the New York Post's gossip page that she was fired from FOX and had to be escorted out of the office because she's a nut, but don't anyone dare impune the reputation of Jimmy Jones Wales. Nice picking and choosing. How about WP:BS? 64.230.108.48 (talk) 19:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

We shouldn't be digging dirt on anybody. If people want to do that they should apply for a job with The Sun not be editing wikipedia. Happy editing, SqueakBox 19:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

So be consistent: run all of it -- the cop allegations that went nowhere, the innuendo from the Post p. 6 and the Wales stuff -- or take all of it off. Now it just looks like favortism and selective scandal mongering. 64.230.108.48 (talk) 19:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

In any case, the dirt is already dug - including this is not being prurient or digging dirt. I'm sick to death of this campaign to remove as much negative coverage as possible of anyone or anything, even more so in this case since it is a conflict of interest for wikipedia to do so. 78.86.18.55 (talk) 20:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You personally being sick to death of it has no bearing on anything, and let me assurem you that independent wikipedian editors like me have no COI here. Happy editing, SqueakBox 20:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You fail to understand my point. Wikipedia removing well-sourced information that may cast it or its founder in a negative light is a conflict of interest on the part of wikipedia as a project, no matter who the editor is. From WP:BLP:

Example 
A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He denies it, but the New York Times publishes the allegations, and
there is a  public scandal. The allegation may belong in the biography, citing the New York Times as the source. 

I would suggest that this information fits this example almost perfectly. 78.86.18.55 (talk) 20:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Clarification - while elements of WP:BLP don't seem to be perfect (i.e. moralizing), on the whole it is a relatively sound policy. The problem lies is the misinterpretation of it by a number of editors who persist in removing as much negative material as possible, no matter how notable or well-sourced. 78.86.18.55 (talk) 20:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

So put it all in. Or take it all out. But it'e either all-or-nothing unless Wikipedia wants to look like it self-censors to protect Wales while randomly trashing the reputations of people the way this article has over the years. Who else gets favoritism? Obviously you have to do more than fuck somebody to get a decent Wikipedia entry.64.230.108.48 (talk) 20:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Given the sourcing I think it would be fair to say "In February of 20008, Marsden came again into controversy after having repeatedly attempted to have her Wikipedia article when she had a relationship with Jimbo Wales, the founder of Wikipedia. This led to accusations that there were conflicts of interest"(followed by relevant citation) - oh, and in regards to Marsden being fired by Fox, other enws sources have made that statement as well such as some of the recent ones covering this new controversy. (I do unfortunately think that our anon friend is like and these arguments are starting to look very much like self-censorship given the now wideranging coverage of this matter) JoshuaZ (talk) 20:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

So Marsden gets the blame in your version? The conflicts of interest are hers?!? Wow. Defintely WP:BS here. 64.230.108.48 (talk) 20:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Er, you are correct. That's a poor phrasing. I was thinking about this more in the context of what would be said on the page about Jimbo (where given the conflict it is much easier to make a case for it being mentioned than over here). A mention here would need to make clear that the accusations (which are as far as I can tell pretty groundless) of a conflict have to do with Jimbo, not Marsden. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:BS - What, a barnstar? suit yourself... 78.86.18.55 (talk) 20:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

What she is

She's a dumb bitch. There's about a trillion more where she came from. Not notable. End of story. Ross Uber - Talk - Contributions - 22:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)