Talk:Bruce Allan Clark

Coatrack
It appears that this article is a Coatrack article?Theroadislong (talk) 19:11, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It is currently a Coatrack, but there's a lot of coverage of this person and they appear to be notable. Personally I suggest starting again and writing it as a biography. I suggest maybe using other publicity-hungry indigenous rights activists as models; biographies like Tame Iti show that we can write sane biographies of these people. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like some material can also be rewritten for inclusion in Gustafsen Lake Standoff, Shuswap people, etc. Probably also be useful to have a declaration from editor(s) whether they have COIs in relation to this contentious material and some of the sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:03, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In this edit on my talk page Evarose3 seems to suggest that the Coatrack issue has been resolved by this edit of theirs. Nothing could be futher from the truth. The Coatrack issue is that this article appears to be a biography of a person, but is actually about complex legal dispute about which this person has campagined. As far as I can see the article doesn't even mention why the dispute matters to the person (are they a first nations descendent? are they a first nations supporter?). The article needs comphrensive coverage of the subject as a person and less of the cause / issue they have campaigned on. Additionally my suggestion in relation to COIs was much more along the lines of whether any editors or their families members (and/or their published works) are mentioned in the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:49, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Responding to this edit. (a) The current article, as it stands is remains a Coatrack, which is not about any particular section of the article, but about the overall balance of the article; there are two entire sections where the subject is not even mentioned. (b) I still find it unlikely that article will be accepted into wikipedia without a complete rewrite. (c) There is no dispensation. (d) there are jurisdictions where it is academically profitable to be seen as favoring the man who struggles against the imperial genocide with the rule of law; consider this output, for example; I've already given an example above of a suggested model from this jurisdiction. (e) A COI declaration on your user page is a really good idea if you hope to make headway; you may notice one on my user page, for example. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Request for Comment
Please see "Requests for Comment" in the matter of Bruce Clark (lawyer).--BruceAllanClark (talk) 16:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This particular RfC can be found at Requests for comment/Request board. Shearonink (talk) 16:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added a link to the article to the RfC so other editors can find it. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Large revert
After working through this article, I decided to look at the page history. I saw this version. At least for me, I feel that version is significantly better than the present state of the article. What are feelings for a revert back to that version, with discussions about new material occurring here on the talk page? -- Lord Roem (talk) 22:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As I understand it the subject considers the term First Nations to be wrong (and a construct of the problem he has campaigned against). This wasn't clear to me from the public sources I had avaliable to me when I introduced the term. I suggest substituting indigenous North Americans and/or similar terms. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It is possible that I used reclaimed words in the article that are reappropriated for me (and New Zealand indigenous people) but not for the subject (and Canadian indigenous people). If any editors notice any, I encourage you to change them, the nature of reappropriation means they're largely invisible to me. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I wish this could have appeared on the Request for Comments Board rather than here but, anyway, it is good that the term "First Nations" was employed. It encouraged an explanation of the critical difference between federally constituted Indian groups under federal jurisdiction and the original tribal governments with the constitutional right not to be molested or disturbed (Royal Proclamation of 1763) by any other government or people. This is everything: one ought not lump all Indians together and assume it is not a collaborators vs. resistance movement situation.--BruceAllanClark (talk) 23:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The Request for Comments Board discussion is essentially ephemerial and is a forum for settling disagreements (but with little or no corperate memory). This talk page will stay with the article in perpertuity and is the forum for discussion of the details that might need to be referred back to later. If you want future editors of the article to be aware of something, it needs to be here, not there. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Additional references
I and effort to move away from COI sources, I tracked down some more. Some of these I have access to, some I don't, but all appear to mention Clark.


 * Terms of Engagement: An Anthropological Case Study of the Media Coverage of the 1995 Gustafsen Lake Standoff. Sandra Lambertus. 1995 (PhD Thesis?)
 * Wartime Images, Peacetime wounds: Media and the Gustafsen lake standoff. Sandra Lambertus. 2004 (possibly the above repackaged for publication?)
 * Armed confrontation: Gun smoke will not settle the problems of natives: [FINAL Edition] William Johnson Southam News. The Windsor Star [Windsor, Ont] 31 Aug 1995: A.6.
 * A Waco-style shootout is the last thing Canada needs: [Final Edition] Johnson, William. Kingston Whig - Standard [Kingston, Ont] 31 Aug 1995: 5.
 * Violence not the way to resolve land dispute with B.C. natives: [FINAL Edition] Johnson, William. Edmonton Journal [Edmonton, Alta] 26 Aug 1995: A.8.
 * Gustafsen lawyer released from jail: [FINAL Edition] The Vancouver Sun [Vancouver, B.C] 02 Apr 1997: B.2. (has details of sentence served)
 * Nationalism and Media Coverage of Indigenous People's Collective Action in Canada.  WILKES, RIMA1;    CORRIGALL-BROWN, CATHERINE;    RICARD, DANIELLE; American Indian Culture & Research Journal; 2010, Vol. 34 Issue 4, p41-59, 19p

Referencing concerns
After recent edits, a number of references appear to be being used to support claims that examination of the sources suggests they shouldn't. In particular references 1, 4 and 12. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Bruce Allan Clark (lawyer)
I am the subject of the article in question and have made edits to compensate for libelous commissions and omissions as previously published. In making these corrections I have referenced Official Court transcripts that are the authoritative research source on the particular and critical matters footnoted. So far as I know the transcripts are not publicly quoted elsewhere than in my own book entitled Justice in Paradise, McGill-Queen's University Press, Montreal and Kingston, 1999. My affidavit evidence is also reproduced in the book attesting to the fidelity of the quotations to the whole truth upon pain of prosecution for perjury. The transcripts speak for themselves and no opinion from the book is mentioned. As previously presented the article was sufficiently erroneous that a COI check on its author might well be in order just in case he or she has ever been, or might still be connected in some fashion to the indigenous rights industry that is constituted and funded by federal government agencies in Canada, the United States, Australia and New Zealand. Since I acted on behalf of Indian Tribes in bitter opposition to the allegedly usurping federally incorporated or endorsed Indian bands or "First Nations," and since those entities are mortal competitors for the indigenous interest, any such relationship with the industry could be an alternative explanation to paucity of sources and scandalous inadequacy that I have attempted to counterbalance with the most cogent evidence currently available.--BruceAllanClark (talk) 15:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The article in question would appear to be Bruce Allan Clark (lawyer). Stuartyeates (talk) 20:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If you are the author of the article I should be grateful were you to address my respectful request for COI disclosure. Thank you.--BruceAllanClark (talk) 20:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)--BruceAllanClark (talk) 20:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm one of the authors of the article, as are User:Evarose3 (whose initial work at Articles for Creation I tidied up for article space) and about half and dozen others (the exact details are accessible through the history link at the top of each article). For a long time I've had a comphrensive COI disclaimer on my user page. I see no need to ammend it. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, thank you; but do you deny you personally wrote the version that appeared before I started editing earlier today? and secondly that you are "connected in some fashion to the indigenous rights industry that is constituted and funded by federal government agencies in Canada, the United States, Australia and New Zealand"? Please.--BruceAllanClark (talk) 21:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I categorically deny the first and affirm the second. A glance at the edit history says that multiple other editors editted the article before your first edit. For my connections those involved in "the indigenous rights industry that is constituted and funded by federal government agencies in Canada, the United States, Australia and New Zealand" (if it exists) in, see Mitochondrial Eve. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure he has to answer that question. But whatever the case may be, I'm certain we can all work together to make the article better. No reason to throw blame around. As a complete third party here - I've never seen this article before - its certainly interesting and deserves some work to be improved. I'm willing to help out. Best, Lord Roem (talk) 21:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear it, Lord Roem. I have made revisions that mitigate the damages to reputation and sentiment. The question therefore is, "Do we agree the article is adequately balanced?" I have not troubled to interfere with the writing style but coming from an experienced editor such as Stuart Yeates I shall assume it is in the acceptable encyclopedic mode. Thank you. Kindest regards,--BruceAllanClark (talk) 22:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

What parts of the article do you think damage your reputation? We have a strict policy here (BLP) regarding the way Wikipedia handles articles involving the biography of a living person. While I can't promise that material will be changed, if you can be clear about what you object to, that would be very helpful in moving forward. Thanks again, Lord Roem (talk) 22:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The parts of the article that damaged my reputation have been complemented now by the parts I restored in order to maintain a neutral point of view. Please do not delete again the complementary parts that I had to restore. The default tone is negative and it does not have to be either negative or positive. This achievement requires the balance of my revisions. The different versions can only speak for themselves. Thanks again,--BruceAllanClark (talk) 22:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You are free to include that court's decision praising your work in a shorter form, but including such a huge chunk of the text is neither necessary nor appropriate. There is a middle ground. Lord Roem (talk) 22:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. Please restore my last version so I can attempt to achieve what you recommend as reasonable. Sincerely,--BruceAllanClark (talk) 23:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * All previous versions are avaliable via the history link at the top of the page. You will also need independent references for quotes. If these are from your book I suggest that you give the full original citation then "as quoted in" and then the full reference to your book. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Done.--BruceAllanClark (talk) 00:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Dear Stuart Yeates: Your referring to "Mitochondrial Eve" suggests to me a laudable philosophy of racial egalitarianism. If so, it is a concept with which my clients the old-style Indian tribalists wholeheartedly agree. The only difficulty is this, “How can humankind get to juncture where your view is the practice not just the ideal?” My clients and I think the rule of law and the pursuit of justice as the application of truth to affairs are the preconditions to that enlightened existence. But when courts decline to address the constitutional law because they feel it is outmoded, overtaken by events, the rule of law can not exist, and justice pursuant to it becomes impossible. My clients and I want to ensure that seven generations hence some of their number may survive in an environment capable of being sustained. That will not likely happen if the constitutional question of constitutionalism vs. imperialism continues as it is headed in the direction of the triumph of empire and the demise of constitutional democracy. Sincerely,--BruceAllanClark (talk) 01:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I regret not having the editorial skills but the reference numbers do not currently proceed in sequence and I do not know the protocols for tweaking the computer to remedy such as this. Best,--BruceAllanClark (talk) 14:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I can see no problem with the references?Theroadislong (talk) 14:56, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well in the text on my computer first there are two 7s, then between 18 and 19 there are two 5s, between 19 and 20 is one 5, and from there on are more confusions like that, which I will have leave this page to remind myself.--BruceAllanClark (talk) 15:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Continuing then, between between 21 and 22 is one 19.--BruceAllanClark (talk) 15:08, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This is only because these refs are being used for more than one citation.Theroadislong (talk) 15:11, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

My apologies for reverting your edit as vandalism, it wasn't, but please don't remove references they ARE required even if duplicated.Theroadislong (talk) 15:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the inconvenience. I try to assist with the content's NPV but I am too inexperienced to think I can help out by interfering with code, if that is what I inadvertently was doing. My apologies. Best,--BruceAllanClark (talk) 16:06, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Will a search for the two words "Bruce Clark" on Google or another search engine be made to take a searcher to all the "Bruce Clarks" in Wikipedia, even to such as my own name that is spelled with a mmiddle name (know one knows) and an occupation afterwards? Or, is that program-able and how would I proceed? Thank you. Cheers,--BruceAllanClark (talk) 22:22, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Take a look at Bruce Clark which is a page that lists all the various Bruce Clarks with Wikipedia articles. Shearonink (talk) 22:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, problem solved, thanks. The article itself is solid and fair. Thank you all at Wikipedia for a job well and truly done. Kindest regards,--BruceAllanClark (talk) 00:03, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Media Treatment section
User:BruceAllanClark has reintroduced the Media Treatment section saying "It explains the way in which Clark's reputation was destroyed and neutrally presents both the rule and the exception to the rule of biased reporting" I don't think such a large quote belongs in the article, I don't think it explains anything very clearly and certainly doesn't look encyclopedic?Theroadislong (talk) 11:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Restored "Media Treatment." It explains the way in which Clark's reputation was destroyed and neutrally presents both the rule and the exception to the rule of biased reporting. Since the article is a biography about a lawyer who was destroyed in the course of attempting to raise a critical constitutional question, the media treatment discloses how exactly that result was arrived at. The passage quoted neutrally identifies both the pejorative reporting and the more thoughtful reporting. Both aspects are given equal time. Without this corrective balance, the article itself comes across as pejorative by omission rather than commission. Kindest regards,--BruceAllanClark (talk) 11:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC) POST SCRIPT: Might someone who knows how please take this dialogue back out to the margin? Thank you very much. All the Best,--BruceAllanClark (talk) 11:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * With your indulgence I would be grateful to conclude my argument of how the media treatment naturally destroyed Clark's stock-in-trade, whether as a lawyer or as an unpaid pro bono legal consultant in any event of the disbarment. Please take note that the last words of Mahony's analysis and of the article are, "public reaction just short of a smirk." People do not gravitate to lawyers or even free consultants whose reputation is, well...to smirk at, a joke, a clown in lawyer's garb. That, is where the Clark story ends in real life. That, is why the article should end with "Media Treatment" restored. I do most respectfully and in all fairness submit,--BruceAllanClark (talk) 13:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)--BruceAllanClark (talk) 21:21, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Re this edit
It introduces a POV/essay statement. Per Wikipedia is not a forum (specifically 2.Opinion-pieces) and per No original research-Synthesis of published material that advances a position, even though this most recent edit was re-edited from a previous version (found here) by its writer BruceAllanClark, in my opinion this paragraph does not belong in this encyclopedia article since it is a conclusion/original research. It should either be deleted or sourced from a published reliable source, Wikipedia is a repository of published information, readers can draw their own conclusions just like they do when they read Encyclopedia Britannica. Shearonink (talk) 17:35, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Since I can not think of published source I shall delete it now. Thank you. Kindest regards,--174.92.89.218 (talk) 17:43, 2 June 2012 (UTC)--BruceAllanClark (talk) 17:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

photograph question
Now I have a different question, "How to add ? I did it to see and instead appeared a text box with the File and Caption. Then I logged out and logged back in and the text box in now gone. Might anyone be able to try to guide me through this to a fuller understanding as to what if anything has happened and how to insert into the article at the Consequences to Clark.. section the April 18, 1997 magazine cover with me on it, to see? Thank you. Cheers,--BruceAllanClark (talk) 21:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)--BruceAllanClark (talk) 21:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you own the copyright on the photograph? You cannot upload other peoples photographs with out their express permission.Theroadislong (talk) 22:13, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The copyright owner of the magazine cover and the photo of me on it filed a waiver of license delivered to Wikimedia Commons Permissions sector. Mr. Alfred Neumann of Permissions earlier today confirmed by email to the copyright holder "Re: [Ticket#2012052210005494] Bruce Clark cover photo" that "I have made the necessary modifications to the file page. Thank you for your contribution to the Wikimedia Commons." Best,--BruceAllanClark (talk) 00:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The photo has been added. Thank you. Kindest regards,--BruceAllanClark (talk) 07:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

article issues
The article appears to have now settled down, after a number of recent edits, prinicpally by the subject. I'm still concerned about the balance and referencing of the article. The issues as I see them are: Anyone have ideas as to how to fix these? Stuartyeates (talk) 06:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) The majority of the article is about the legal theory promulgated by the subject rather than the subject. The title title of the article is Bruce Allan Clark (lawyer) and the balance of the material is required to be on topic, as per WP:COATRACK.
 * 2) Many of the references either don't mention the subject or are references into http://sisis.nativeweb.org/clark/ (which appears to be the subjects' person web presence). If proper independent references can't be found, this is a sign of WP:OR and the material needs to be removed. There are more references out there, including the ones I've listed above, but they probably require access to a research library to use them.
 * 3) The lede is a just plain dreadful and needs to be completely rewritten.
 * 4) This biography contains approaching no actual biographic detail. No date or place of birth. No family details (parents, marriage, children, etc). No employment details.
 * 5) There are three long quotes in the article which have been provided by the subject with no obvious oversight or checking. (I don't have access to the originals of any of these and I'm not aware of other editors having checked.)
 * The lede could be supplemented by saying, "He identified and developed the constitutional theory of constitutionalism vs. imperialism. In consequence of persisting in presenting it he was convicted of criminal contempt of court in 1997 and disbarred as for the crime in 1999. According to the Supreme Court of Canada Clark’s in 1995 theory has not been addressed by any court." Then, a separate article entitled "Constitutional theory of constitutionalism vs. imperialism" could be initiated and material moved to it. That is, the person and his theory could be developed separately the same way for example the article on Einstein leaves the theories of "general relativity" and "special relativity" for separate treatment. All in all that does seem more cumbersome than leaving it the way it is.--BruceAllanClark (talk) 15:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * An article Constitutional theory of constitutionalism vs. imperialism could be written. That would require evidence of notability of the theory. I believe that evidence would be hard to find (unless there are substantial sources I'm not aware of). If you believe that such sources exist, I suggest you use the Articles for creation to do that.  Stuartyeates (talk) 20:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Would you agree, Mr Yeates, that the notability of the jurisprudential theory of constitutionalism vs. imperialism is the same as the science of the physical theory of Einstein vs. Newton in so far as the option presented in each case is so simple and yet so profound as to be self evident?
 * Pursuant to constitutionalism the commerce, defence and treaty clauses of the western democracies is anti-imperialist, signifying they can regulate trade with foreign Nations and Indian Tribes but not invade except in self defence to repel invasion, and otherwise can acquire rights of entry on another State sovereign territory based only upon informed consent recorded by treaty. In contrast, under imperialism the governing rule is “might is right.”
 * For political science purposes “constitutionalism vs. imperialism" was defined by Scott Newton of the School of Oriental and African Studies of the University of London in his article “Constitutionalism and Imperialism Sub Specie Spinozae”, Law Critique (2006) 17:325-355, at 325:
 * "Constitutionalism is a contemporary sacred cow; imperialism is a contemporary bête noire. What can they have to do with one another? Constitutionalism is the sophisticated theory and practice of limited government, tutored by several centuries of the political experience of modernity. In the deliberatively legitimized institutional constraints it places on political acts and actors, it is the bulwark against tyranny and the guarantor of liberty and equality. Imperialism, on the other hand, is the obnoxious, coercive, illegitimate imposition of political, economic, social, and cultural control by a stronger (read ‘wealthy and industrialized‘ or ‘civilized‘) society over a weaker (read ‘uncivilized‘ or ‘undeveloped‘) society. It is itself an instance of arbitrary government and tyranny, even if arguably as a means not an end, a mockery of liberty and equality, and thus a standing contradiction to the supposed values of the societies that originated and practised it."
 * The point ultimately is that when the courts do their constitutional duty to uphold constitutionalism over imperialism the wars and genocides attributable to imperialism will be prevented by the rule of law. That helps to make the issue "notable" wouldn't you think?--BruceAllanClark (talk) 22:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The only thing that makes something notable is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Stuart, per your original post in this thread, I am also concerned about the sheer amount of quoted content in this article. In my opinion the Law Society opinion section, the 'status of Clark's constitutional question' section and the 'Media treatment'/unpublished Master's section all contain too much quoted material. The 'media treatment' section especially troubles me, as it contains a single synthesis of quoted quotes without volume/issue/number/page/date information. Shearonink (talk) 14:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I too raised concerns about the media section above but it seems that Mr Clark owns the article. I don't think such a large quote belongs in the article and I don't think it explains anything very clearly.Theroadislong (talk) 15:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that the article is noving in the right direction. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Bruce Allan Clark (lawyer). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706191329/http://www.ohlj.ca/archive/articles/33_4_walters.pdf to http://www.ohlj.ca/archive/articles/33_4_walters.pdf
 * Added tag to http://sisis.nativeweb.org/clark/chast.html.

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:35, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bruce Allan Clark (lawyer). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120813194248/http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100014642 to http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100014642

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:40, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I have recently had published a book which I think needs to be added to the Bibliography and an article which might be because of its arch-topicality. Bruce Clark
Bruce Clark, Ongoing Genocide caused by Judicial Suppression of the "Existing" Aboriginal Rights, Vancouver, Electromagnetic Print, 2018, ISBN 978-1717110916.

Bruce Clark, "The Sovereign Indigenous Power of Veto in Canada," Dissident Voice: A radical newspaper in the struggle for peace and justice, May 23,2019, https://dissidentvoice.org/2019/05/the-sovereign-indigenous-power-of-veto-in-canada/

I have not attempted to provide edited versions of the citations because I am not sure how.

I do not think there is a conflict of interest issue but in any event I am both the subject and the contributor.BruceAllanClark (talk) 21:26, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Page numbers.
I forgot to include page numbers in the book's citation. There are 260. The article has 7 pages if that counts.BruceAllanClark (talk) 21:53, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Book ✅ and there most certainly is a conflict of interest. Theroadislong (talk) 08:08, 5 June 2019 (UTC)