Talk:Denis Rancourt/Archive 1

Old coments
This page is an example of self publicity for a guy who is craving for attention. It should be deleted.
 * And which part of U of O administration do you represent, Mr./Ms Anonymous? SmashTheState (talk) 02:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) There are enough people unaffiliated with the University of Ottawa or its administrators who see Rancourt as little more than an attention seeker. 2) That this article relies so much on self-published sources written by the article's subject is extremely suspicious by any reasonable standards. 3) There is overwhelming evidence that Rancourt and his cronies are messing with this page, such as the large amount of edits made by users Afonseca and Alroyfonseca, the latter name revealed by Google and Facebook to have some relation to Rancourt. An onuma (talk) 21:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * While I agree this article seems pretty pointless, my nomination for deletion failed. As far as the article tone goes, I don't think it's too bad.  As far as the content, I don't know if some stuff is being given undue weight or if relevant facts or qualifiers are being left out.  Are there any parts in particular you think are inappropriate?  TastyCakes (talk) 00:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * (1) Whether or not Denis Rancourt is "an attention seeker" as you contend has nothing to do with his notability; there's little debate that Paris Hilton and Lindsey Lohan are attention seekers, but they each have a Wikipedia article. (2)  There are currently 48 references, most of which are from corporate mainstream newspapers such as the Ottawa Citizen.  How many references would it take for you to be satisfied?  My assumption of good faith precludes me from venturing a guess.  (3) Perhaps you'd care to present your "overwhelming evidence that Rancourt and his cronies are messing with this page"?  In what way are they "messing" with it?  And, more to the point, I believe it's Wikipedia policy to assume good faith on the part of the editors, unless you have evidence to the contrary.  By the way, I note with interest that you originally posted a message claiming "my kind" are violent, and that's why you must refuse to identify yourself and your affiliations.  You subsequently removed the claim.  What are "my kind," and are you admitting that you live in Ottawa and have some sort of personal stake in this article?  Seems to me you're guilty of the very crime you're trying to pin on everyone else. SmashTheState (talk) 07:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't edited the page... if I were guilty of the "crime" you think I'm trying to pin on "everyone else", I would have done more than just talk on the discussion page. Yes, I live in Ottawa, and I'm also involved with the University of Ottawa; very few people not falling within those criteria give a damn about Rancourt's row with the university administration. And while I can't disagree with what you said about socialite attention seekers having articles, their articles don't include overly detailed descriptions of their political views, and they do (sadly) tend to be notable to people the world over. Unlike this guy. As for the suspicious sources, see references 1-3, 5-11, 18, 37 and 41, for examples of references which somehow fail to meet Wikipedia's "biographies of living persons" policies, including being self-published by the article's subject. I am not involved with this mess, but have been trying to make sense of it for some time, and it is terribly conspicuous that the story tends to be told solely from Rancourt's point of view. My opinion is that the existence of this article should rest on the decision of the CAUT inquiry. An onuma (talk) 08:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Was this page deleted and then remade? TastyCakes (talk) 17:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not clear what "deletion" you are addressing. The article was reviewed for deletion and the decision was to keep it . Piano non troppo (talk) 22:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was also speedy deleted, but that was overturned. TastyCakes (talk) 22:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Would the people working for the University of Ottawa kindly stop vandalizing this article? Yes, we know you don't like Mr. Rancourt. But your attacks look extremely unprofessional, and I daresay if you make a mistake and reveal your identity, the media is going to have a field day with you. You've been warned. SmashTheState (talk) 07:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * SmashTheState is right, you can't put stuff like the Israeli claim on there without a source. TastyCakes (talk) 15:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I have been working on this article to try to comb out the stuff that could never be verified (that appears to be position statements regarding Rancourt's ultimate motivations, which could never be objectively assessed) or that appear to be perhaps a little too much like advertising. This guy is obviously in a serious fight with his employer and his wiki entry looks like a position statement intended to show him in a positive light. Any help in making it look more NPOV would be helpful. This could clearly include providing context for some quite extraordinary assertions or editing out points that cannot be verified (e.g. some quotes that have no sources or points presented as arguments that appear actually to be selling points for something). As it stands, this is a poor wiki and needs a lot of revision. FeetsDontFailMeNow (talk) 18:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You seem intent on doing a hatchet job on Rancourt. You state openly that your sole purpose is to tilt the article away from what you perceive to be "Rancourt's side."  Your most recent edit was completely disingenuous, in which you claim that since there is no citation for the fact that he was removed from teaching as a result of his dispute, you're just going yank it our of the article completely, leaving the sly insinuation that he must have been suspended from teaching for being incompetent.  Add to this your tactic of replacing every instance of "say" or "think" with "claims" to make him sound dishonest, and it's very clear your goal is make this article as biased against him as you can get away with.  That is NOT the way you remove bias from an article.  Nor do you simply chop bits away which are clearly factual, simply because there isn't currently a citation for it.  You ADD a citation.  Or if you're too lazy for that, you leave a notation asking someone else to find one.  I should remind you that all of your edits are permanently recorded.  If you are employed by the University of Ottawa, you are at great risk of bringing an enormous amount of negative media attention to the university.  I'm sure you're using a proxy, but people make mistakes.  For example, Wikiscanner revealed that someone inside Ottawa City Hall or the Ottawa police station vandalized the Ottawa Panhandlers' Union article, resulting in an embarassing news story.  If you are not working for the University of Ottawa, then you should realize that what you're doing is harming them in the long run, since your efforts can and will be used by Rancourt as evidence of the conspiracy against him.  SmashTheState (talk) 19:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

These references that I am being "sly" are just not very sensible. I have no information about Rancourt's competence as a teacher and implied nothing of that kind - this is purely your invention. I am trying to make this entry less like an ad and more like an entry. Perhaps I am overzealous, but I have been working honestly on it. By all means, object, or suggest positive changes, but at least stop calling names. I removed bits because they struck me as inappropriate. Also, your threats do not impress me, worry me, or lend you any credibility. Try to do something helpful to improve the article instead. You already said you agreed that it was unbalanced. By the way, you take great offense when someone uses words like "claims", and say they are making "sly" insinuations but you have failed to notice that Rancourt himself, or the original author of this low quality entry, uses exactly that term when discussing a university perspective. I have removed that too and replaced it with "states". I am trying to be value-neutral here. Your comments suggest partisanship and nothing more. I am sure, between us, we can improve this page without resorting to mud-slinging. No? FeetsDontFailMeNow (talk) 20:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm a former student of Carleton University who just got an email about Denis Rancourt's film screenings. I had never heard of him before (I was only briefly at Carleton). But to be frank, this article seems incredibly biased in his favour. I don't think this article really gives a clear picture of what was going on, portraying its subject as a martyr to his ideals. I think a little more objectivity, and more of the University's standpoint could be worthwhile in improving this article.132.239.165.226 (talk) 22:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The idea that the truth must always fall in the middle of any two extreme points is a peculiarly middle class fallacy. "Objective" does not mean "taking both sides in a dispute." If you look up artices in Wikipedia like Kristalnacht or Buchenwald, there is no attempt to explain the issue sympathetically from the Nazi side. This is proof that even here on Wikipedia, objectivity doesn't mean accepting that both sides of an issue have equal moral weight. The article as it stands may or may not be biased, but the simple fact that it seems to put more emphasis on Rancourt's arguments that the university's doesn't make it biased. It's possible that, simply, Rancourt is right and the university is wrong. SmashTheState (talk) 01:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It is possible, but I think he's right to replace words like "observes" with words like "posits" or "says" when it is clearly Rancourt's opinion, rather than unbiased fact. And if the university does have a case (which I'm sure it does), it should at least be presented in the article.   TastyCakes (talk) 15:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Excised material
I removed the following material from the article because it lacks reliable sources. The only reason I didn't delete it outright is because it may very well be true. Until better sources are found (ie not a blog) this should stay here on the talk page. Letsgoridebikes (talk) 16:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Critical pedagogy
Heavily influenced by the works of Paulo Freire and Jeff Schmidt, Rancourt has strongly argued for critical pedagogy aimed at confronting all sources of oppression. The key components of his approach include: no grades (pass/fail systems), student-directed learning (via breakout groups where students decide what to investigate), anti-disciplinarity (by ensuring diverse topics are linked to each other, such as the connection between physics and war), and community inclusion (to allow students to learn from those outside the university and vice versa). In a September 2007 open letter to University of Ottawa students, Rancourt states:

"Most students agree to give up their independence of thought and enquiry and to serve the insane system of due dates and senseless assignments in exchange for the certificate (the degree). Most students give up four vital years of their lives in order to be certified persistently obedient. This certificate, in turn, gives students access to a privileged position in the wage hierarchy and professional social status. It’s a trade. But the certificate is not just a certificate. It requires survival and that, in turn, requires both adopting the ideology of the profession (for professional, science, and engineering degrees) and self-indoctrination to drive out the natural impulse to learn (often called setting priorities or time management). Your soul for a place in the sun."

Consistent with this outlook, Rancourt has fought most aggressively for his right to implement a 'no grades' evaluation policy in all his courses. He believes that with such a system in place, students will focus on learning rather than on how to adapt their views to fit with what they believe the professor's views to be in order to get high grades.

wolfpack mentality
I see the wolfpack has formed, with utterly biased anti-Rancourt forces gleefully chopping up the article, reverting anyone who tries to stop them, and generally acting like thugs. Par for the course on Wikipedia, of course, but do you really want to play this game? Are you so sure you'll win? SmashTheState (talk) 20:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you replacing those external links, I don't know why they were removed. But most of the edits made by feetsdon'tfailmenow seem reasonable to me - he's not removing information (any more), he is just making it more concise and using more specific or less opinion-based terms.  Am I missing some more controversial edits?  What specific changes do you not agree with?  TastyCakes (talk) 21:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, do we have any information to make this read more like a biography? His early life, when he started being "politically active" or whatever?  I've been sort of wondering, was he always "rocking the boat" and the university just didn't care or did he keep his beliefs to himself and then one day suddenly start doing stuff that pissed them off?  TastyCakes (talk) 21:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

This entry is getting a little partisan again. Someone came through with a pretty heavy red marker today and deleted a lot of material. I felt this might have been somewhat excessive. However, some of the quotes that are in here now, which were also in earlier versions, suffer from pretty significant factual problems. The incident with the arbitrator is a case in point - it reads like a victory but the arbitrator was extremely critical of Rancourt, calling him a liar in polite language, and noting that the issues before him had exclusively to do with the web communications. They were NOT about academic freedom in the way the article now implies. The arbitrator says this clearly. For this reason, I thought the version that just deletes all this self-serving stuff (it looks like propaganda to me, but I hate to use that word) was probably better. But if that is not acceptable, then context is essential - you can't just cherry pick in out-of-context quotes that seem designed to make Rancourt look good. Better still, let's omit the bits that are about historical events and stick to simple, factual description of Rancourt himself, not the various causes he pursues.

The climate change section I have had to restrain myself on. It's a little weird. his essay does not include any citations of the literature, just a long list of papers at the end. The ones that are from mainstream journals predominantly show that Rancourt is wrong, but because he does not cite them anywhere, tracing his arguments against the world's scientific efforts around climate change are impossible and untraceable. Probably why Rancourt himself says no editor would touch this stuff. It's better off out of here. Or keep it in, but provide clarity around the magnitude of consensus, especially since some of the right wing wackos out there view the IPCC as a kind of secret society that decides everything for their own private amusement. Stupid, I know, but the science academies don't haven't been besmirched by these partisanship paintballs.

The article is devolving again. It should be locked. Smash in particular seems inclined to threaten people whenever they edit. It's a sick kind of reactionary whose first resort is threats.FeetsDontFailMeNow (talk) 01:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I made sweeping changes today in order to reflect the Wikipedia's policies on the biographies of living persons and reliable sources. Poor sources in the Wikipedia will not be tolerated. I would like to state for the record that I am neither "pro" or "anti" the subject of this article. I am, however, pro-reliable sources. And block quotes from a blog simply don't cut it for a biography of a person; its not a soapbox for an ideology, so lets keep it that way, shall we? Letsgoridebikes (talk) 06:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with the efforts to eliminate "soapbox" arguments from this blog. I have been trying to do that in some cases or, when that has met with stiff resistance, to provide appropriate context. A lot of this entry adopts a persuasive, not informational, tone that doesn't fit in Wikipedia. Thanks for working constructively on this.FeetsDontFailMeNow (talk) 14:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Scientific Research section
This section is referenced with all but one primary source, ie direct links to his journal articles. I'm not convinced that this is the best approach to establish notability, since secondary sources are better at putting a scientist's work into perspective. The single secondary source is a software page, which isn't that great a source. This section would be improved if we could get academic sources that discuss his work and contribution to the field of physics. Letsgoridebikes (talk) 17:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Academic Squatting section
I believe that using large quotes from the arbitration itself is a poor means of writing an encyclopedia article. Quotes are effective if used well, and sparingly; not block quotes. Secondary sources that put the arbitration into perspective are preferable. So far we have a single source that meets this criteria: the fulcrum article. The Ottawa Sun article requires payment to view it, so while it can be used but it is not a preferred source. The APUO bulletin is a secondary source, but since it quotes directly from the arbitration it too is not very helpful. We should create a list below of reliable sources on the subject of Rancourt's academic squatting, reprimand, and arbitration. Feel free to add to the list, and when we get more we can properly re-write the section. Letsgoridebikes (talk) 17:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * | News in brief - The Fulcrum

New Reference
This was just published. It doesn't seem like it contains any new information, but it's a better source than some of the current references, so it should be used instead. Letsgoridebikes (talk) 19:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Globe and Mail article

Denis Rancourt's biography
Impartial editors are needed to assess the notability, and extent of that notability, of this scientist's non-research related activities. Comments on reliability of sources are also needed. &mdash;Letsgoridebikes (via posting script) 21:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * What exactly are you requesting a comment on? Cuñado  ☼ -  Talk  02:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 1. Why is this person notable? 2. Does the information in the article have to do with his notability. (I'm sorry if I wasn't more clear.) Letsgoridebikes (talk) 02:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

SmashTheState edits
Are you serious when you say you're making it NPOV? Calling it university reform? Quoting everything Rancourt says as "says" while his detractors only "claim", just as you argued against in reverse? Saying he's "becoming" more famous even though that's obviously a judgment call and a case of crystal balling? I don't think we're off to a very good start here. TastyCakes (talk) 15:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * University education reform is what Rancourt calls it. Unless you have some reason to believe he's lying, I don't understand how this is a problem.  Even the University of Ottawa would be unlikely to argue against the fact he's attempting to reform the educational system.
 * It's not a matter of calling him a liar. It's a matter of what constitutes "reform".  First off, it seems to me that reform refers to a permanent change in how something is done.  Since he's now barred from educating and the teaching method of the university hasn't changed, that doesn't seem to be the case.  "Attempted reform" would seem to be the more accurate description.  Second of all, using the word reform seems to inherently suggest that changes are being made for the better, and while I'm sure he probably honestly considered these methods "reform", many others at the U of O and elsewhere would disagree.  I think most of the time the word "reform" is used, people are injecting their own point of view to some degree.  Hugo Chavez, for instance, would probably not agree with neo-liberals use of the term "economic reform".  And lastly, the section of the article talks about many things other than his different educating methods, like his reprimands, lawsuits and dismissals, none of which seem to fit under "reforms" by any definition.  Perhaps his educating methods and his trouble with the school should be split into two sections, but doing so risks making this a soapbox.  TastyCakes (talk) 16:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't believe it says he's "becoming more famous." The article stripped out almost everything for which he is notable (namely his attempt at educational reform, whether one agrees with it or not).  Since the article survived a RfD, proving that he IS notable, the only way the people editing this article can justify removing all that material is by implying that it's his scientific work which is notable rather than his activism.  What I did was to indicate he's becoming far more notable for his activism than for his science -- and I provided a reference to an article which is extremely hostile to Rancourt (they say right in the article that the Ottawa Citizen has run numerous editorials on Rancourt, none of them admiring), and which says he is now becoming internationally notable, referring to an editorial about him in the New York Times this week.  Since his scientific work has never been the subject of numerous editorials (much less in the New York Times), it's hardly crystal ball gazing to say he is becoming *more* famous as an activist than as a scientist.
 * I would say that it should be put that "he has become more famous for his activism than science", no? TastyCakes (talk) 16:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there a source that says he is more famous for his activism that his research? (I don't know one way or another) If not, then stating that would be original research, since we're making the conclusion based on the number of sources in which he appears. Letsgoridebikes (talk) 23:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC) My bad, there is one, but perhaps the NYT reference would be a better choice. Letsgoridebikes (talk) 00:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The defense of this article in his deletion nominations revolved around his notability as an "activist", rather than his contributions to science. I think the fact you can find articles about his troubles with the school in the popular media, but not articles about his science, makes it a supported piece of information.  However, I don't think we should say "more noted for" but rather say "he's a physics professor noted for his controversial career at the U of O" or whatever.  TastyCakes (talk) 18:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we could put the two together and say that "Rancourt is notable for his activism during his tenure as a physics professor at the university of ottawa" and avoid specifying exactly which of those two reason is his "main" notability? Letsgoridebikes (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC).
 * Yes, I think that would be best. TastyCakes (talk) 15:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You're right, I shouldn't have used "claimed," and it's been changed. I used "claimed" originally because it was written, and "said" seemed a little odd for written material.  Perhaps it should be changed to "wrote" instead of "said"?  -- SmashTheState (talk) 16:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure that sounds fine. TastyCakes (talk) 16:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Climate Change Essay
I did some digging into the Seven Oaks article, and found that it is a self-published source, and thus cannot be used as a reliable source. Derrick O'Keefe, the author of the article, happens to be on the Seven Oaks editorial board, which makes the article self-published. This clearly violates WP:SPS. (Yes, I know I'm being tedious in explaining my edits, but its necessary for this contentious article.) Letsgoridebikes (talk) 06:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

In regards to The Dominion article, it turns out that the article's author, Dru Oja Jay, happens to be the founder and editor of The Dominion. This reference falls afoul of the previous cited policy on self-published material. Accordingly, I have deleted the section from the article. As the section stands, it looks like we'll have to incorporate the fact about the essay being quoted in a political speech somewhere else; there aren't enough reliable sources to justify an entire section of its own.Letsgoridebikes (talk) 07:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

You know perfectly well your specious arguments are nothing but Wikilawyering. I'm just waiting for your attacks to slow down so I can revert them en masse. You can't reference a newspaper article because the article happened to be written by the newspaper's publisher? What the hell sense does that make? You're not clever, you're not scoring any points, and in the long run you're just wasting your time because I'm going to revert your hatchet job. SmashTheState (talk) 07:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe there is a way to discuss and agree what constitutes a reasonable quality reference among all of us here. I can see that it is difficult to keep much material in this entry if we are really cautious around referencing, at least for the bits about climate change. For that section, it seems reasonable to either trim it down to a factual mention that Rancourt blogged an article on climate change, its two or three key arguments, the context of a blog entry relative to peer-reviewed contributions and the consensus science, and brief mention regarding reaction. Blog responses to blogs do not, in my view, reach the necessary threshold for reliability. We should avoid references of that kind. Please consider this perspective, again offered honestly on a still-unsatisfying article, before accusing everyone who edits this article who does not agree with your perspective must be doing a hatchet job. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FeetsDontFailMeNow (talk • contribs) 13:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd like to point out that I'm not making arguments at all - I'm following Wikipedia policy. Allow me to cite (again) from Wikipedia's policy on self published sources (WP:SPS): "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP. So this this case the articles in The Dominion and Seven Oaks were being used as third-party sources about a living person, Denis Rancourt. As the policy makes it clear, this should never occur. Its as simple as that.Letsgoridebikes (talk) 15:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Is O'Keefe the only person on the board? My understanding was that the self publishing rule was to prevent the addition of material from single bloggers with an axe to grind slandering people.  If it is a publication with a number of editors (and some corresponding degree of respect) the situation might be different...  Which is the case here?  TastyCakes (talk) 16:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The Dominion is a newspaper distributed across Canada. If any article written by the newspaper's publisher is "self-published" and can therefore not be referenced, I am free to go across Wikipedia and remove any reference by Rupert Murdoch which appears through News Corp, any reference by Ted Turner which appears through CNN, and so on.  What do you want to bet that if I did so it would be regarded as vandalism?  The following books are self-published, and are therefore forbidden from being referenced on Wikipedia:


 * Ulysses, by James Joyce
 * The Adventures of Peter Rabbit, by Beatrix Potter
 * The Wealthy Barber, by David Chilton
 * The Elements of Style, by William Strunk
 * Robert’s Rules of Order
 * Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, Julian Jaynes


 * Should I go through and remove all references to any of these books on every article in Wikipedia? What do you suppose the reaction will be if I do so? SmashTheState (talk) 21:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Are there articles by Ted Turner and Rupert Murdoch used in Wikipedia? Not published by them, but authored by them?  Because that's what the guideline seems to speak to.  That said, I agree with the sentiment, if a publisher of a recognized, otherwise reliable source is also an editor, I don't see why that is necessarily a problem.  TastyCakes (talk) 21:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * SmashTheState, I'm not sure if you understand the policy -its not just about self-published work. It specifies self published works cannot be used as third-party information about a person. Your argument is a strawman fallacy, since, for example, Rupert Murdoch would have to have written an article himself about another person. I doubt you could find such a reference in Wikipedia. As well, the policy on Biographies of Living Persons states: "Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used." I far as I know, The Dominion has not been deemed notable enough for inclusion in the Wikipedia, and although this does not disqualify it, until its reliability has been established it remains of dubious value. Letsgoridebikes (talk) 22:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You can stop leaving disingenuous messages on my user page about how you're jes' gosh shucks tryin' t'fix up this here ol' article. I'm an activist, and I get cops and politicians trying to blow sunshine up my ass on a daily basis.  Since I have an IQ higher than a turnip's, it's pretty damned obvious to me that you're here for the explicit purpose of sabotaging this article however you can.  Your attempts at Wikilawyering are both sad and obious.  Even TastyCakes, who has been systematically attacking every Ottawa activism article he can find, is uncomfortable with how blatant your efforts at sticking forks in Rancourt are.  I don't know what your personal interest is in this article, but I aim to find out, and if I can prove that you're working for the University of Ottawa, it's going to be a media circus.  SmashTheState (talk) 01:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Smash: The threats are tiresome and unconvincing. The Rancourt entry has included a lot of material that just doesn't seem appropriate on a bio entry. If you think Letsgoridebikes has committed some grievous error, then convince him/her that s/he is wrong by the force of your arguments or find a way to demonstrate his/her mistaken interpretation of this Wiki policy. Doing either of these things could lead to a better article. FeetsDontFailMeNow (talk) 14:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you might be overestimating people's interest in Wikipedia if you think finding out that an article about a University of Ottawa employee was edited heavy-handedly by another University of Ottawa employee would cause a circus of any kind. TastyCakes (talk) 16:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * With Wikiscanner we caught someone either in city hall or the police station vandalizing the Ottawa Panhandlers' Union article. The media was quite interested in that, and it was embarassing enough for city hall to issue a "no comment" to CBC and scuttle away.  Danis Rancourt has been covered extensively by the corporate media.  Trust me, I won't have any difficulty getting the media interested if I'm able to prove any of you folks are employed by Ottawa University.  The media love catching people with their hand in the cookie jar.  SmashTheState (talk) 23:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Your repeated threats make you irrelevant. No more time will be wasted on you. FeetsDontFailMeNow (talk) 03:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) The Dominion (newspaper) and Seven Oaks pieces do not appear to be "self-published" under the usual meaning of the term. Mere presence on the board does not make one a self-publisher if there is a genuine, separate institution. As our article on Self-publishing puts it "The key distinguishing characteristic of self-publishing is the absence of a traditional publisher." These papers do seem to be "traditional publishers" of generally independent work. As TastyCakes and SmashTheState point out, the purpose of SPS is essentially to prevent "single bloggers with an axe to grind slandering people,"  not to eliminate articles from real news sources that happen to be written by management.John Z (talk) 13:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Derth of bibliographic content
It appears that there is very little in the way of bibliographic information in the article at present, and as we all know tenured professors do not just pop into existence. Does anyone have secondary sources about his life previous to his current activist activities? Letsgoridebikes (talk) 17:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Validity of Personal Blogs as sources and external links
There is currently an edit war over which external links are listed. Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy is very clear on the matter. The policy seen at WP:SELFPUB lists several exclusion criteria for the usage of self-published material. In regards to external links, the policy at WP:LINKS states: "In biographies of living people, material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links. External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and are judged by a higher standard than for other articles. Do not link to websites that contradict the spirit of WP:BLP or that are not fully compliant with this guideline." Currently, the single external link of high quality is of his biography website from his university. For the aforementioned reasons, I have removed, and will continue to remove any and all material that violate these policies. I hope all the editors working on this article have read and understand the related policies. Cheers. Letsgoridebikes (talk) 21:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I have read the section you refer to, above. Of particular importance is this quotation: "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer". As I had not read this previously, it is clear now that removal of much of the text and supporting references is not only justified but necessary to comply with this standard. I have been working on this entry a fair bit and have had trouble finding ways to distill it down to a normal wiki. Most of the original post was not informational but argumentative and struck me as extremely biased. Keep up the good work - in truth, there's still a fair bit more to do. FeetsDontFailMeNow (talk) 00:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The relevant links and blogs seem to be links to Rancourt's own blogs and sites. There is no problem with using a person's own self-published sources in his own biography. The problem is in using them for someone else's bio. This is a misunderstanding of SPS and BLP.John Z (talk) 13:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Three key words from SPS: "Unduly self-serving." If it doesn't clear that hurdle, it's unusable. arimareiji (talk) 17:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. Those words refer to "the material used", not the source itself, though, and just emphasize the importance of neutrality.  If a (reliable) source says of a notable person "You are bad", common sense, policy - particularly neutrality and BLP - and practice allow and endorse quoting him saying "No, I'm not."John Z (talk) 06:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

"Jewish lobby" retraction
http://www.scribd.com/doc/11668697/La-Rotonde-Edition-du-2-fevrier-2009<3

The newspaper which you folks were so quick to use as proof of Rancourt's anti-semitism just published an apology and a full retraction. So where's yours? Or is Wikipedia a special case where people with a political axe to grind are allowed to promulgate lies without any accountability? -- SmashTheState (talk) 05:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I reverted it a couple of times, and was going to argue - my apologies for not getting around to it - that a newspaper saying {translated) "the professor stated that the administration is under the influence of the 'lobby juif' " but not directly quoting him, is not enough to support the use of a loaded english translation "jewish lobby" in a BLP, but this retraction and formal apology makes it utterly clear that it must not be restored. Thanks for the find.John Z (talk) 12:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Self-republished Third-party sources?
Rancourt tends to reproduce third-party information, such as various letters he has been sent by the University of Ottawa, and a video of a half-hour interview he did on local cable show, "Talk Ottawa". Would these be considered admissible as sources, i.e. for the University's justifications and his opinions connecting his termination to the Israel lobby (respectively)? He also reproduced an ajudicator's judgement at some point, which documented both sides' views. --RealGrouchy (talk) 01:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Broken Reference Links
I'm hesitant to actually edit this article, since it seems so contentious, but I do want to point out that the following reference links are broken (i.e. no longer point to any accessible news article, as far as I can tell): references 40, 46, 47, 49, 50, 53. These seem like pretty crucial references, so I will check back a while from now and change the sourced phrases to "citation needed" tags, if this has not yet been done by then. (oops, almost forgot to sign my comment) Robertoalencar (talk) 21:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You can also tag them as broken using the tag, which looks like this: .  I don't think anyone would take offense if you were to tag the broken links...  TastyCakes (talk) 22:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, there is a tool to help you find broken links in articles, here is the link for this article, and it confirms what you're saying. TastyCakes (talk) 22:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Significant edit - removal of non-NPOV and non-biographical material
I have removed some minutiae from this entry that exhaustively detailed minor matters and that detracted from NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FeetsDontFailMeNow (talk • contribs) 03:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Congratulations. You have now succeeded in (a) removing all reference to any of the events and actions which made Denis Rancourt notable to begin with and, (b) removing all explanation for Rancourt's actions while somehow managing to retain the University of Ottawa's explanations for why it's perfectly okay for them to act the way they have.  In other words, you have turned the article into a sham, a mockery, and an empty, meaningless shell which serves no function except to make Rancourt look like a nutcase.  A person not assuming good faith might suspect this was the purpose of your edits. -- SmashTheState (talk) 07:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that this article is a mere image of what it once was. I believe there must be some kind of compromise where this can be modified into an article which is not so one sided!George Pelltier (talk) 07:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I undid User:FeetsDontFailMeNow's edit. I believe in this good faith stuff but I don't think this user has the best intentions of Wikipedia at heart. 90% of their contributions have been on the Denis Rancourt article and most of it has been to remove content. Some of this content may be NPOV but I think we should take a better look at the article before systematically removing 3/4 of the article in one fell swoop.George Pelltier (talk) 08:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * While I am somewhat skeptical about this new, pro-SmashTheState, user that has appeared out of the blue yonder with a familiarity regarding Wikipedia, I will assume good faith for the moment and try to improve the article. A lot of the problems as I see it is the use of language that does not convey facts concisely, for example "the university informed Rancourt they were beginning dismissal proceedings" rather than "the university began dismissal proceedings", which is the cogent information here.  TastyCakes (talk) 15:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, for a wonder. The language should also be neutral, rather than what's been happening where words like "claims" and "purports" are appearing to make it sound as if Rancourt is lying.  And by the way, did it occur to you that the group of people you've been thinking are all socks might just be a group of people who happen to communicate with each other outside of Wikipedia?  For example, on an IRC channel where they discuss what they've been doing on Wikipedia recently, and post links to each other of articles we're working on?  Makes everything a bit less suspicious, yes? -- SmashTheState (talk) 16:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think there's a difference between making it look like he's lying and making it clear it's an opinion rather than a given fact. For example using words like "observes", or "describes" make it look like he's making objective judgments, which he clearly isn't in most cases.  But I agree there are neutral words that can be used to eliminate both of our concerns.  I think Lets go ride bikes and feets don't fail me now went overboard on some of their edits - it is now difficult to make out what parts of the article are talking about.  I think some of the relevant information should be put back in and I've tried to start the process.  I've also added the link back to Rancourt's climate change blog entry.  While it fails as a reliable source, having a section that talks all around it seems silly when you can just point the user to the actual article. I suppose outside communication does make things less suspicious, however it's not like sock puppets haven't been an issue in the past.  TastyCakes (talk) 16:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It is possible that removing material that is repetitive, verbose, or not NPOV leaves much less than Rancourt wanted when he wrote this up (and he clearly did). It is even possible that depicting such contentious events using NPOV is not possible, or that eliminating them means Rancourt is not notable. If that is so, I hope our local anarchists would have the courage to face up to the possibility. As far as Smash's repetition of imaginative conspiracy theories, there's just no point in discussing them. But he seems very capable of reading many things that simply do not appear in the entry in my edit. The climate change material could possibly stay provided we make it clear what Rancourt's credibility around climate science is. It can be accomplished easily, as his record on this issue is crystal clear in its total absence. His physics credibility as it currently reads seems completely defensible (I can't really tell, but he's clearly good at this stuff, in my view, and I checked the NSERC grant list and he was renewed recently, so peers view his physics as strong - good enough for me and should be good enough for anyone). The arbitration entry is unreasonable but has to absurdly long to retain a semblance of NPOV. Better to delete almost all of it and just refer readers to the entire arbitration, which is publicly available. Blow-by-blow treatments of events that involve Rancourt but are not biographical are highly questionable. I don't see why, except as propaganda, why that stuff should remain. Explain it to me, but without referring to material that is made up (smash's conspiracies or fabricated quotes), like I was actually trying to do what my record here indicates: make a dreadfully bad entry reach the minimum standard for Wikipedia. Which is does not, at present. It's not even close. FeetsDontFailMeNow (talk) 20:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Clearly this article has a complicated history which I am unfamiliar with (I came for the Request for Comment,) but one thing strikes me about the introductory paragraph: there is a sentence where it says Rancourt says he is being targeted by "pro-Zionist, military" forces. Then there is no further reference to this topic in the article. Is it gratuitous? Was there material at one time in the article that would have explained it, which was then deleted? It certainly doesn't belong in the beginning if it doesn't play a big role in Rancourt's notability, and if it does, it requires more explanation. Botox for bunnies (talk) 15:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Struck through posting by sock of banned user Herschelkrustofsky.   Will Beback    talk    21:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That part was added as part of the effort to make Rancourt look like a nutcase. It actually said "pro-Israeli" originally and I changed it to "pro-Zionist" to remove some of the sly implication that he's an *anti-semitic* nutcase.  -- SmashTheState (talk) 18:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think originally it said "Israeli government" (just to make it a little more out there). It used to have a reference, I guess it was purged by Lets Ride Bikes or Feets at some point.  I believe Rancourt has been pretty outspoken against Israel in the past, I don't know if there was a particular incident in late 2008 that made him claim they had something to do with his dismissal (it was before the recent occupation of Gaza, I believe).  Is Rancourt Jewish?  I think one of the old references called him a "self hating Jew".  Not sure if the anti-zionist bit should be kept at all, and if so whether his being Jewish or not should be added as related/relevant.  TastyCakes (talk) 18:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * So you believe because Rancourt is outspoken against Israeli nationalism that he must hate Jews? This is why this article is in such sorry shape.  I'm anti-Zionist too.  EVERY anarchist on Earth is anti-Zionist.  By definition.  I am against Israeli nationalism.  I am also against Palestinian nationalism.  And Amerikan nationalism.  And Canadian nationalism.  And Venezuelan nationalism.  And Cuban nationalism.  There are large numbers of anti-Zionist Israelis.  The desire to portray Rancourt as being an anti-semite is part of the effort to sneak as much dirt against him as NPOV will allow.  By cherry-picking his statements and his political beliefs, you can turn him into a hatemongering nutcase.  Of course, you can do that with every person.  -- SmashTheState (talk) 20:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think anything of the sort, and I'm well aware that there are a number of anti-zionist Jews. I am just saying that the article that used to reference this section called him that, suggesting he's Jewish which may be relevant for inclusion if mention of his anti-zionist leanings is kept in the article.  TastyCakes (talk) 15:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I was the one that initially added the content because it was contained in a reliable secondary source that quoted Rancourt himself. You can read it yourself in this article in which the newspaper defends itself against charges of anti-semitism when they quoted Rancourt's views on the influence of the "Jewish lobby" and "Israeli lobby". Ironic that people are attacking a newspaper for Rancourt's beliefs. They're not the ones taking this stance - he is. This article, also a secondary source, quotes Rancourt saying on TV: "Quand une université se fait si vicieuse en Amérique du Nord, cela a habituellement à faire avec des questions macro-politiques. Le complexe militaro-industriel et le lobby israélien". So that's where the part about the miliary-industrial complex comes from. I'm still a little fuzzy on what "questions macro-poliques" means. If anyone knows, feel free to speak up.

--- You can safely translate "questions macro-politiques" as "geopolitical issues" such that Prof. Rancourt's statement reads as: "When a North American gets that vicious, it usually means the issue is geopolitical, like it tickles the Israeli lobby or the military industrial complex." --Arthur Borges 23:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC) --- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthurborges (talk • contribs) 23:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Anyone can clearly read (albeit if they can read French) that no one is trying to make Rancourt look like a nutcase; he's taking care of that one all by himeself. This isn't a sly implication of his anti-semistism, or anti-Zionism. Implying that this information testifies to his "anti-semitism" is a strawman arguement SmashTheState - you should know better than that. These quotes aren't cherry picked. They come up again and again in multiple sources. This is not a distortion of the facts.
 * For these reasons, I have re-added a NPOV report of his views on the administration's motivation, since this is crucial to understanding the conflict between him and his (soon to be former) employer. As someone pointed out earlier, perhaps this belongs in another section, but it definitely belongs in the article.Letsgoridebikes (talk) 05:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * For those of you just tuning in, I leave it to your judgement whether or not Letsgoridebikes (a single-purpose account who is interested only in Denis Rancourt) is here to do a hatchet-job on Rancourt. He has with the help of FeetsDontFailMeNow, another single-issue account, removed 90%+ of the content originally in the article and, as he indicates above quite clearly, cherry-picked material for the purpose of making Rancourt look stupid.  "Rancourt said it himself once, therefore it's okay to remove all context or explanation and stick it in the lead paragraph... BECAUSE HE'S A NUTCASE!  LOL!"  I'm just waiting for them to finish their work and move on so it can all be removed at once without having to get into an edit war.  Good faith is nowhere in sight when an editor openly and cheerfully admits that he thinks the target of his edits is a nutcase and that his edits are just an attempt to "reveal" this. -- SmashTheState (talk) 10:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't flatter yourself. I'm much more interested in Depersonalization disorder and getting it to good article status than with this article, which you would see if you bothered to take a look at my contribs. Of course, don't let facts get in the way of your accusations of wrongdoings and conspiracy. In the future, try to comment on the contributions of an editor, and not on the editor herself. You're welcome to discuss the reliability of the sources used in the article, if material is NPOV or not, and other issues pertaining to the article; if you want to comment on an editor do it on their talk page, and not here. Letsgoridebikes (talk) 02:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Israeli/zionist claim in intro
There seems to be an edit war on whether or not to include Rancourt's claim of being dismissed for his anti-zionist bluster in the intro. I think it shouldn't be included, because actions are clearly more notable than what he thinks or claims. I'm sure there are plenty of anarchists out there that hate Israel/zionism/whatever but Rancourt has been deemed notable because of his (some would say outlandish) actions at the U of O, not for what he thinks. Also, there is clearly some controversy over this point, and I'd say it's just as well to avoid the issue altogether, at least in the intro. It does not seem to be a major point, and it doesn't seem to be particularly well supported. TastyCakes (talk) 20:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it shouldn't be included as well, but for a different reason. This is en-wiki but the reference is in French. People who can not read French are unable to determine whether or not the reference actually substantiates the  "pro-Israeli, military lobby" claim. There are quite a few of us who can't read French!  Leave it out entirely.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.152.160.138 (talk) 21:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it being in a language other than English is a valid reason to exclude it... TastyCakes (talk) 23:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You're correct. Rancourt is bilingual, so it's natural to expect some sources and quotes to be in French. If people are so concerned about an article just because it is French, well, this English article has information about Rancourt's views on the Israel lobby. His views and charges of anti-semitism have filled the letter section of The Fulcrum for a couple weeks now. This has created a furor on campus and definitely seems notable enough for inclusion. Also, if the sources say "Israeli" or "Israel" or "military-industrial complex" then that is what belongs in the article; no source that I've seen contains anything to do with "zionism" and editors should not be putting in their interpretation of what he "really meant". What's in the source is what we put in the article.
 * I would like to make it clear that stating his views on the Israel lobby is not libel. Libel is printed material that casts a person in a negative light, but a necessary component is that it has to be false. (If anyone wants to know more, WP has a great article on it.) In this case, the secondary sources back it up, making the info true, so quoting his views are not libel. This is an important distinction because there is nothing in WP:BIO that prevents including this information, as long as its NPOV. There are no sources that claim Rancourt hates Jews or anything of the sort, so the accusations that editors are making these claims are baseless. As other editors have said, this does not belong in the lede. I think the "Suspension and Dismissal" section is more appropriate. Letsgoridebikes (talk) 23:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * @TastyCakes. Why do you think Wikipedia demands that information must be referenced? It is so that readers can check to see that claims made in an article are actually backed up by a reputable source. In this particular case I guess zillions of readers of this en-wiki can not determime from this reference whether the "pro-Israeli, military lobby"  claim is accurate or not. Using that ref in fr-wiki would fine, but not in en-wiki. If I removed the "pro-Israeli, military lobby"  bit with an edit summary which said "removed information which I cannot see in the reference", what would you do? Revert?
 * How do you think any article about any subject outside the english speaking world would get written if you only allowed sources in english? The point of references is so that information will hold up under scrutiny. If it's a reliable source but in another language, it will hold up under scrutiny, but not everyone will be able to be the scrutinizer.  There is nothing wrong with that, particularly since only a small fraction of readers typically read the references anyway.  TastyCakes (talk) 01:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This is some additional information from the citing sources manual of style: "Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to foreign-language sources of equal calibre. However, do give foreign-language references where appropriate. If quoting from a foreign-language source, an English translation should be given with the original-language quote beside it."
 * So French sources don't seem to be banned outright, but it is prudent to use English sources when possible. I'm sure editors, other than myself, can be found to verify these sources do in fact contain the information they claim to. In this case, I think the information is important enough to be included even if that means using a French source (although I did add an English source to compliment them.) Perhaps we should add English translations of the relevant passages to the reference?
 * This is a very similar situation to citing academic journal articles. Unless one has an institutional account, one can only view the abstract for free, but this doesn't prevent their use because some editors can in fact verify the contents of the source. Letsgoridebikes (talk) 02:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps an extra link in the reference pointing to the google translate page? TastyCakes (talk) 07:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good idea. I don't know how to do that though... do you? Letsgoridebikes (talk) 03:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ya you just go here and enter the url. TastyCakes (talk) 20:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added the translations for the three french articles I saw at a pass. The translations aren't perfect, but should give non-french readers a general idea of what's going on.  TastyCakes (talk) 21:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

--- If anybody wants a human(e) translation for any material about Prof. Rancourt, contact me. It is always a pity to lose data simply because one or two contributors find "foreign" language maerial "obscure". --Arthur Borges 00:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC) --- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthurborges (talk • contribs) 00:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

BLP noticeboard
Section = 109 BLP articles labelled "Climate Change Deniers" all at once. This article was placed in a "climate change deniers" category. After discussion on [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive232#109_BLP_articles_labelled_.22Climate_Change_Deniers.22_all_at_once WP:BLPN] and [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_October_16#Category:Climate_Change_deniers WP:CFD] the category was deleted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

First sentence
Something is wrong/missing in this sentence ("was suspended" maybe). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:23, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Denis Rancourt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090602024334/http://rancourt.academicfreedom.ca:80/ to http://rancourt.academicfreedom.ca/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Denis Rancourt. 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/20090426014607/http://www.media.uottawa.ca/mediaroom/news-details_1610.html to http://www.media.uottawa.ca/mediaroom/news-details_1610.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100419001502/http://www.media.uottawa.ca/mediaroom/news-details_1654.html to http://www.media.uottawa.ca/mediaroom/news-details_1654.html

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) 18:58, 8 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, my official website, for external links, is https://denisrancourt.ca/, if someone could change that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:9880:4237:ffd8:2098:4054:27ea:34da (talk • contribs) 14:19, 27 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I have replaced the links there with a single link to the main site, as it appears to link to the same material as well. Eric talk 16:34, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Tenure
Rancourt has stated that the tenure-granting process is designed to produce obedient academics that question and challenge neither the fundamental sources of oppression in society nor the undemocratic governance structures of the universities they are employed in. He has argued that professors must use the unique privileges and protections offered by tenure to confront injustices and oppression, including within their universities, where they have the greatest influence and ability to effect change. Rancourt has written that:

"One antidote to the university as boot camp in the service of capital is for tenured professors to use their tenure. This would turn tenure on its head, as it is free society’s coercive tool of choice for fabricating aligned and docile academics. Not the job security in itself, which should be available to all, but the filtering and moulding process known as the tenure track. But why not turn tenure on its head? Tenure is death, risk is life, and collaboration is criminal. Collaborating in an institutionalized system of resource looting, labour exploitation, and genocidal demographic engineering is criminal, especially when its ultimate weapon is the foremost crime known as war, such as the present Canadian war in Afghanistan."

Additional information regarding tenure is available.