Talk:Rachel Marsden

Help Request
This article is being edited in violation of BLP rules. In light of #metoo and #iblievewomen, dredging up this person's past and challenging her take on her sexual assault seems like a very bad idea. Request revert to Feb. 26 version, without "personal life" section and page protection. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 17:04, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Please discuss on this page, at this point your Edit Warring RhinosF1(chat) (status)(contribs) 17:29, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I've left you a message on your talk. RhinosF1(chat) (status)(contribs) 17:31, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a privacy issue and an attack on the credibility of a woman who was sexually assaulted. Does Wikipedia exempt itself from the trend toward believing women? For many weeks, this material was not on the article page. I strongly advise you to read the arbcomm decision linked to above. This may have to go back for a ruling, because admins don't seem to believe women -- or this woman, who seems targetted for her relationship with Jimmy Wales -- deserves the same treatment as other women who report sexual assault. And no, I don't know her, or even live in the same country as her. Saw her once in my life in a train station.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 18:02, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If you can be specific about your concerns, they'll be easier to address. Identify specific article content and/or sources along with your policy-based concerns about them. --Ronz (talk) 20:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I think it's legitimate to include the fact that Marsden pleaded guilty in a criminal court to harassment. Not sure if it's necessary to include the next incident about her relationship with a police officer given that the harassment complaint against her was withdrawn. As for the relationship with Jimbo, that received a lot of media attention and has multiple sources so I think it needs to stay. As for the Simon Fraser University 1997 harassment controversy, given that there is an entire article on this and it was a very big issue in Canada at the time and is what first brought her national attention, I don't see how it can't be mentioned. 75.119.247.233 (talk) 17:49, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * This is all stuff that happened at least a decade ago. Why should Wikipedia be the permanent record of this, showing up first on any google searches? The police officer material should definitely go. I have no idea what that's about and what it's supposed to signify. The harassment conviction is on the record, but keep in mind it did not give her a criminal record. Wikipedia, by keeping this front and center on the Internet, effectively becomes the criminal record. The Wales breakup was sort of news but, again, how long ago was that? My biggest concern, by far, is that Wikipedia seems to call her a liar when she says she was sexually assaulted, using a report against her written by an outfit sponsored by the Koch brothers. In European countries, there's a right to be forgotten. Not so much here. Thanks for giving this your thoughts.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 23:57, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If all the sources are all from the same time period, then we should review the prominence of the material. If any is related to her notability, then a high level of prominence is due. --Ronz (talk) 00:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The controversy occurred in 1997, it was still the subject of serious comment as recently as 2010: "Don’t touch, do tell", University Affairs, MAR 08 2010, there are 6 citations in Google Scholar, and several Google Books citations so while the sources in the article could be updated, the matter was not just some tabloid scandal but was and remains an incident that yields serious comment. 75.119.247.233 (talk) 21:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Yet you removed verified material from Jesse Brown directly related to the work he is doing now. So old stories from broken relationships and decades-old unsettled sexual assault claims stay, but material showing Canada's self-styled media critic has his own problems with facts is removed from Wikipedia? Are you really here to improve the encyclopedia? Spoonkymonkey (talk) 19:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Please address the comments above in the context of Wikipedia's content policies, while avoiding commenting on editors --Ronz (talk) 19:13, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Rachel Marsden has no business invoking "me too." It's people like her who help undermine real victims of sexual violence. The "personal life" section is relevant because it shows a pattern of antisocial behavior on her part. Turnerb94 (talk) 19:13, 2 April 2019 (UTC)