Talk:Rachel Marsden/Archive 5

Some archives will remain deleted
If you are looking for the old talk to this article, please note that it contained too many unsourced allegations and violations of the Wikipedia biographies of living persons policy to be undeleted. Chick Bowen 18:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I find this disturbing. If something violates Wikipedia policies by having unsourced allegations, etc, that only means that it should be removed from the active page.  What reason could there be for deleting it from the archives?  Lack of storage space? --Random wikipedia user  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.174.241.14 (talk) 23:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it has to do with the founder of wikipedia boinking this chick and then dumping her online? (Gouki, 2:32, 3-11-08) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.183.138.133 (talk) 06:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Criminal Harassment Charge
If this exists then what is the problem with adding the criminal harassment charge to this article? This is one of the sources. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There would be two problems with adding that material to the article. First, the source you have provided is a primary source. Biographies_of_living_persons specifically states that if controversial information "is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out", and further advises editors to "Exert great care in using material from primary sources. Do not use, for example, public records that include personal details--such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses--or trial transcripts and other court records or public documents, unless a reliable secondary source has already cited them."Unless the claim above is supported by a third-party reliable source, it should not be included in the article.  Furthermore, even if adequately sourced, there would be a more subtle problem with including the above material in the article at the present time: both WP:BLP and WP:NPOV mandate that biographies of living persons be written in a fair and balanced manner.  This necessarily implies that these articles cannot contain excessive amounts of criticism -- negative material must not be allowed to become disproportionate in quantity to the remainder of the article.  Exceptions, obviously, are made for people only notable for negative events, such as serious criminals.  As Rachel Marsden is NOT such a person, her Wikipedia biography cannot be treated as such.  If we were to add the material above to the article, without expanding the content favorable to Rachel Marsden, I am concerned that we might throw the article out of balance. It's worth observing that almost all of the previous revisions of this article remain deleted because they were so severely imbalanced as to constitute a serious WP:BLP violation. If readers want to know all the dirt on Rachel Marsden, they can read the article in Salon.com -- Wikipedia is held to a higher editorial standard. John254 05:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * To respond to the specific example given, Svend_Robinson is placed in the larger context of an article which includes far more information favorable to Svend Robinson than our relatively short article on Rachel Marsden does. Moreover, the negative material is supported by references to third party reliable sources, namely,  and  -- not original court documents. John254 05:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

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


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

If someone were to verify the above, could we add it? In terms of positive information, we can add what the judge said about here being intelligent and a model student no? Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 05:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * An observation made by a judge in a criminal court with respect to a defendant coming before him is hardly high praise. We're going to have to do a little better than that if we want to expand the favorable portion of the article. John254 05:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

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


 * Certainly, suggest a wording. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe there's nothing here about her newspaper column writing because there's nothing about her newspaper column writing in third-party sources. We'll see what can be found. –Pomte 21:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing to be found, because all she wrote were letters to the editor. She trumped up her bio based on these. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.59.220.182 (talk) 03:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Major events only
As I said in my close of the deletion review for this article, a comprehensive biography of Ms. Marsden is in itself a violation of the undue weight clause, since she is a marginally notable figure. Please limit this article to genuinely major events only. Administrators, please enforce this limitation. As it stems from the deletion review, the limitation should be considered a condition of the article's existing at all. Chick Bowen 02:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but this is the first time I've heard of NPOV applying across articles rather than within. Could you please provide another example, or a centralised discussion of some sort with support for that view? Relata refero (talk) 07:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It is applying within the article in this case. For a marginally notable figure, an article should concentrate on what makes that person notable.  This is a perfectly standard interpretation of NPOV. Chick Bowen 19:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with your general point but I'm surprised that you read that from WP:UNDUE. --JGGardiner (talk) 21:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, this isn't a standard interpretation of WP:NPOV at all. We usually interpret NPOV to mean that the article should reflect the distribution of coverage in reliable secondary sources. Can you point me to a discussion about marginally notable figures that substantiates your point of view. (Which is, I should addan unhelpful approach here, as this person seems notable mainly as a lightning rod for criticism.) Relata refero (talk) 06:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but this is ridiculous. Marsden is highly notable. We've had a lot of good material. Like Kent Hovind, if the person's notability is highly negative, that's life. Followup, and the fact that we now have no Wikipedia article that mentions her later harassement issues is simply off the wall. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, now I'm even more annoyed. Reading the DRV it looks like you closed it where there was a clear consensus to have an article about her and adding your own signing statement that had no basis in the DRV discussion. Explain to me why I shouldn't ignore it and start systematically reincorporating info from the most recently deleted version? JoshuaZ (talk) 04:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I would think harassment and stalking are major events, as reported in the news. Five articles about this in the last month. If the article does not say what she is known for, then it has undue weight going the other way. –Pomte 00:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't necessarily agree that this is what she is known for. I happen to think she is best known for being a Canadian columnist that is an American Republican party enthusiast. I tried adding this prior to the deletion and restore of the article but it had been reverted without an explanation. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 05:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * She seems to me to be well known for both issues. If I had to summarize her I call her a Canadian columnist known for supporting the neoconservative wing of the American Republican party and know for her past issues related to stalking and harassement. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

My edits
I hope my edits are OK. I want to include the Dennis Miller Show material and put both the Salon and Simon Fraser piece in context. The Salon piece can hardly be seen as objective, and the Simon Fraser article was written by a prof at the very university where the harassment case happened. These facts should be kept in mind. Kurt. Kurt Turkulney (talk) 15:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see why the Salon piece is assumed to be any more non-objective than anything else. There are several articles available about Simon Fraser, so pick another one if concerned. Relata refero (talk)

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


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

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

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

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

Info to go under the career and education sections
Growing up in Vancouver, British Columbia, Marsden was inspired by Canadian radio personality Jack Webster. She swam in national competitions, setting records within British Columbia.

She attended the National Journalism Center.

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

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

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

–Pomte 17:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Two more sources about the harassment charge




–Pomte 17:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Descriptive information from deleted version. - Suggested addition.
She has written several columns criticizing the concept of anthropogenic global warming, and often pokes fun at celebrities. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This is just one column, and not third-party. –Pomte 20:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, so we can add more columns. If we're going to give a reasonable summary of what she's written... (her site gives many other similar columns). This might be the sort of data we are normally allowed to simply use the person's own sourcing for as long as it isn't controversial. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, the Salon article says she's a global warming skeptic (is that sufficiently uncontroversial that Salon would be an ok source for that?). . JoshuaZ (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The Salon description is fine with me. (It could be argued as original research to say that she frequently writes about such-and-such if she does not explicitly say that, even if her website lists a bunch of articles about such-and-such.) –Pomte 21:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, ok. So I'll add that mention citing the Salon article, without mentioning the celeb matter. Do we have enough of a consensus that I can stick this in over the protection? JoshuaZ (talk) 21:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


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


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


 * I think some of it is. The SFU episode was a huge news story in Canada and especially BC.  It did make Marsden a household name here.  I think that section could be expanded as long as it is carefully-worded.  But some of the other stuff... An allegation that she was thrown out of a building?  And allegation of "erratic behaviour"?  I don't even know what that means and it may not be true.  --JGGardiner (talk) 09:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And what really gets me about all of this is that I think we're having this huge problem over nothing substantial. The article was actually deleted and protected and quite a few of the editors at DRV wanted to keep it that way.  I have spoken with "Mike Bate" and I think that the issues are really minor: the two boyfriends and the FOX termination.  And for that we almost lost this article.  --JGGardiner (talk) 09:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Before trying to expand the SFU controversy here, I would wait until Simon Fraser University 1997 harassment controversy has it right, so there aren't two efforts doing the same thing, but that's just me. Since that is a blue link it should be pretty obvious that there being one sentence here doesn't mean it's not a big part of her notability, or that the weight is intentionally subdued on it.
 * The "erratic behaviour" is unusual. Without it the reader would be left to assume that she switched jobs in a prolific manner like any other journalist when that isn't the case. It can go under Career rather than Controversy, like how she resigned from two previous jobs due to controversy. This is balanced with the more positive aspect of how many big name programs she has worked on despite these events.
 * At the same time, that quote of praise from the Red Eye producer Shelly Stevenson does not inspire balance because it's the sort of thing you expect from someone working to promote the same program. There's an interview not including Marsden on The O'Reilly Factor where, incidentally, they say that the Canadian liberal media has made personal attacks against Marsden for things unrelated to her writing, not unlike what is said here. Although there may be a conflict of interest there, this is the only source I have found to promote this view, and you may wish to put this in. –Pomte 10:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with your analysis: we include the "erratic behaviour", so that readers don't assume that she changed jobs normally. But that's exactly my problem: we don't know that she didn't change jobs normally.  A vague allegation, which usually wouldn't deserve to be in an encyclopedia article if it were true, is included to lead the reader to a speculated conclusion.  That isn't NPOV.  --JGGardiner (talk) 21:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Just a thought: Rachel Marsden is a writer, isn't she? Why does the article focus so much attention on her personal life, rather than what she's written? Can anyone post a sentence or two from anything she's written? And is everyone in the public spotlight going to receive this treatment at Wikipedia, or will it only be the conservatives? 209.221.240.193 (talk) 15:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What has she written? We could read through all her columns and synthesize her recurring arguments, but that would go against policy. The global warming skepticism reported by Salon is a good start though. You should help us out if you're so concerned.
 * Not everyone in the public spotlight has these sorts of issues, but I'm sure you can find non-conservatives with similar media attention having articles that mention their controversies; not all the problem articles listed at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard are conservatives. –Pomte 15:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Here are a few quotations from her opinion columns which may be helpful:
 * "Terrorism isn't a new phenomenon, but now that it has hit far too close to home, Canada can ill-afford to be apathetic. We must continue to back the US and its counter-terrorism measures. This is a war."
 * "There was nothing more disturbing than watching gays flitting around Toronto with rainbow-colored "just married" signs, and flashing matching groom wedding bands. If they want to invent some kind of civil event to cement their commitment to each other, then fine; but to make a mockery of a sacred event that is, by its very definition, the most meaningful possible union between a man and a woman, is absolutely unjustifiable." (July 6, 2003)
 * "There is no point retreating from Iraq, or ignoring the fact that they really, really do hate us over there. Yes, the war on terrorism is going to be costly--but it's a price that needs to be paid now, or the invoice will be sent to us later in some form or another--perhaps pasted to the back of some swarthy extremist hell-bent on martyrdom. And America's traditional allies need to quit with the hand-wringing, realize that they're targets--no matter how much they figure that distancing themselves from the US and any offensive action in the war on terrorism will spare them--and start fighting this war." (August 21, 2003)
 * These are some fairly inflammatory quotes, and I found them by spending 10 minutes looking at her website. This says a great deal more to the reader about who Rachel Marsden is, and what she stands for, than any tabloid style recap of "he said, she said, the police investigated and didn't do anything." No violations of WP:SYN are needed, or wanted by me. All we need to do is collect a few key quotes from her columns and this article will look a lot better. If she's won any awards, those should be mentioned early. Just my two cents. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 15:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This isn't going to become a puff piece for her any more than it is going to be an attack piece. That's not what NPOV is about. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * An article about an architect such as Frank Lloyd Wright examines his work. An article about a politician such as Nancy Pelosi examines the legislation she has sought to make into law. An article about a renowned author such as Ralph Waldo Emerson contains at least one paragraph-length quotation from his works. Those are not "puff pieces." They are encyclopedia articles, and they're good ones. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 20:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * An article about FLW talks about his work because we have reliable sources that summarize it. We don't have secondary sources making any similar summaries for Marsden and so NOR applies. (Oh, and by the way, who are you? You seem to be a returning editor given your knowledge level). JoshuaZ (talk) 23:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Comparisons to Ann Coulter

 * Salon article





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

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


 * We have no obligation to make articles that are unduly positive for an article subject, nor should we per NPOV. The fact that the most positive thing we can find is maybe a comment by O'Reilly says more about Marsden than anything else (it might be arguable). The  Sean Young comparison falls at three levels: 1) Young is someone who is highly notable completely indepedent of the stalking matter, whereas Marsden is a definitely notable commentator but not  as notable as Young once the stalking is taken away and 2) The Young article in fact should spend more time on the stalking issues 3) Marsden's stalking/harassment is in fact more notable than that of Young.  Striking the third point based on these this google search and this one as well as this pair. The first two remarks still stand. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * We've been trying to find additional content to add (and have had some success). Instead of complaining it might make more sense to suggest more neutral or positive content rather than vague remarks about maybe adding something from O'Reilly. Just draft something, put it here, and see what responses you get. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Not complaining, just making suggestion on improvement of the article. Do you disagree with removing the September 2007 event? Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 05:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I would disagree with that considering a) how many news sources covered it and b) the severity of her accusations. Accusing someone of trying to leak highly classified documents is not a simple lovers' quarrel. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The thing is that these types of baseless accusations occur by the thousands ever since September 11. My cousins ex-wifes father made a similar accusation against him just out of spite. Also, remember what someone said at the deletion review about local bias in reporting these types of events. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 05:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know if they occur "by the thousands" certainly I'm aware of multiple cases in the news where people have labeled someone else a terrorist or involved with terrorists, but that seems a bit different than a prominent commentator claiming that a government official was giving her classified documents. As to the local bias issue- this got national reporting and Canada isn't exactly a small country (indeed, this got covered somewhat in the US as well I think). JoshuaZ (talk) 05:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, the man rejects that they were lovers. –Pomte 14:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The article unambiguously says that they were. Someone should correct that if it is in error.  I'm not familiar enough with the details to do so myself.  --JGGardiner (talk) 23:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I still don't see why something that's just allegations should take up about a quarter of the article. I say that this gets removed (without predjudice to more information coming up down the road) based on WP:BLP, WP:UNDO WP:UNDUE, WP:CHILL, and WP:NOT. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 23:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * They shouldn't take up a quarter of the article if we can find information about her that can fill up more space. As to your claims, there's no BLP issue (per DRV and the fact that this is in multiple reliable sources). WP:CHILL is more or less irrelevant. WP:UNDUE(I think is what you meant rather than WP:UNDO) has the same relevance as the others- the solution is to add more material about her other activities; otherwise this is due weight if such sources don't exist. And you seem to be misunderstanding- WP:NOT - this means we don't generally write an article based off of a single news event. However, for many notable people, their notability is essentially a string of loosely related news events. Even when it isn't the times a notable person gets in the news are generally noteworthy. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I got WP:CHILL and WP:NOT from what user:Pomte said above that "there's a separate ongoing internal investigation about this". In my view, it's best to wait and chill until more information is available before adding to the controversy section. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The internal investigation is on the officer, I presume, due to it being internal and from the context of the news articles. Her side of the event is probably done. –Pomte 01:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I expanded that paragraph with crucial facts just to avoid this sort of complaint that it's "just allegations." Consider that if the man didn't file a complaint, it would go under "Career" as part of her notable self-published work. There are many more words about what she did than the allegations, which is merely a consequence relevant to her actions, so we mention it. There's nothing unethical about straightforward reporting of what a person does.
 * Please unprotect so we can expand the other sections. –Pomte 00:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

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


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


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


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

Since when is anyone's "personal life" encyclopedic? Would any real encyclopedia print crap about people just because it's been reported on P. 6 of the New York Post? 209.217.79.61 (talk) 23:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, and neither does WP. We're prohibited from using tabloids for sensitive information. However, personal lives are discussed in non-tabloid sources as well these days. There's nothing we can do about that. Relata refero (talk) 07:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * We can refrain from including it here. Personal information does often make it into the news but that doesn't always make it newsworthy, let alone fit for an encyclopedia.  Obviously some of it is but we don't have to include everything that we find in reliable sources.  --JGGardiner (talk) 08:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Without violating WP:UNDUE one way or the other, we have some latitude to exercise our good taste in a manner the MSM does not. Relata refero (talk) 09:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well nobody ever accused the MSM of having good taste to begin with. I suppose that is what makes it mainstream.


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


 * Well, the "fired for erratic behaviour and escorted from the Fox building" comes only from the Post, a tabloid, and from its gossip column at that. And I marvel at how Wikipedia editors are so convinced of the veracity of anything they find published on the 'net, whether from some think tank (read hired academic guns) or any newspaper that posts its material on the Internet. I bet the Encyclopedia Britannica is a little more careful.
 * Jimbo wanted to put a free encyclopedia into everyone's hands. Do you really think this type of entry is what he had in mind? 99.246.48.27 (talk) 12:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Also NY magazine and the Toronto Star, which printed her denial. Unfortunately, that's news.
 * I am not convinced at all at the veracity of this. I am, unfortunately, convinced that most of the sources are reliable by our, necessarily imperfect, standards.
 * That this isn't what WP was intended to be doesn't change the fact that this is what a lot of people come here to check. We owe it to them as well as to the subject to ensure that this at least sounds neutral, informative, uncensored and encyclopaedic in tone. Relata refero (talk) 12:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that a part of the problem is the common acceptance of trivial information. If you allow "positive" trivia but want to exclude negative trivia, then BLP is your only defence.  For example, Arthur E wants to exclude the Rachel stuff but, were he still with us, I might remind him that he included some pretty trivial things on the Mark Bourrie article.  I don't mean to call Arthur a hypocrite but I just have to say that the root problem, in my opinion, is a high tolerance for trivial details.  --JGGardiner (talk) 19:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

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


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

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

Requested edit
Editprotected Remove the following: "Marsden was one of twelve women involved in the Simon Fraser University 1997 harassment controversy." and replace it with "Marsden was involved in the Simon Fraser University 1997 harassment controversy." The chronology is that the Marsden-Donnelly case ended with Donnelly's rehiring in July 1997. At that time, John Stubbs, president of the university, took leave for depression. Throughout the fall, criticism of SFU's handling of that case continued. It was only in December of that year that SFU contacted complainants and respondents from 10 other prior cases and offered to reopen them. For privacy reasons, little was made public about the other 10 cases (which have been mistakenly reported on Wikipedia to be 11 cases), and I know of no source that indicates the number of women involved in those cases. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 12:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Also the Salon article entitled, "Fox's Ann Coulter 2.0" needs to be restored as a citation since it is the source for the following - "A producer on Red Eye praised Marsden, saying that 'she has very passionate opinions...she's articulate, intelligent, and we get a lot of favorable mail about her'." Catchpole (talk) 12:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As there have been no objections to either of these proposed changes in a reasonable time period, I've gone ahead and implemented them. – Luna Santin  (talk) 21:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Backhouse
I am tidying the order of events in respect of the Backhouse issue, as the net effect was somewhat confusing, and a WP:BLP concern was raised. As far as I can see, the order was:
 * 1) Marsden blogs that Backhouse leaked secret documents
 * 2) Investigation of Backhouse ensues
 * 3) Backhouse retaliates with harassment claim, de rigeur with Marsden, by the looks of it
 * 4) Harassment claim is dismissed
 * 5) Investigation fails to provide enough material for a case against Backhouse either


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

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


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

Regardless of what we think of the other edits by IP 69.86.114.232, the comment above is correct in that no charges were laid in this incident: Charges were requested by someone who happens to be a police officer. While we are at it, there are a several other problems:
 * Regarding the officer himself, the Toronto Star says, "The OPP's criminal investigations branch recently cleared the officer of any wrongdoing in relation to Marsden's accusation of passing secrets. A separate internal investigation into the matter is ongoing." These things have been incorrectly summarized as "an internal inquiry resulted in no charges against the officer."
 * The current version of the article omits the important fact that Backhurst was an undercover operative and therefore affected to an unusual degree by having his picture posted on the web.
 * Backhurst disputes having a two-year affair with Marsden; he says it was much shorter. We have an NPOV problem by giving only one person's version of events. I recommend not mentioning the length at all as it's not really important.

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

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

Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 05:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Editprotected requests are not for large changes. Please wait for protection to expire. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There is nothing wrong with large scale changes on protected pages if there is a consensus to the change. Are there any objections to these changes? They seem reasonable to me. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As the person who inserted these problems into the article shortly before it became protected I stress the importance of fixing them. One thing I'm having trouble verifying though is the affair bit. He disputes having a two-year relationship, but he seems also to have avoided saying whether they had an affair at all. "Obviously I can't get into all the details but I can assure you there was no relationship as she categorizes it for two years." (National Post) Can we take from this that saying they had an affair isn't giving only her side of the story? Also, since there were concerns of wordiness it may be possible to remove details like the mention of South Simcoe Police. –Pomte 03:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "Backhurst... acknowledges a brief love affair with Marsden two years ago – not one that continued until nearly three months ago, as Marsden maintains." (Toronto Star, Dec 21, already used as a source). Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 06:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I probably read that and forgot. –Pomte 17:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Marsden Back on FOX: February 18, 2008
Rachel Marsden was back on the FOX Business Network, at 7pm Eastern Time on February 15, 2008. She was on an in-house panel, at the FOX News studios in NYC, discussing the subprime mortgage crisis, credit rating agencies, and Alan Greenspan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.114.232 (talk) 07:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Launch of GrandCentralPolitical.com
- Marsden has launched a new Web 2.0 business as CEO and Editor-in-Chief of GrandCentralPolitical.com political/media talent scouting and magazine. Says the objective is to "extend the traditional corridors of political power and opportunity into cyberspace." Press Release: http://www.prweb.com/releases/2008/2/prweb679554.htm Another article: http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/50858 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.114.232 (talk) 07:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

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


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


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


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


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


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

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


 * None of these are sufficient for BLP purposes. Simply because a marginally reliable source links to a self-identified gossip rag is doesn't make us need to deal with it. This matter is also irrelevant to why the article was protected in the first place. I'm not in favor of that protection but that has nothing to do with this salacious gossip. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree; all of them combined are nowhere near sufficient for reliability let alone BLP. I just mean that we have the content with which to improve the article here, and it is not practical letting it sit while there is no ongoing substantial dispute. Protection is not a solution even for editors who think the current content violates BLP. We could make edit requests, but making such an edit request would be more complicated than it's worth, at least for me. The only relation with the rumour that I was getting at is that more people are coming to read this article. Interestingly, one of the links given by the IP above from American Chronicle appears to have gotten its info about Marsden from this article. –Pomte 00:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well given the attention this article would have, it would almost certainly be indefinitely semi-protected so I'm not sure that the level of protection matters that much for random individuals. Indeed, I imagine that we'd like need to semi or full protected it for the next few days even if it were not. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement from Jimbo admitting relationship with Marsden
He admits being separated from his wife, and to the relationship with Marsden in this statement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Statement%2C_March_1st%2C_2008 This should be added to his page, as it is definitive, first-hand proof, straight from the horse's mouth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.77.91.6 (talk) 03:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Not a third-party source. –Pomte 03:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


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


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


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


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

I suspect a lot of gossip columnists, trash tabs, etc. will disagree. Interesting how the New York Post gossip page is a good enough source for this bio but Jimbo Wales' own statement is not. The credibility of Wikipedia has sunk through the floor. 192.197.82.153 (talk) 20:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It isn't even relevant. A statement published on wikipedia is not a good source for someone else's biography on wikipedia.  It'll be in the register soon enough.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.80.142 (talk) 21:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

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


 * Canadian pundit, Wikpedia founder in messy breakup 207.112.85.247 (talk) 02:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note, this Canadian Press article is a reliable, 3rd party source. Cla68 (talk) 02:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * How very whelming. So, this tidbit can be "sourced", and therefore its inclusion wouldn't seem to violate one or two of WP policies. But why should anyone other than the two or three people directly involved give a hoot about it? The woman's of some notability as a polital talking head; what effect does her love life have on this? Or perhaps I misunderstand and this is Tittle-tattle-opedia. -- Hoary (talk) 02:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If you could care less about this, then why did you come comment about it here? Cla68 (talk) 03:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I also question how this new piece of information is notable enough to include within the article. The only way I can see it's notability is that it's the first time anyone has broken up with someone by making an anouncement in wikipedia. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


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


 * Cla68, while I don't give a hoot about Marsden's (or Wales's) love life, I do rather care about Wikipedia. I'd hoped that Wikipedia was a collection of information that wasn't only sourced but was also of some note. The burdening of articles with tittle-tattle (even "sourced" tittle-tattle) depresses me. (Over a year ago, I spent a considerable time attempting to get "Personal relationships" within the Elvis Presley article -- which seemed to treat Presley as drug taker, failed Lothario and general whacko first, musician and film star second -- to a sensible scale, but eventually conceded defeat and left it to the Hollywood Babylon contingent.) Of course sourced tittle-tattle can be significant about some people. (One class of these: those religious bloviators who make a career out of preaching monogamy/chastity and are then caught with their pants down.) For Marsden, it doesn't seem to. Incidentally, I've had this page on my watch list for quite some time: I'd never heard of Marsden (perhaps because I'm not in north America) but I think I read on WP:AN/I of some silly nonsense going on here and decided to devote ten minutes of my life into an effort to stopping it. -- Hoary (talk) 03:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Bloviators? :) Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


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


 * 207.112.85.247 has provided a suitable source for inclusion. Hoary, how is this not "of some note"? I can't tell myself, and I don't care about her love life either, so I leave it up to major national news sources to decide. For readers who do care, there it is. Incidentally enough, Marsden has been known repeatedly to be involved in these sorts of events. Do you want to wait until she goes through 10 more of these incidents and reporters to write extensive bios of her connecting those incidents? The CBC article already gives a mini-version of this. –Pomte 03:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, Marsden herself in the news story said that she doesn't really care what her Wikipedia bio says, saying "I don't really pay much attention to it anymore. It's pretty ridiculous. I view it as a giant graffiti board for people with axes to grind — or for guys named Jimbo Wales who want to dump their girlfriends." Not a notable event? Cla68 (talk) 03:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


 * It's humdrum because people have affairs all the time, and affairs break up pretty often, and people put stuff on Fleabay all the time. Yes, this is an event involving two people I'm told are notable (I know little about Marsden). To me, it's an entirely trivial event, but perhaps I'm out of step with the celeb-obsessed times. -- Hoary (talk) 04:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, the general rule is we care what is verifiable. That's why we have articles on Pikachu even if you are I think that that's stupid. If the media isn't covering the right things we can't do much. In any event, this has now been sourced in a good source. I don't see a strong argument against non-inclusion (the article itself is also quite interesting for helping source other material in this article I imagine. Note what it says about her relationship with Fox news). JoshuaZ (talk) 04:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

Wikipedia / Jimbo Wales controversy and sources


Will update as more WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources become available. Cirt (talk) 10:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


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


 * All repeating the same "scandal". A small mention of this, would be more than enough. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well at this point there is not even that much. But anyways I was just using this subsection to compile sources - discussion of what/how to include looks like it is already ongoing in several other subsections of this talkpage.  Cirt (talk) 19:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The Double Standard
So scandals and controversy involving a non-name swim coach, a no-name radio DJ and a no-name cop are 'notable' Wikipedia material but a public scandal involving Guru Jimmy Wales is not 'notable'. Either it's all notable or none of it is notable. Your choice. Mine: get rid of it all. This kind of scandal mongering makes Wikipedia look so bad.192.197.82.153 (talk) 14:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know, after all the nonsense from the BLP crowd over the last year or so we might as well rename this place Whitewashpedia. 78.86.18.55 (talk) 15:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Now you're talking. Call it Whitewashergate and bring in Ken Starr! -- Hoary (talk) 15:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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

OK, then. Many of us have been fired from a job. So has Marsden. Take out the stuff about her being fired and supposedly escorted from FOX. Marsden's situation with the cop did not get her in trouble with the law. If that's the standard, the cop stuff should go. 192.197.82.153 (talk) 16:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If you can find reliable sourcing for it, then do it if you like. 78.86.18.55 (talk) 16:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * sorry, misread you. Would be difficult to justify removal as it is well sourced and neutrally worded. 78.86.18.55 (talk) 17:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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


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


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


 * just what, exactly, is Marsden notable for? I really don't know, but I hazily infer that it's for being a right-wing blowhard north of the border, where the species is far less widespread than it is to the south. -- Hoary (talk) 00:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well thanks for answering a question, though not the question I asked.... Sethie (talk) 00:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Surely she is known as publicly part of the Wiki bribes scandal. As just identified by PC Pro - and I'm sure many other sources. Reading this talk page just highlights to me the lack of democracy in much of the Wikipedia hierarchy, elite verses proletariat etc. Lucien86 (talk) 14:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

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

Here is the net change in the article due to the unprotection, editing, and reprotection. Clearly worth 32 edits of our time, eh? GRBerry 19:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The article was unprotected and protected while I was away. Anyone mind adding some of the content and sources I listed above? The point was to have more uncontroversial verifiable info about her life to alleviate cries of undue weight. –Pomte 01:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Consensus to include mention of Jimbo interaction?
Given that there are now 8 reliable sources (non-tabloids or gossip rags) that have had articles on this subject, can we achieve a consensus for its addition? JoshuaZ (talk) 19:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The addition of what? Sure it seems verifiable she slept with a certain person. But do we list the sexual partners of bio subjects? What is it you want to include, and why is it worthy of a bio. We're not a newspaper.--Docg 19:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


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


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


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

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


 * The fact she slept with him is not what warrants the inclusion - the fact the aftermath developed into a to and fro that garnered widespread manstream media attention is. I know that this makes Jimbo appear to be a human being, but for heaven's sake.  Some of the information in there is far less newsworthy than the Wales stuff.  The gaming of protection here to get the article locked on a preferred sans-Jimbo-mentioning version is pathetic.  We don't fully protect after a 3-edit "edit war", usually, and to do so here makes it painfully obvious that protection is being gamed by a minority of admins to gain some kind of advantage in a dispute that really shouldn't exist.  Back down to semiprotection and restore the Wales mention, please. Neıl  ☎  09:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Is consensus building what wiki is based on? So why did Jimmy Wales take such a personal interest in Marsden's wiki page and then proceed to edit it from the top-down? Conflict of interest? Sure, Wales said he would stay out of editting the article, as this link suggests. But that doesn't seem to have been the case. The speed with which the article was deleted is unusual for wikipedia which has been traditionally based on consensus, and Marsden's accusations of the article being written by people who had a grudge against her were unfounded. Wikipedia seems to want all articles which portray Marsden negatively to be deleted. Even the Simon Fraser University 1997 harassment controversy case has been up for deletion despite its importance, particularly in Canada (for example, it has led to key changes to the way sexual harrassment cases are handled). There is so much about Marsden that can be added, or re-added if it was deleted, such as the number of stalking and harrassment charges against her, working for MP Gurmant Grewal under the name "Elle Henderson" while she was still on bail, and creating a false online resume where she even claimed to have worked for Connie Chung at ABC, all of which is talked about on this article. There is also an article in the conservative Western Standard,  here,  which provides evidence that Marsden lied on her resume and questions her credibility and her apparent hysteria. I believe much of this was actually in the Marsden article before so I doubt any of it will be allowed. Sure, the end product may not be flattering to Marsden but as one contributor noted, there is very little out there that actually has anything flattering to say about her.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.20.172 (talk) 10:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure that it's illegal. As far as I know, selling something that doesn't belong to you is legally considered fraud. --Ixfd64 (talk) 09:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Jeez, no agenda-pushing here, huh? 64.26.147.18 (talk) 00:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

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


 * What you write is certainly not worthy of inclusion. Happy editing, SqueakBox 19:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I love the way our self-appointed censors use the whole gamut of excuses -- {{WP:BLP]], WP:BLP1E, WP:NOT, and now WP:UNDUE -- to suppress negative information about clearly notable individuals. National media deems this to be a significantly newsworthy story that goes well above and beyond your 12-word sentence. Alansohn (talk) 19:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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


 * You personally being sick to death of it has no bearing on anything, and let me assurem you that independent wikipedian editors like me have no COI here. Happy editing, SqueakBox 20:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You fail to understand my point. Wikipedia removing well-sourced information that may cast it or its founder in a negative light is a conflict of interest on the part of wikipedia as a project, no matter who the editor is. From WP:BLP:

Example

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


 * I would suggest that this information fits this example almost perfectly. 78.86.18.55 (talk) 20:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Clarification - while elements of WP:BLP don't seem to be perfect (i.e. moralizing), on the whole it is a relatively sound policy. The problem lies is the misinterpretation of it by a number of editors who persist in removing as much negative material as possible, no matter how notable or well-sourced. 78.86.18.55 (talk) 20:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * So put it all in. Or take it all out. But it'e either all-or-nothing unless Wikipedia wants to look like it self-censors to protect Wales while randomly trashing the reputations of people the way this article has over the years. Who else gets favoritism? Obviously you have to do more than fuck somebody to get a decent Wikipedia entry.64.230.108.48 (talk) 20:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Given the sourcing I think it would be fair to say "In February of 20008, Marsden came again into controversy after having repeatedly attempted to have her Wikipedia article when she had a relationship with Jimbo Wales, the founder of Wikipedia. This led to accusations that there were conflicts of interest"(followed by relevant citation) - oh, and in regards to Marsden being fired by Fox, other enws sources have made that statement as well such as some of the recent ones covering this new controversy. (I do unfortunately think that our anon friend is like and these arguments are starting to look very much like self-censorship given the now wideranging coverage of this matter) JoshuaZ (talk) 20:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * So Marsden gets the blame in your version? The conflicts of interest are hers?!? Wow. Defintely WP:BS here. 64.230.108.48 (talk) 20:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Er, you are correct. That's a poor phrasing. I was thinking about this more in the context of what would be said on the page about Jimbo (where given the conflict it is much easier to make a case for it being mentioned than over here). A mention here would need to make clear that the accusations (which are as far as I can tell pretty groundless) of a conflict have to do with Jimbo, not Marsden. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:BS - What, a barnstar? suit yourself... 78.86.18.55 (talk) 20:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The damage to Wikipedia
It's right up there with the Essjay Controversy64.26.147.18 (talk) 00:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It is? Wow! As my learned friend Squeakbox would say, Happy editing! -- Hoary (talk) 01:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

New definition of "protected article"
Ahhh I see... a protected article is one that only admins get to edit.

Will someone please promote me to admin so I can edit it too?

I thought admins were held/held themselves to a certain code of behavior... and apparently I was wrong- so I now qualify, please make me an admin. Sethie (talk) 02:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Click to start. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Admins are like the Nazi SS, or The Ministry of Information in Brazil - you don't get to join just because you ask (humour). Lucien86 (talk) 14:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Her words
Contrary to a few assertions above, we do not need a third party to repeat what a person says in their own blog. A person's own statements, self-published, may always be quoted in their own article. Wjhonson (talk) 06:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Not so. I think you're referring to this. But conditions include, and are not limited to:
 * it is not contentious;
 * it is not unduly self-serving;
 * it does not involve claims about third parties;
 * Furthermore, while self-published stuff may be included (as long as it's not contentious, etc etc), there's no hint in that policy page that it should be included. Editors should decide first whether something may be cited or quoted; and, if it may, whether it should be cited or quoted. -- Hoary (talk) 08:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

propose a paragraph here
The normal way to go for a protected page would be for someone to propose a suitable paragraph here, & obtain consensus. This much newspaper coverage makes it unavoidable to have something.DGG (talk) 15:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Note that I made a proposal at the beginning of Talk:Rachel_Marsden. I still believe this is the maximum permissible coverage of this issue. BCST2001 (talk) 16:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I can't see any point to adding more than something along the lines of "In late February, 2007, it was reported that Marsden had a relationship with Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales. Wales admitted to the relationship, describing it as 'brief' and there had been no conflict of interest. Marsden found offense in his description, and in response put some garments he left at her apartment for sale on eBay." If the various groups can agree that, as of this moment, there is nothing more that could be said, then perhaps the discussion can proceed to consider whether the information in these three sentences constitute undue weight -- or, when presented in this manner are even encyclopedic. -- llywrch (talk) 20:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Your proposed paragraph seems to be off by one year, and it omits the reported release by her of transcripts of their online chats. Something along those lines, brief, factual, sourced, and non-salacious could be added to the articles about Marsden and Wales, now that that major newspapers in a great many countries have found the story to be worth covering, and because it bears on the perceptions of whether Wikipedia shows partiality in the editing of articles talking about its inner circle. To be credible, Wikipedia should not give the appearance of censoring the coverage of its founder or its high ranking functionaries or employees. Edison (talk) 20:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops about the year. :-$ Anyway, my intent was to narrow what was being argued over. -- llywrch (talk) 04:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the relevant points are that IM chats were released, indicating there had been a brief relationship, and leading to criticism of Wales (which is what almost all the headlines are pointing out). I think making it a tit-for-tat about the two of them is focusing on the gossip side of the story; whatever else one may think of her for her other actions, in this case she isn't really the one being criticized. --Dhartung | Talk 00:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Free image for the page

 * bbbbuttt...I have the e-mail from the original owner giving me permission to upload the image to Wikipedia. :-D  m ir a nd a   19:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And I have a singing telegram from Gary Gygax' poltergeist. — CharlotteWebb 19:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, um...I am sending it to OTRS right now. :-P  m ir a nd a   20:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * About the CPAC image -- can someone rotate it a bit? It could be interpreted as showing Marsden tilting to the left. Seriously ... it makes me queasy. Rotation should be OK under CC licensing. --Dhartung | Talk 23:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Much better now, thanks! Wikipedia always needs to appear balanced.... --Dhartung | Talk 23:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm curious now, would it be preferable for her to "tilt" to her left, or to our left? Just goes to show that "political compass" measurements are relative, subjective, and (for the most part) grossly oversimplified. — CharlotteWebb 14:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Marsden Image Request
Rachel Marsden has provided an imagine which she says she would like to be used in lieu of the current CPAC one on the page: http://www.rachelmarsden.com/cnnrach1.jpg She says her permission is fully granted for its use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.114.232 (talk • contribs)
 * A screenshot from CNN would fall under Fair Use guidelines and should not be used if a freely-licensed image is available. As it is a product of CNN, Marsden cannot grant permission for its use. --Dhartung | Talk 08:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Did Rachel explain her grievance regarding the current image? If the CPAC logo on the podium is the concern, we could easily accommodate this by using an almost square cropped version from roughly the elbows up. If it's the way her eyes appear to be closed, we can ask her to create an account and upload a self-portrait... or, if we had just a free picture of her eyes somebody could get tricky with Photoshop, as the Creative Commons license permits us to modify the original work however we want. Or we could just leave it as-is, waiting for a wider selection of free photos to choose from. As long as these options exist for us, "fair use" does not. — CharlotteWebb 14:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Censorship?
It would appear that this woman has recently gained mention in national news media (http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article3475722.ece) However this wikipedia article fails to mention this. Is wikipedia being censored? Francium12 (talk) 23:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is. Read the above comments. Rawr (talk) 23:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Jimbo Jones Wales must not be touched by scandal. And why is the old picture being replaced by one that lokks like hell? Is she being punished for attacking Wikipedia's cult leader? Looks like it to me and many others. 64.26.147.18 (talk) 00:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * What old image? The late January versions of the article (e.g. this one) had no image.  I do think there is hope for a better image, but a change from none to some is usually considered an improvement.  Whoever found it found in Flickr, so if you want better you might try searching it for an even better image with suitable licensing.  Or you could find an opportunity to take a better one, or ask her to release one under a suitable license.  GRBerry 01:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Ask OTRS to contact Marsden to get a better image. My work here is done.  m ir a nd a   02:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Much older versions of the article had a fair-use still image taken from footage on the Bill O'Reilly show. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 06:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That's really quite good for a free image of a public figure. The only real technical flaw is that her eyes were closed or downcast. --Dhartung | Talk 08:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, you just search and ask people for their pics. Unfortunately, you can't ask the photographers to position the camera at a certain angle during a quick amount of time. :-D  m ir a nd a   12:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Removed Fraser Institute thing
I removed this which has been bugging me for a while: "Her role in the Simon Fraser case was the central theme in a report on the incident written by a Simon Fraser professor and published by The Fraser Institute." I added a link to the report to the External Links section instead. The sentence said nothing about what the report said about her. Given the context in the article (or the deafeningly-silent lack of it, rather) one could read it as if the report had found Marsden's political commentary on the issue to be noteworthy. If someone wants to re-insert it, please summarize what the report said. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 04:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Just a caution that at one point the report was evidence that the SFU controversy was notable as was Ms. Marsden's role in it. Canuckle (talk) 16:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The report is important to understanding the controversy and its significance, but I don't see how the report needs to feature in the article content here. It was, however, not a good idea to leave the sentence about that controversy without a citation.  I'm putting the citation back but not the sentence; as that is one of the least problematic discussions of the controversy.  GRBerry 17:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

identifying swim coach

 * I'll remove the name of the SFU swim coach. I think there was a decision way, way back to do so to respect privacy WP:BLP of a private individual. Canuckle (talk) 16:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I haven't followed this article's history in detail, but this is a good idea. So far as I know he isn't notable, and he is entitled to BLP protection as much as Rachel is.  GRBerry 17:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Swimming records
Regarding this edit, competing nationally and having records in the third largest province of Canada is an unquestionably important feat in itself, even ignoring the incident with the swim coach. The only question is whether it's true, because Salon only quotes her as saying it. –Pomte 20:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Swimming records are important. QuackGuru (talk) 20:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've asked for sourcing assitance from the Swimming Wikiproject, but the last non-bot edit to their talk page was in early December, so I don't know if it will produce any help. GRBerry 20:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Last time I looked, the best reliable non-Marsden source was meet-records at the BC Summer Swimming Association. I thought we had consensus on appropriate language in December prior to the deletion. Can admins dig that up? Canuckle (talk) 21:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Good idea. On 15 June 2007 24.215.182.60 added " Marsden was a national level competitive swimmer and still holds provincial swimming records dating back as far as 1993. "  That is the last edit summary to include the string "swim".  If restored to the article, credit that IP editor.  Note that this is the BC Summer Swimming Association, so I donlt know if it is really significant, as I know nothing about them and we don't have an article.  GRBerry 21:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

work for MP

 * I clarified her work for the MP as otherwise the reader would perceive it as a career stepping-stone and not know what type of work it was and that she was let go. I raise it here because the MP is mentioned by name and one of the sources used is the Western Standard. In the past, Ms. Marsden has complained on wikipedia that the Standard is biased against her and that (more legitimately) an anti-Grewal movement tried to play up links to the controversial MP. The Surrey Now source is appropriate alhtough it is no longer online due to CanWest removing 2004 archives from the web. Canuckle (talk) 21:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I had only one source to work with for that sentence. What about the name 'Elle Henderson'? Someone could legitimately wonder about the name due to those very media reports, and it's a fairly important characteristic of a person. Mentioning an alias doesn't imply anything negative. –Pomte 22:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm neutral on the mention of the pseudonym. Way back in the saga, mention of the names Henderson and Grewal were regarded as re-introducing flagrant material. I'd hope that edit war has died down by now. Canuckle (talk) 22:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The Rug is Not Big Enough
Yes. That's what everyone wants to read about. Yup. Really. Nothing else to see. Yea, she called herself "Elle Henderson" once. No other reason why anyone would want to look her up. Folks, just move on. Nothing to see here. Kurt Turkulney (talk) 00:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The first time I edited this page ad admin jumped down my throat for adding the 'wrong' names. I'm just giving new editors to this article a heads-up so that they don't get jumped on. Canuckle (talk) 00:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of reasons people come to read this article. Presumably though, they're probably interested in her life given that this is a biography. Using a different name is a pretty significant aspect of anyone's life. The name could be one reason. You can find a plethora of other reasons in the rest of the article. Do you think it is damaging, trivial, or what? –Pomte 00:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably not nearly as notable or crowd-drawing as shagging Jimbo Wales and exposing his wiki fixing, I'll wager. Kurt Turkulney (talk) 00:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * In the grand scheme of things, this most recent controversy will not be what history will know her for. But that's my perspective, just as you have yours. I look forward to your adding content about the 'wiki fixing.' Canuckle (talk) 01:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Why? Jimbo's winged monkeys will just take it out. Kurt Turkulney (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know, go back to 2004 and see how much fury the Vancouver Sun and other publications caused. I'm all for having content on both events relevant to her life. Exaggerations of the situation don't really get your point across. –Pomte 02:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the Western Standard is up before a Canadian Human Rights Commission for publishing hate literature. But, hey, that's why people are coming to this page, right? Right? Kurt Turkulney (talk) 00:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, the complaint (about republishing cartoons) was withdrawn.

No it wasn't. The Canadian Muslim Congress' complaint is still before the Alberta Human Rights Commission. Read the Western Standard page I linked to. Kurt Turkulney (talk) 00:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Or get it right from Levant Kurt Turkulney (talk) 00:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected. But whether they are being sued or not doesn't change the facts. Replace with a more reliable source if you like but those were the reported facts. Canuckle (talk) 01:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Doesn't make it muich of a source. But then, this is about dfestroying Marsden's credibility, right? Kurt Turkulney (talk) 01:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * A better source: Peter O’Neil, "MP fires aide on harassment charges: B.C. woman linked to controversial stalking cases", National Post (May 8, 2004), A2
 * destroying her credibility? Maybe that's your motivation. I began editing Marsden's bio months ago and actually got a consensus on a balanced (as much as BLP let us) version that sat fine until some skullduggery over new year's. Getting fired by Grewal doesn't affect her credibility - it wasn't based on her work performance but on a politician avoiding controversy before an election. Canuckle (talk) 03:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Taking a Bullet for Mr. Big
So this page is protected and people are shovelled dirt onto Marsden's entry. Pretty transparent attempt at destroying Marsden. Obviously Jimbo is continuing to use Wikipedia as his own private, er, organ. Kurt Turkulney (talk) 01:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Review the article history, that is what the tab is at the top of the page for. Here is the last version of February, before the Jimbo relationship became news.  Here is the version before you began editing.  The only new material is 1) that she worked for the Free Congress Foundation (a conservative thinktank) and 2) coverage of the Jimbo relationship.  (A bunch of other stuff is moved around.)  The swim records bit is currently out, but we are looking for good sourcing on it, see above on this page.  Your claim is lacking in its correspondence with objective reality.  And the alternative theory - that he did have this article sanitized for her, isn't compatible with the claim that the current version is a hatchet job, because the material you describe as "dirt" was in the supposedly sanitized version.  GRBerry 04:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Any further trolling like this will be deleted. As it is, I'll be archiving those discussions here that are not strictly material to the topic and article content. The community has had enough disruption from drama mongers on this issue. FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

(reinserted per [] and []Sethie (talk) 03:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

GFDL record-keeping
To comply with the GFDL the records of certain previous contributors to this article can be found at Talk:Rachel Marsden/GFDL History''.

We can stick this up at the top of this talk page, if necessary.--Truthnlove (talk) 15:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No, that needs to be in the article. We need a direct link (even doing this is playing slightly loose with the GFDL). JoshuaZ (talk) 19:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Alright. But it is in the fine print. There must be lots of articles that this kind of thing applies to, such as Talk:2006 Duke University lacrosse case/incorporated material. Should we create a template and some policy for this sort of thing? I would think that every successful usage of a merge template might have to be retrofitted.--Truthnlove (talk) 19:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The issue here in this case is a bit more complicated than in most cases because it includes merged material that has now been deleted. When we merge normally we say in an edit summary where we are merging from so we can go look there. We need this copy here because the prior edits aren't accessible. I'm only aware of a handful of articles where this sort of issue has shown up. I'd strongly advise against making a template because we don't want to make this a regular thing. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * What ever happened to avoiding being self-referential? Where are the policy and standards that say we need to do this at all? I would like a short list of other such usages either on-wiki or off so I can at least convince myself to give up on my end of the discussion. This should be hashed out in a policy page, not in this article. but in the mean time, if we must have that ugly thing there, then it should be in rather fine print. With all the tendencies towards wikilawyering, it only going to grow in verbiage.--Truthnlove (talk) 21:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That's WP:SELF and it doesn't override the GFDL which is a legal document that all Wikipedia pages are obligated to follow. We can't override the GFDL no matter how much we'd like to. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me get this straight: we've been doing for five years but we can't do it. Uh, OK. I noticed that nobody rushed over to the Duke page to fix it. And, of course, the oversight feature has been liberally applied without those disclaimers popping up. Tell me: is there is sekrit policy that tells the oversight people to add this verbiage every time that they exercise their august privilege? This is the first page I have ever seen it on it.--Truthnlove (talk) 21:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oversight generally removes edits that didn't actually end up adding content so it doesn't lead to any GFDL issue. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The issue here is not oversight. It is that there are 1,637 deleted edits, some of which influenced the content of the earliest undeleted edit, which has a summary of "stubbing again - blp concerns and too much edit warring on a page with a long, troubled history".  This evidences that the earliest edit visible was influenced by the prior authors of the article.  And some of the later editors may have reintroduced content added earlier by others.  See the discussion of swimming above, or the many comments on this talk page by editors who have been here before and know the old debates and minefields.  GRBerry 22:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes that's a good point. In this case people explicitly borrowed content from earlier versions. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * (aec) I tweaked the language a bit and returned the text to standard size, but was reverted (probably quite properly, since the dummy edit I made to complete my explanatory edit summary didn't save [I, in my infinite wisdom, forgot actually to make a change to the page) with respect to the size. I think standard size to be appropriate&mdash;consistent with various templates (e.g., Wikinfo that we use to indicate that content from a public domain or, more significantly here, GFDL-released, source has been used, and with our use at Justin Berry&mdash;but I wouldn't object, I suppose, with one .  It seems that there exists a consensus for the removal of, at the very least, all tags save one, but, even as this is a rather minor issue, I'm disinclined to resize the text in the absence of a bit more discussion.  Joe 22:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Mmm, I am removing all smalls but one, I fail to see the point to have a print that small it is unreadable. -- lucasbfr  talk 16:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I was under the understanding that putting a comment in the edit summary is adequate. That edit summary would point people to the talk subpage with attribution for deleted content. We already assume people wanting to find attribution have to click on "History" and read it. Attribution information is never in the article itself, so I don't see why this is different. Ideally, this would have been done in the edit summary of the "stubbing", but it can still be done on any nil edit. --Rob (talk) 17:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

There must be a more elegant way to handle this. What about a link on the edit history or log page, or even the talk page? That's where someone would go if they were really interested in the history. It seems silly... it's basically saying that 'Wikipedia would like to acknowledge that it copied material from itself. Here is where you can find the history.' Wikipedia by nature, always uses previous versions of articles! Why the need to acknowledge it here? We may as well have this disclaimer at the bottom of every article that has been edited more than once. Also, the tiny print looks like it's talking about the link to Marsden's site above it. Rawr (talk) 17:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It is my understanding that a comment in the first edit should have been enough, but well, I don't think the mention hurts. Personally I drop a comment on the talk page in such instances. -- lucasbfr  talk 18:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Physical beauty section
I just took out a section on physical beauty. Even if it were well sourced (which it isn't - we can't cite to copyright violations), I can't see the subject merits inclusion, much less this much emphasis. What reliable sources have covered this? GRBerry 17:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * citing isn't a copyvio according to wikipedia guidelines (I guess you mean the cnn video on youtube it appears to be rachel marsdens own channel on youtube), some of the information may be irrelevant, her quotes about her views on feminism should definitely be included, because she is famous for this in particular, maybe a new source can be found. Thisglad (talk) 17:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I restored it under a subsection entitled: "Debating style" since that is what she does for a living, which is the primary thing that she is notable for, or at least that she gets TV air time for.--Truthnlove (talk) 17:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * the main concern is that it may be a copyvio linking to the youtube link, although some news agencies themselves broadcast on youtube. I agree the information is relevant however. Thisglad (talk) 17:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You take two great conservatives, like Bill and Bill and, like, I do not think we should just go and say she is more like one or the other. We should let her bestow her profound wisdom on us all in her erudite and well-considered own words.--Truthnlove (talk) 17:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd rather see a Reception section with what reliable sources say about her quotes and opinions. The trouble is there seems to be precious little recognition of her in this role that is neutral and in a reliable source. Canuckle (talk) 17:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This can be developed here like in above. –Pomte 19:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

her father
should we mention that her father was dismissed as a teacher for having inappropriate relations with a 16 year old female student (and was sentenced in a court), the salon.com article mentions this and in fact there are other sources, I did not add this since I felt it wasn't relevant to the article, just stated that he was a teacher until 2000. Thisglad (talk) 17:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Absolutely not.--Docg 18:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Not, but I am not so absolute about it.--Truthnlove (talk) 19:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Salon doesn't bring up any substantial connection between her father's conviction and her. If some reliable source makes a claim that there is a connection or explains a reason why his conviction matters then we could consider including it. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)`
 * I removed the father's disciplinary record as WP:BLP advises against posting primary sources, particularly of a private individual (the father) and guilt by association. As you say, it's in the salon article anyway. Canuckle (talk) 19:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Controversies vs. Controversy
I think the section should be titled Controversy and not Controversies per WP:MOS. QuackGuru (talk) 19:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know what WP:MOS guideline applies here, but I agree. 'Controversy' is a general term for encapsulating all her controversies here. –Pomte 19:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I meant per Naming conventions, Controversies > Controversy NC QuackGuru (talk) 04:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

UNDUE/BLP
I note the inclusion and expansion of the section on the Wales/Marsden connection. I continue to believe this is a violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP. I do not believe this information is encyclopedic, nor do I believe that including this material amounts to editing in a conservative, neutral, and responsible manner that respects the privacy of living people. The material is trivial, negative, tabloidish and sensationalistic. I also believe there are grounds for removing the material deriving from this and other ArbCom rulings: Requests_for_arbitration/Rachel_Marsden/Proposed_decision. BCST2001 (talk) 20:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There's no UNDUE issue at this point even if there was at one point; the matter has been covered in literally 10s of sources at this point, some of them major newspapers. The current version gives a quick, reasonably short summary of the matter. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The section seemed to me to be vague to the extent of implying a long relationship following from the first time Marsden contacted Wales. I've added a reference to The Canadian Press which seems to have broken the story in the mainstream press, and made revisions to clarify the sequence using that source and The Sydney Morning Herald. The date Valleywag broke the story isn't in the mainstream press that I've seen, I've taken that from Signpost and it can be checked by reference to Valleywag, but I was reluctant to add that as a reference. .. dave souza, talk 21:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, using Valleywag as a source for anything is a bad idea. I'd rather have a hole in the coverage than to use them.  GRBerry 21:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec)Many editors misinterpret the BLP policy to say that you can't have negative coverage. That is a false interpretation of the policy.  The BLP policy requires that negative material be held to the highest standards of reliable sourcing, and that we don't exaggerate the claims of those sources.  So long as those requirements are met, the NPOV policy governs the balance of the article.  Undue weight is a NPOV issue.
 * I do think there is an undue weight issue. The article is suffering from recentism.  Both the Jimbo and Police subsections are overweighted and/or the SFU subsection is underweighted.  Three of the five sources we cite for the current incident also mention and discuss the SFU history as how she first came to public notice - i.e. this is the original source of her notability.  Yet we can only spare one sentence for it while three for each of the incidents within the past twelve months.  That is the real undue issue here; we should have at least as much coverage of the SFU material.
 * I'd also love it if someone could find independent reliable sources that discuss her outside of the various sex related controversies so that we could expand the career coverage. But we have to follow the balance of reliable sources, and thus far I haven't seen any evidence that they care about her career.  A sad criticism of the journalistic world, but the NPOV policy requires us to follow their lead, not be more favorable to people than they are.  GRBerry 21:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia editors argue there is no WP:UNDUE issue because there are numerous newspaper stories. But the newspaper stories see the newsworthiness of the event as (in part, at least, aside from the general prurient tabloid interest, tabloidism being an infectious phenomenon not confined solely to so-called "tabloids") deriving from their perception that the story has caused Wikipedia to be up-in-arms. This circularity results in a kind of runaway inflation of the apparent significance of the material, out of all proportion to its actual significance, which is close to zero. Furthermore, the addition of other material to the Marsden entry seems likely to also include violations of policy. It may be necessary to reduce the article to a stub. BCST2001 (talk) 21:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It would help if we didn't have to have this conversation in two locations. In any event, copying my reply from the Wales page here: ::::: Weight is determined by the presence and number of reliable sources. By this logic no matter related to Wikipedia could ever become notable because it would always be the media reacting to Wikipedia events. Furthermore, the media isn't reacting to us having a mention of this on this page, it is reacting to the junk on WT:JIMBO and elsewhere. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * JoshuaZ, not at all. Events of actual significance will always be notable. Were Jimmy Wales murdered, there would not be this discussion. In general, of course, Wikipedia editors do tend to inflate the importance of Wikipedia-related events. But in general this is not a problem. When it is combined with tabloid sensationalism, invasions of privacy, and the perpetuation of beliefs in imaginary conflicts of interest, however, then there is a definite policy problem. BCST2001 (talk) 21:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And when the sources are subject to ongoing international coverage...? You are correct that events once notable are always notable. But that doesn't alter anything, nor does it respond to any of my points above. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If newspapers find it newsworthy, it is newsworthy. Whether this was caused by circularity is irrelevant. This is evidently not a trivial event in Marsden's life, as evidenced by the sources. Many of them are not tabloids. We report sensational stories if they are clearly notable. There is no sensational element to our report. Your argument is from a purely subjective non-neutral standpoint. –Pomte 19:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

quotes

 * Her quotes should come out and be trans-wiki'd to wikiquote if need be. She is paid to say outlandish things or to say things in an attention-getting manner. Compare to Ann Coulter where her quotes are put in the context of their impact: the reaction of reliable sources. Just putting her quotes here at the discretion of individual editors will make this article unfairly negative. Canuckle (talk) 21:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think we should chuck the whole "Debating style" section out. Two of the three sources in it are you tube videos, likely copyright violations.  The third merely sources who the host of one of the programs was, not even that Marsden appeared on that program.  I think the whole section fails BLP.  But I've removed much of the material once before (when the section header was physical appearance), and I'm trying to avoid edit warring by following 1RR here.  GRBerry 22:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Unless we have a source that explicitly declares these quotes to be somehow important or such I'd be inclined to agree with their removal. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * But the her views on the duke rape case and Pakistani cricket fans were widely reported (whether this has anything to do with her getting fired is speculative...), so why can't they be included, isn't this relevant to a bio on a political commentator?. Thisglad (talk) 23:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If they were widely reported, then there should be independent reliable sources about the remarks and how society reacted to them. That would be relevant. Otherwise, it's a license for any Marsden fan or opponent to quote whatever she's said on TV. Didn't Keith Obermann give her an award or soemthing for the cricket remarks? Canuckle (talk) 23:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Apparently her comparison of swimming to waterboarding was also controversial, but I have not found any reliable sources that mention it. –Pomte 19:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Western Standard

 * On further review, the Western Standard story's subhead and body text go too far and describe her allegations and actions with more certainty than is in evidence. It's currently used as a source to say she worked for an MP. Anyone have an alternate? Canuckle (talk) 00:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The third page of the Salon article says that she worked for the MP and was forced to resign. I've substituted it for the Standard, given the history here.  GRBerry 00:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

"B.C. Conservative MP Gurmant Grewal yesterday terminated the contract of Rachel Marsden, a self-described political pundit with “model-like good looks” who has been at the centre of two major stalking controversies in British Columbia.Ms. Marsden, who appears in B.C. provincial court next week to face harassment charges involving a Vancouver radio personality, would have had potential access to numerous personal files at Mr. Grewal’s Surrey office. Ms. Marsden, who went by the name “Elle Henderson” while working in the MP’s office, was hired over the objections of Conservative officials."
 * Another article (contemporary to the events): Peter O’Neil, "MP fires aide on harassment charges: B.C. woman linked to controversial stalking cases" (National Post: May 8, 2004) A2:
 * Vancouver dreaming (talk) 03:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Also –Pomte 19:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

categorized as a harasser?

 * Marsden has been included in the brand-new category of Harassers. Question: Does the one court case mean she should be included? Canuckle (talk) 13:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This category was created by a banned editor and has now been deleted - A l is o n  ❤ 16:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "a conditional discharge means you are considered guilty but not "convicted" per se)" -- A helpful edit summary from Clayoquot taken from the logs of the deleted article. Canuckle (talk) 18:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Premature removal of talk page material
Felonious monk archived two paragraphs here []

His reason given "(archive unproductive, disruptive discussions)"

I reinserted it, DocGlassgow removed it with this edit summary: "this is a BLP - stop it or I gets a blocking"

I asked him to clarify on his talk page, all I could make of it was that was he was doing a Gollum impression? I waited 1.5 days- no response. I reinsert the material. He removes it, THEN replies letting me know I am on the verge of being banned for disruption. We dialogue a bit and he says the reason for the removal was per BLP guidelines.

Given that there was no BLP violation in the material, this smelt like bunk to me, so I broke it down:

Section I

Paragraph 1,2,3,5,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14 ARE about the article.

So is paragraph 4- with some pretty direct language... btw which is sourced

Paragraph 6 is a PA towards wikipedia, not RM

Paragraph 13 is a violation of AGF

Section II

Paragraph 1 is violation of AGF and PA towards various users

Paragraph 2 is clearly about the article

Paragraph 3 Felinious monks commentary.

The removal was highly irregular, and I would like to see it back. If people feel the absolute need to remove the personal attacks, that feels lame to be, and so be it. Does anyone else see this removal as irregular and uncalled for... especially given that the only attacks were towards wikipedia in general and not Rachel Marsden? Sethie (talk) 03:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe Doc glasgow means that editors are living people too, who knows. Those two sections contributed absolutely nothing and I'm indifferent about their existence, but here's an argument for removing them. Trolling and personal attacks are not a minority, but the basis of those sections. Making blatant exaggerations about why I proposed mentioning 'Elle Henderson' and claiming that we're favouring Jimbo Wales and attacking Rachel Marsden when that's clearly not the case accomplishes nothing. The credibility of the Western Standard is out of scope here and belongs elsewhere like at WP:RSN. If you agree that Kurt Turkulney's attacks should be removed, then there's no point having the responses to them here. If you have a follow-up to them, then post it here, but there's nothing worth commenting on at all. This is a common sense approach. –Pomte 07:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't say I thought they should be removed.


 * I hear that for you, the entire content of that was removed was: Kurt's "attacks" and people's responses to the attacks. As I read through the material, I just don't read it that way. Even if it was just responses, it is still people commenting about this article.


 * The bottom line is, I have yet to see a wikipedia policy which sanctions the removal of ALL of the text. Show me that, and me shut up. If you read the material, there is a discussion about the reliability of a source, someone proposing a more reliable source, someone commenting on the whole controversy being miminal to her life history, questions about the noteworthyness of using a different name, someone pointing evidence contrary to the "Wales had the article sanitized" complaint, and some perspective by someone who says they have been editing the article for months.


 * That's some of what these eyes see. Sethie (talk) 23:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Please revert formatting changes
Please revert this change. The TOC is a navigation aide and formatting subsections in a way which makes them not appearin the TOC makes it harder to navigate to those sub-sections. The reasons given for the edit seem irrelevant. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 06:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Link to Jeff Merkey controversy?
I have never had an interest in Jimbo's personality but those two incidents cast him in a very negative light. Editing Wikipedia articles for personal gain is not a crime but it seems there is some conflict of interest. --Vladko (talk) 06:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This is the article about Rachel. Only if a reliable source reports the Merkey controversy in a way that constitutes coverage of Rachel would it appear here.  GRBerry 13:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The two incidents are being reported together in mainstream media, as they are being presented as individual pieces of a larger pattern of WP:COI. Some examples:
 * Wikipedia founder accused of agreeing to alter page: report, CBC (Canada)
 * Wikipedia's Jimmy Wales in donations row, The Telegraph (UK)
 * Cash-for-kindness scandal rattles Wikipedia and More woes for Wikipedia's Jimmy Wales, Sydney Morning Herald (Australia)

The end result in the newspapers comes out looking like "Mr Merkey made a $US5000 donation in 2006 and the edit history for his Wikipedia entry showed that, about the same time, Mr Wales changed the entry after wiping it out and ordering editors to start over... Earlier, a former girlfriend, Rachel Marsden, leaked messaging transcripts purporting to show Mr Wales using his influence to improperly change Ms Marsden's Wikipedia entry". --carlb (talk) 14:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I am well aware of these articles. They don't cover the Merkey bit as something about Rachel, they cover both incidents as something about either Jimbo or Wikipedia - so they belong together in coverage about Jimbo or Wikipedia, but they don't belong together here.  GRBerry 13:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The sequence of events appears to be: So basically, a series of dominoes falling - the issues regarding WP:NPOV violations on this page being the first which started what amounts to a chain reaction of publicity against Wikipedia and the Foundation. So much for one being independent of the other.
 * User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Statement%2C_March_1st%2C_2008 appears first
 * All's Wool that Ends Wool, Saturday, March 1, 2008; Money for nothing, chicks for free? mentions Rachel and the issues with this page directly, and appeared very close to the same time. Presumably it is, at least in part, a response to the concerns about the Rachel Marsden article here.
 * The Jeff Merkey matter is a reaction to the disclosures about finances in the blog, above.

Oh, and please stop removing comments made by others from the talk page; that is most disruptive. --carlb (talk) 20:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yep, you have the chronology right. No, that chronology doesn't make the Merkey stuff be matter that belongs in an encyclopedia article about Rachel.  And BLP violations are removed from any and all pages, including talk pages.  Should further BLP violating attacks on her, or Merkey, or Jimbo, or John Doe #237 be posted on this talk page or any other page, it is both your and my responsibility to remove them when found.  GRBerry 22:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Negative Material
It is hard to believe that it has only been two months since the article was deleted and protect. Yet the version we have today has the most negative material since this thing came out of Arbcom in Nov. ‘06. But the SFU incident is still only one sentence. What's the deal? Are all of the new editors here just unfamiliar with the Arbcom decision? Does it just not carry the kind of weight that it used to? Or was it misapplied all this time? A lot of the long-time editors here have wanted to expand the SFU section but have restrained themselves in the past. Can that section be expanded? Is the new stuff here to stay? I really don't understand what's going on here and what the new standard is for this article. Thanks. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Ms Marsden has repeatedly requested this article's deletion and that it "not ever be recreated". As such, if she chooses not to be included in Wikipedia at all, I fail to see why that wish isn't being respected.  She's certainly not "encyclopedia famous" enough to merit definitive inclusion.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.114.52 (talk) 11:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The article can be placed in WP:AFD, for community evaluation. The ArbCom case did not rule for a deletion. If the article seems unbalanced to some, it can be fixed by expanding non-controversial aspects of her career. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Arbcom did say that articles relating to Marsden may "be deleted, together with their talk pages, by any administrator." I believe that was the rationale for Thatcher's deletion of the article.  They also suggested, like we have now, that an imbalance of "negative" matieral constituted a violation of WP:NPOV.  At least that's the way it was interpreted until a couple of weeks ago.  I feel like it has just been such a long time that everyone has been walking on eggshells around here.  There's really been no patience shown to editors who have expressed arguments exactly like Jossi's.  That's why I asked.
 * There's just a sort of anomic fog surrounding this article. Look up top: Chick Bowen, who closed the deletion review, says that even having any comprehensive biography violates WP:UNDUE.  For years most of the editors here have wanted to have a detailed section on the SFU controversy.  Yet that's still just one sentence but there are several "negative" paragraphs about other things.  Can SFU be expanded?  Is it actually okay to keep the article half-full of "negative" material as long as we are waiting for editors to add positive text?  I'm not advocating one way or the other.  I just think it is unfair to the many editors who have worked so carefully on this article to have their concerns steamrolled under the topical news story.  --JGGardiner (talk) 09:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with Jossi - provided reliable sources can be found. Who has praised her work?  Who supports her?  Where did they say this?  The career section could use expansion from sources... GRBerry 01:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

NO QUOTES ABOUT HER WORK?!
I don't get it. This woman is a notorious television and print pundit. She has appeared hundreds of times on national television and has written over a thousand or so political columns which have been printed in several countries. Yet, we have not a single actual quote related to her body of work on this entire page? This article is indeed shameful, it's nothing more than an attack page, and gives credence to Marsden's recent comments in the NY Post that "Wikipedia is just a graffiti board for people with axes to grind". Is it any wonder she feels that way? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.114.52 (talk) 11:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If you find third-party reliable sources that talk about her work, go ahead and add them. –Pomte 00:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Quotes should be placed in Wikiquote, and not here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge of controversy section
Regarding this edit, her relationships with the OPP officer and Jimbo Wales are not part of her career in any direct way. This move seems more insulting than helpful, as it implies she took part in them as a part of her job or to further her career. –Pomte 00:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Both are related to he career. The OPP allegedly leaked information (she is a journalist), and her Wikipedia article is related to her career as well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Pomte is right. The National Post article about her relationship with the cop specifically says that it was unrelated to her work as a journalist.  I agree, the OPP officer and Jimbo Wales aren't related to her career, so not sure why they're in that section, if anywhere.  Are we going to put every man this high profile woman dates in her Wikipedia bio?  Seems silly.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.114.52 (talk) 05:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, everything she does that is newsworthy is going to be related to and affect her career in some way, and that's why it should be direct. Intuitively, the career section should be restricted to her professional work. This is just a forced cop-out to avoid a controversy section. Her identification of the officer was posted on her blog, not to a news publication she works for. Her Wikipedia article is a biography written by other people. Her blog postings and eBay auction are presumably outside her job description. –Pomte 06:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

This is an embarrassment to Wikipedia
the article is clearly whitewashed and protected then the girl breaks up with jimbo and it starts getting meaner and meaner towards her

if you notice jimbo's page is still deliciously white washed.

and even in here his involvement is "which is routine in such situations".. i dont think routine situations like that ever make use of the phrase "i want to fuck your brains out"

and its really strong evidence for the accusation that jimbo said he had a team to take care of things like this with the implication that htey were whitewashers..

look at how his article is whitewashed and this article reflects the rise and fall of their brief relationship

imagine that.. a team of wikicronies changing articles for jimbo.

could somebody from the wikimedia or whatever.. do something to stop jimbo's whitewashing team?

..for wiki's integrity.. and the idea of it being democratic and all that bullsh*t —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.204.9.152 (talk • contribs)


 * You seem to be editing from Canada... hmm....  Equazcion •✗/C • 10:21, 14 Mar 2008 (UTC)


 * The implication being... what? The subject of this article is said to be from the Vancouver area, and to live in NYC. The IP address is in Ontario or Quebec, which is a very long way from either Vancouver or New York. 69.108.205.246 (talk) 23:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * See WP:BLP for standards which apply to all articles. .. dave souza, talk 09:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I just checked http://news.google.ca/news?q=rachel+marsden+wikipedia+wales&scoring=d and it finds 343 hits for news media references to rachel marsden wikipedia wales in the past month. I agree that the claim that his intervention "is routine in such situations" should be excised from this page as nonsense, if not patented nonsense. There is nothing routine about the handling of a case that has attracted this much ink in this much mainstream media. Let's try to keep objective and not create a page of denial and whitewash here. --carlb (talk) 15:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I have added a fact tag to this. Let's give folks a chance to show that this is routine. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 16:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Jimbo does take on WP:BLP cases as routine, receives emails from the subjects of biographies and requires editors to clean up any material that infringes at all on that policy. The evidence is that such routine involvement took place in 2006, his "affair" with her seems to have commenced around December 2007. .. dave souza, talk 17:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe I haven't followed this as closely as some others but I think that Marsden's allegation is that they were having a relationship when he intervened. Isn't that why she released the IM transcripts?  Don't they show a discussion of intervention while there is a relationship that is at least sexual in nature?  I'm not saying that I believe Marsden's claims (or not) but we should at least recognize what they are.  --JGGardiner (talk) 21:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * From memory, they firsst cybermet in 2006 when she complained, and he did the usual boss thing of taking up the complaint and demanding full compliance with BLP. Strictly routine. Around the end of December 2007 / January 2008 they had a virtual affair, if the Sun is to be trusted (Murdoch rag, rather less reliable than Fox news). The met for a one night stand, when the affair was splashed across Valleywag he announced it was all over. Somewhere around then she gave Valleywag copies of hot steaming IM's allegedly between the cyberlovers, one of which has been referred to above. Before they met, Jimbo by his account told the bunch that deal with incoming BLP complaints whose acronym I've forgotten that he had a potential COI and to treat any messages from him about Marsden as messages from an ordinary citizen, not directives from above. So, it's any interventions in that period early this year that the allegation's about. Hope that simplifies things. Don't miss the next exciting episode. .. dave souza, talk 22:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope. According to today's New York Times, Marsden is direct-quoted as saying Jimbo didn't even TOUCH her biog until they became sexually involved:  http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/17/technology/17wikipedia.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1&ref=business&oref=slogin&oref=slogin  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.167.236 (talk) 07:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Here's the relevant section:

His routine involvement in 2006, presumably leading to the arbcom case about this bio, need not have involved him "caring". The NYT precedes that point with the user page statement that earlier this year he told the team that he would not interfere as he had a COI, and any messages he passed on were not to be taken as official directives. As far as I can tell he's never touched this biog, but as is routine has passed on concerns that were raised by Marsden. This bio continues to be subject to strict BLP policy, and we're not going to weaken that because gossip is being put around about Jimbo or any other living persons. .. dave souza, talk 09:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The claim that his editing her bio here as "routine" (or conversely, were the claim made, "not routine") isn't a statement of fact... it's a statement of opinion. The usual contact point for BLP issues appears to be OTRS, which has various volunteers and presumably wouldn't require that Jimbo be involved personally in every BLP complaint in the manner in which he was involved in this one. Perhaps the only way to prevent anyone WP:COI from adding opinions to this piece is to not allow any Wikipedians to edit it - but that does exclude everyone who has read the page, I suppose... --carlb (talk) 20:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that clarification and the links to the acronyms I'd forgotten. While OTRS cases are often handled by the volunteers, I've seen Jimbo getting directly involved in issuing demands and warnings to editors about BLP complaints more recently than 2006, and so it's fair to say it's routine, but I don't have verification of that point. All the evidence I've seen indicates that he'd no conflict of interest until he started exchanging intimate IM messages with Marsden, and he's denied any such involvement with her last fall (or earlier). There's no evidence that he ever edited her bio, but clearly he asked others to make changes. Thus it's reasonable to accept that he was personally involved in a routine way in making comments or decisions on BLP issues here prior to late 2007, but if her allegations are true then irregular involvement may have taken place sometime after the fall of 2007. Note that she has a history of making similar allegations, and they don't always seem to have stood up well to scrutiny according to the cited sources. Of course much of that history has been subject to severe pruning by various editors on the basis of BLP policy. ..  dave souza, talk 21:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break
The biggest problem we have with bios is when people are noted for rather notorious situations and that becomes the focus of the article. Since we don't have much that can be reliably referenced regarding other events, interests and things that would permit us to create a truly NPOV article, I think this entire thing should be deleted. No offense to Marsden, but she isn't so notable that an article about her is mandatory as far as trying to ensure we are all emcompassing...--MONGO 18:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * By "entire thing" do you mean the Wikipedia/Jimbo affair, or the whole article? Regardless of the notability or otherwise of this recent affair, my understanding is that she's both significant and notable in terms of Canadian politics and employment practice. .. dave souza, talk 18:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi...my concern is that when all we have is the controversies to ref, then it gets pretty tough to present someone in a fair light. An encyclopedia bio about anyone should provide all details and if we can't, then we shouldn't have them...all we have is the controversies..that is about all we can reference, so we can't be complete...all we can be is tabloidish.--MONGO 18:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If the sources are negative and someone is controversial then NPOV demands that we present them that way. Look at Kent Hovind for example. Neutral does not mean white-washed flattery. That applies to anyone, whether Marsden, Jimbo, Hovind or anyone else. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm tending to agree with MONGO eventhough I !voted to bring back this article in the DRV. I think that BLPs shouldn't be news aggregators for various somewhat notable people. Yet that is the way that the are written in Wikipedia. I think we should greatly increase the notability standards for BLPs in Wikipedia, perhaps use the "Dead Trees criteria" for inclusion of BLPs to Wikipedia. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 19:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me see if I understand, you're advocating not just a dead tree standard for honoring requested deletions but as a general rule regardless? Do you realize how ridiculous that is? JoshuaZ (talk) 19:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Why should we only delete bios of people who know and complain about there bio? I believe there are plenty of bios out there where the subject does not yet know of them and these are the ones that present the biggest risk to the project. What value do these less notable bios add to the project other than generating a lot of drama? Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 22:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * A handful of them "add drama" the vast majority of them are good articles that give well-sourced, balanced descriptions of them and are used by many people. Even the lower level notability people are read on a regular basis. For example, look at two articles I wrote. |Mary Higby Schweitzer which has been viewed 211 times this month alone, and Margaret Downey who has been viewed about 400 times this month (the previous month that article was viewed almost 5000 times but that's misleading since the article was on DYK). Or if you want people more notable who would also be deleted under such a proposal we would delete Kent Hovind which has been viewed over 12,000 times this month so far. People expect these biographies, they come here looking for information. The vast majority of these are neutral, well-written and well-sourced. Indeed, most of the problems we've had with Marsden, Murphy and others is not that they have been subject to highly problematic vandalism (although that has been on occasion been a problem) it is that they really don't want neutral articles about themselves. That's not something we should consider in good-faith. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

While the idea certainly appears absurd, that we only have biographies of people with notable issues that can be perceived as negative if we can also report "nice" things about them to produce an arbitrary "balance", this article certainly isn't all negative. Unless of course you regard all her achievements as negative, and think, for example, that being associated with The O'Reilly Factor on the Fox News Channel or being compared to Ann Coulter are entirely negative. That would surely depend on your POV. .. dave souza, talk 19:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As an encyclopedia, one would hope we could cover people in their entirity, not just for what makes them notable or newsworthy. To me it's not a matter of good taste or equal footage, not that the things that make them notable (good or bad) should be suppressed just to be nice...it's just that I feel that if we cannot reference people fully, then we can't be complete...so until someone writes a published book about this person (or any person's) life, all we have to ref are things that make them notable. The end result is something less than what an encyclopedic bio should be and more akin to what one finds in a tabloid...that is not our fault since we can only add what is reliably reported and we must follow the undue weight clause of NPOV....policies I agree with, of course.--MONGO 21:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If the only sources are tabloids, that would be inadequate anyway under BLP. However, where serious and respected sources of information cover a subject and show its significance, then we write accordingly. "Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that only covers information in published books" is not my understanding of our aims. .. dave souza, talk 22:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm in Canada, and I can't say that she is particularly notable north of the border. The only claim to "fame" that could be used to even attempt to justify an article here would be her Fox News stint, now terminated. Furthermore, there is little hope of a WP:NPOV entry ever existing here, given that WP has decided that user:RachelMarsden should be banned-infinite and user:Jimbo Wales inexplicably left free to post endless nonsense (including lovers quarrels) to what is supposed to be an encyclopædia. As much as I hesitate to advocate WP:AfD and WP:SALT in a case like this, leaving this page active is damaging the reputation for neutrality of the English-language Wikipedia overall. If this page reaches WP:AfD, I would vote to delete. --carlb (talk) 19:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The user:RachelMarsden account is indefinitely blocked for trolling. However that does not necessarily mean that the person behind the account is banned. If the person behind the account were to use a different account for making edits other than trolling, I suspect it would be tolerated. I think that this scenario is, in fact, what is actually taking place. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Anon edits
At around 08:30 on 15 March 2008   made a series of edits adding some sources, deleting info about her father, and messing up cite formatting – I've no opinion on the merits of these changes. The anon made a further edit adding gossip from Marsden published on Valleywag, and reprinted by the Globe and Mail, which doesn't meet WP:BLP, so I've undone it. .. dave souza, talk 09:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD history
Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 20:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Rachel Marsden - 4 March 2006 - Speedy keep
 * Articles for deletion/Rachel Marsden (2nd nomination) - 7 March 2006 - Speedy keep
 * Articles for deletion/Rachel Marsden (third nomination) - 26 December 2006 - Speedy keep
 * Articles for deletion/Rachel Marsden (4th nomination) - 31 March 2008 - Speedy keep


 * Nothing to cheer about; I took a peek at the last of these so-called "votes" and it appears that the discussion was closed in the first ninety minutes before key questions (such as whether the page is or ever could be WP:NPOV) could even be raised, let alone addressed. This should've been left open for long enough for all to respond. --carlb (talk) 18:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

undue weight problems
I hate, hate, hate to jump in to this page. I know it is controversial. But the "personal life" section has massive undue weight problems. You have to ask (a) why is this subject notable, and (b) how can we provide information on this notability. But minor legal trouble and dating Jimbo Wales are not constitutive of Marsden's notability, which comes from her publications and punditry. For example, a Nobel prizewinner is notable for her scientific research; this does not mean that every item about the woman becomes notable. A court case she's involved in, for example, is not notable (unless it directly impacts on her notability -- e.g., if it has to do with her research.)

I am reluctant to jump in and "do the obvious" -- cut the last three paragraphs of the "personal life" section -- because my guess is that I'd be instantly reverted. But can someone possibly make the case that these things are relevant for the article? -- which should be limited to detailing her political views and relevant publications. Sdedeo (tips) 23:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: While undue weight is a legitimate concern, notability is not a limitation on the content of an article, only on the subject of article. If something related to an individual is reported on in reliable secondary sources, you can be relatively certain it is of sufficient relevance to the individual to merit mention., article length permitting Skomorokh 23:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Notability is a good guideline for what to include: "[a]n article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." Simply because information is sourced does not make it relevant for inclusion. You claim otherwise, but WP:UNDUE is pretty clear that "verifiable and sourced" does not imply inclusion. The question then is whether Marsden's minor legal troubles, or dating habits, are "significant". Less wikilawyeringly, do you really think this stuff on her breakups is significant? Sdedeo (tips) 23:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Here, by the way, is more relevant policy: BLP. "Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, while omitting information that is irrelevant to the subject's notability." I think this does apply here -- Marsden is hardly a household name. Sdedeo (tips) 23:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the argument put forward is not that she's been in minor legal trouble, it's the amount of times it's happened - at least three, maybe four times. One could even put forward that Jimbogate made her more notable. Sceptre (talk) 23:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Your first point is a WP:NOR problem -- you can't synthesize things into a theory. Your second point is problematic as well -- in general, wikipedia should not "report on itself" and a messy breakup with Jimbo Wales does not make for notable content. Sdedeo (tips) 23:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * a) SFU was a notable case in itself, and b) WP:ASR doesn't mean "avoid ourselves". WP:WAWI allows it - Jimbogate was a rather big thing. Sceptre (talk) 23:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "Jimbogate" was an international story and is very likely the only reason that anyone outside of North America will have any knowledge of this woman whatsoever. With respect, it's blatantly obvious that it should stay. The subject certainly is not given undue weight as it stands. Badgerpatrol (talk) 00:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Marsden is not notable for being involved in that SFU case; she is notable for something else. That said, a single sentence on SFU is probably OK. As for "Jimbogate": this is just gossip about people behaving badly -- and, to repeat myself, has no bearing on the reason why Marsden's article is here (her publications and punditry) and should thus go. The criterion is not "being involved in a single event that makes you famous", but rather something more substantive. Sdedeo (tips) 00:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This article is here to act as a biography of Marsden. This is part of the biography of Marsden. It would be utterly ridiculous for a reader browsing this article to not find information on the only thing she is actually famous for outside of the US and Canada. The criteria you refer to pertains to the "creation" of an article, not events in the life of a subject otherwise notable anyway. Not reporting events in someone's life because they only happened once would be absurd. Badgerpatrol (talk) 00:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, I refer to you to BLP. "Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, while omitting information that is irrelevant to the subject's notability."

The admonition to exercise restraint in what to include -- only that that has bearing on the subject's notability -- directly contradicts your assertions, no matter how "obvious" they seem to you. Sdedeo (tips) 00:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sdedeo: Glad you asked why the subject is notable. Two sources have "Rachel Marsden, the right-wing pundit better known in Canada for a series of scandals in her personal life" and "She’s a well-known figure in Canada, not just for her conservative punditry, but also for her controversial past". Do any reliable sources give a different point of view? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself:


 * 1) Marsden is notable for her punditry.
 * 2) Marsden is not "generally widely known" otherwise.
 * 3) The article should stick to her punditry.

Determining notability is not a question of finding the use of the word "notable" in a reliable source! There are plenty of sources that explicitly or implicitly claim Marsden is notable for selling Jimbo Wales' underwear -- but our guidelines explicitly reject "one event notability." Meanwhile, look at all the AfDs -- all of which refer to her publications and punditry as the source of notability. Sdedeo (tips) 16:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You are welcome to repeat yourself as much as you want, but repetition won't make your claims factual. The scandals do in fact receive far more coverage than the career.  Unfortunately, she really is not that notable for her punditry, as measured by coverage in independent reliable sources.  Whomever she is working for publishes that punditry, but it doesn't get much coverage from others.  We've looked multiple times for sources with which to expand the career section, and come up dry - because they don't appear to exist.  You are welcome to look again, I continue to believe the article would be better if we could actually cover her career more, but in the absence of reliable (non-blog being the primary issue) sources, we just can't.  What we've found has mostly been brief notes about starting or stopping work for some employer, not any substantive discussion about her views and opinions, and the content of the article reflects the sources we've been able to find. GRBerry 16:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

In the end, I get a "bad vibe" from the article; it's the punditry that people use to justify keeps on AfD (being JW's ex, and being a defendant in a court case would not be enough) but the article itself seems to focus on the latter in a particuarly mean-spirited way. (Speaking generally, it's hard not to get the sense that distaste for Marsden, and her participation in discussions here, have led people to take a "hard line" on keeping all of this material -- which seems a bit immature.) I appear to not have much support from the community on this one, so let's let the discussion drop. Sdedeo (tips) 17:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps people's motives are coloured by their opinions of Marsden &mdash; this is inevitable, as she has courted controversy with deliberate intent. But I think you're being too rigid in your estimation of what Marsden is famous for and too rash in assigning blame merely to Marsden's detractors.


 * Here in Canada, she is almost unknown as a television personality, as we don't get Fox News except through specialty cable packages or satellite. She is essentially known for the SFU issue and for being a newspaper columnist; the SFU thing should not be underestimated, as it led to the resignation of the president of a major Canadian university. --Saforrest (talk) 22:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

New Photo
There was some discussion that the subject of this BLP preferred a different more generic photo. I contacted her and requested one from her under a free licence, which she provided. Hence the replacement of photo on this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainmaker2005 (talk • contribs) 12:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Please have Marsden send an email to OTRS asserting that she has given you an image of her, and free licenses it. Otherwise, we can't use it. Thanks, dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 12:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * She has. And here is a copy of that email:

Original Message To: permissions-en@wikimedia.org Sent: May 28, 2008 8:11 AM Subject: Rachel Marsden article photo

I have sent a freely licenced photo "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Rachelheadshot.jpg" to Wikipedia member Rainmaker2005, for use in the article about me IN LIEU of a much less generic picture. I am writing to request that the picture I am providing is indeed used in the article, as inserted by this member, and not repeatedly deleted.

Thanks, Rachel Marsden
 * The ticket is OTRS #2008052810018254. Rachel did not specify a license in the email; I have replied asking her to do. After that has been confirmed, it's then up to editorial consensus as to how to use any images. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 12:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The Julia Allison article set a precedent that allows for BLPs to request a reasonable image change, as Ms. Allison did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainmaker2005 (talk • contribs) 12:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That's for people to debate here, not me. My job is merely to confirm the permission release exists and is legitimate. Beyond that, I truly have no desire to get involved. Daniel (talk) 12:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * When a license has been provided by Marsden the image can be undeleted on Commons (you can point to this edit and request here). Until then, it's best to go with the current free image. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 12:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * (ECx2) I see no reason why we can't use the new image if and when the license issue is fixed. The problem here is the license and OTRS ticket, not who uploaded the image on whose behalf. Since Daniel confirms the OTRS ticket that leaves the license issue which I assume will be solved soon. EconomicsGuy (talk) 12:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ms. Marsden clarified by e-mail that the image is public domain.  krimpet ✽  13:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Good, so the licence has been confirmed. Orderinchaos 16:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've restored the image on Commons, the EnWP image can be {{subst:ncd}} deleted. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I will personally support the inclusion of the new image when the licence is confirmed. THough a higher resolution version would be nicer. Viridae Talk 13:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * One problem. Image license doesn't match up with Commons. cc-by-sa 3.0 Uniported doesn't equal English's public domain.  miranda   05:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed on Commons. Forgot to do that when I restored. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 07:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment Earlier today, the image Image:Rachel Marsden at CPAC 2008.jpg was removed with the summary:"'removed WP:BLP-violating attack photograph; the use of photographs of people with their eyes closed, or at other deliberately unfavorable moments, is a tactic worthy of Conservapedia, not Wikipedia'"First off, is there consensus here to remove the image? I see discussion of it with regards to Marsden's request, but not a resolution. Second, why is it being described in the aforementioned manner? Having examined the image, it does not appear to do any of what the summary claims it does. (For one, her eyes aren't closed; she's just looking down.) Thoughts? --Ckatz chat spy  05:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I cetainly thought the above discussion, plus the actions taken back in late May constituted a consensus. I limited myself to 1 revert when it was readded in late June.  I don't think there is any good reason to include a second image in the article.  I'm not too thrilled with the removal edit summary myself though.  I think the general community consensus is that we are always glad to use a higher quality image provided (under a suitable license) by an article subject instead of a poor quality image that the subject doesn't like.  This is definitely a poor quality image that the subject doesn't like, and I see no good reason to include this specific image; the event is not particularly significant to her career or life.  GRBerry 15:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a grotesque assumption of bad faith. I'm not asking for an apology, but please refrain from making outlandish accusations like this in the future. — CharlotteWebb 16:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)