This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Why is it relevant to keep a running tally of Marsden's appearances on O'Reilly's show in this article? She is the Canadian Correspondent for the show and has been on at least 3 times in the last 2 months and as such, it seems stupid to keep a running count that would have to be updated with every appearance.
Above by User:70.25.152.39. Please sign your contributions rather than try to get them through on the sly. Ianking 00:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Marsden calls herself as the "Canadian Correspondent" for O'Reilly on her website; I note that she's not described as such in the program summaries on billoreilly.com (Toronto Sun columnist seems most frequent) or anyehere on Fox's site. A half-dozen unevenly-spaced appearances in 13 months would better be described as "occasional" rather than "regular." Ianking 00:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Anyone know if other Canadians are regulars? I know of one Canadian who was on O'Reilly, but as a target, rather than a correspondent-type. Marsden sent me a link to an O'Reilly clip in which it's obvious that she's doing reporting and that she and O'Reilly have worked the interview out in advance. As well, she's in-studio with O'Reilly. If anyone knows of another Canadian pundit who works with O'Reilly this way, I'd like to hear about it. MB
I don't know offhand of any Canadians that have had recurring appearances on the show; though I know of a couple who have had one-offs. (I don't follow the show too closely, so there may be some recurring Canucks.) I have seen a couple of Marsden's appearances (which looked like they'd done a pre-interview), but have not heard her described as the show's "Canadian Correspondent." As best I can tell, that is what she calls herself. "Occasional contributor" would be neutral and accurate.Ianking 01:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Eh, but "occasional" is a bit there-there. "contributor," I think. (And I've just changed it to Canadian contributor on The O'Reilly Factor.) Samaritan 05:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
That sounds to me like a reasonable compromise. Bucketsofg 05:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, I've made it "guest" rather than "occasional guest," since that was what it had become. Samaritan 05:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
The new sex talk
Surely that breaches Wiki policy on sensationalism. This thing's starting to read like a Harlequin Romance.
Mark Bourrie
Do you have any specific suggestions as to how to edit this in an appropriate way? Part of the problem is that Marsden's sexy emails were a crucial part of the evidence that resulted in Donnelly's successful appeal. Bucketsofg 23:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I've now tried to edit it down to a PG rating. ;-) Bucketsofg 23:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
What policy on sensationalism?
I cannot find any Wiki policy on sensationalism. Can someone point it out to me? Bucketsofg 23:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Regardless, this new sex talk is really stupid. Besides it's unproven allegations. let's try to stick to the facts please.
Sorry, I saw a link to the Wiki entry on sensationalism. Apparently, there's no Wiki policy on it per se.
The fact that she sent e-mails, toyts, etc., is established. This goes way too far into sensationalism. I think your little wink tells me a lot, Bucket. Would all this stuff be in here if she weighed 300 pounds and had lousy bone structure?
As well, it is unproven, just an allegation from one side quoted in a newspaper. To be fair, you'd have to find and post all of Masrden's allegations against Donnelly. Keep in mind these allegations were never disproven. Donnelly was rehired, ostensibly, because he was the target of a flawed process. The allegations of rape, etc., while probably untrue, were never adjudicated by a court or by a properly-operating sexual harassment committee. Mark Bourrie
The wink was about PG, Mark. No, it is not unproven. The text of the emails were released to the press, are widely quoted in the press, and admitted publicly by Marsden. In any case, we need to characterize the emails in one paragraph if we're going to say that she admitted to them (which we did) in the next. The important evidentiary point is that Marsden wrote to Donnelly that he couldn't handle having sex with her one month after she claims that he'd had sex with her. By all means, tweak away to make this more appropriate. But we owe it to the readers of this article to collect together enough details so that they know what the issues were.Bucketsofg 01:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
more on 20/20
I'm not sure I understand Ian's 20/20 point (posted via Cyberboomer). Connie Chung left in early 2002. But Marsden's cv (both versions, I think) says she was assistant in 2000. Now, frankly, I suspect that this is incorrect, but I'm not sure why Chung's 2002 departure is relevant. Can someone explain? Bucketsofg 22:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Here is the passage in question: Bucketsofg 22:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Marsden's resume, both the one referenced on this page and an archived version from August 2003 from the Wayback Machine, claim that she worked at 20/20 in 2000, while the IMDB entry states that the episode she helped produce aired in June 2003. In addition, the archived version of her homepage from 2001 has a link to an entirely different 20/20 story than that in the IMDB entry. Further to that, Chung left ABC for CNN in January 2002. (As posted by Cyberboomer)
I guess what I don't see is where the IMDb entry says Marsden's episode was in June 2003. I suggest that we try to find a concensus about his before we re-install it (if we do). Can people edit the above passage in place until we get there? Bucketsofg 22:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Reference #4 in the article points to a 20/20 broadcast from 2003 where she is credited as a production assistant. That broadcast aired nearly 3 years after her claimed stint at 20/20 (per her cached resume), and 17 months after Connie Chung (who Marsden claims to have worked as an assistant to) left ABC News. I've dredged though this a bit more, and her name appears as a PA under "regular cast" in the full credits list for every 20/20 episode with an IMDb entry. This includes broadcasts from as early as 1979. [1] No other 20/20 PAs are mentioned. As is often the case with Marsden's IMDb entries (of her 5 O'Reilly appearances in imdb, she is the only listed guest in four of them), she seems to get mentioned when others (20/20 PAs, O'Reilly guests, and so on) are not. If I were to hazard a guess, I'd say that Marsden or one of her fans has been feeding information to IMDb. Some of her appearances can be independently verified -- the O'Reilly hits through O'Reilly's site (which posts summaries of his programs), but the 20/20 entry cannot -- certainly not as a regular crew member, which is what the IMDb seems to be claiming. Thoughts? Ianking 23:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
What I don't get is where you're getting 2003 for that page. The way I read that page, it is everyone who ever worked for 20/20 since the start of the show in 1978 (or everyone that they know about).Bucketsofg 01:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
An earlier version of the link to IMDb did go through the page for one specific episode from June 2003. It looks like that was a spurious link. I remain unconvinced as to IMDb's accuracy given the way it works (and this is compunded by Marsden being credited where other [20/20 PAs | O'Reilly Factor guests | Crossfire audience members] are not), but as I wrote above, her other appearances can be independently confirmed. This one can't, and thus it remains a problem. Considering the standards which are being demanded of other sections in this article, I think that the IMDb evidence is flimsy. Ianking 01:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
In fact, it was Mark Bourrie who pointed to this IMDb entry that was specific to the June 2003 episode. MB noted the link on this page [2]. He worte:
Marsden was production assistant at 20/20. See http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0501728/fullcredits a piece on Johnny Depp, 2003, where Marsden is listed as a production assistant. It was easy to find. Googled "Rachel Marsden" and "20/20". So, again, how much research has gone into making sure this entry is accurate and fair? Mark Bourrie
So that's where I started from, and that's where the "June 2003" reference comes from. Ianking 01:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, I guess we can put that to rest, then? Mark got the wrong reference there, I think. I suggest we leave this one out, then.Bucketsofg 02:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
With all due respect Bucketsofg, I think you've misread Ianking's point. Mark got the right reference. The "June 2003" episode is where Marsden claims to have been a production assistant. This contradicts her earlier claim that she worked there as Connie Chung's assistant in 2000. See? I want it back in the article, but with all the ongoing revert wars I'm waiting for a quiet day before doing any further editing. --Cyberboomer 01:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
This still leaves us with the claim that she worked at ABC, supported only by the IMDB, which is a dubious source at best. I'm not sure what to do with the ABC claim given that it was a short stint early in her career; I'm leaning towards dropping the whole thing unless we see some more conclusive evidence oine way or another. (The passage in Brian Hutchinson's NP article that dealt with her supposed time at ABC was in the context of evidence that she had been padding her resume; it also dismissed her claims to have written for Macleans and noted that her contributions to the National Post had been a couple of letters to the editor.) Ianking 02:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the IMDb has probably had erroneous data submitted to it. Isn't some of this doubt implicit in the way the the article is worded now? I just don't want to go through another reversion war over something so trivial.
comments on Buckets revision of Donnelly section
I'm going to greatly expand this section with lengthy quotes from contemporary sources. I'm doing this for now in order that we can include as much as of the argument from both sides as possible. Once we've gotten everything in, perhaps we can begin on how to make it more concise. Bucketsofg 02:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me the Liam Donnelly section still needs to discuss: (1) the problems with the process, (2) the decision to rehire Donnelly, (3) the media coverage, and (4) the aftermath (including Stubbs' retirement). Anything else?
Bucketsofg has done some good work, although the Donnelly section is insanely disproportionately long now. It's more than half the length of the entire article. I summarized and shortened to maintain the essentials but still keep the issue in proportion. There is more about Donnelly in this article now than about Marsden. Someone should make a page for Donnelly, if need be. 70.25.152.39
MB, as I said in the discussion here (just above), the idea is to get the whole case on the table and then work at abbreviating it. I've reverted you here. Please make small, incremental changes and give a reason for each. (Please sign into your account and please sign your articles! If you forget, as I often do, go back in and add the signature!) Bucketsofg 14:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I have reverted to last good, as the Donnelly additions were overkill. Again, the section is far too long and contains far too much extraneous info that I was able to easily and succinctly summarize.
Again, I request your patience. Let's get the information and referencing all in and then begin to prune it back. If you do any pruning, do try to preserve the references, since a common complaint has been that the referencing is substandard. (Again, please sign your comments! if you forget, go back in and add them) Bucketsofg 17:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I read the harassment stories through. The whole incident is, quite frankly, repellent. I don't believe the "Marsden made the whole thing up" version has the ring of truth. The BC Business story says Donnelly admitted to having Mardsen in his apartment twice. I'm left wondering what on earth was going through his mind, if, in fact, she was harassing him. Marsden, herself, is not a convincing witness. It's pretty clear that, whatever Donnelly did, Marsden was a quite willing and eager participant. Most of the blame for the actual crisis, though, should go to the Sexual Harassment office and its administrator, O'Hagan. What's clear from the BC Business story is that the centre had a track record of faulty decision-making. Some eleven cases were thrown out once the workings of the office were investigated. That says to me that eleven people quietly suffered as similar fate to Donnelly, and that claims like Marsden's were encouraged. Had the office acted effectively, the Marsden/Donnelly case would have been properly adjudicated, Donnelly would likely have kept his job, and Stubbs would not have had his breakdown.
I would suggest the fact should be added into the entry that another eleven cases were tossed when O'Hagan's actions were investigated. Otherwise, the piece is about right.
I wonder, too, what Morgan was thinking. A guy 30 years older than Marsden, going out with someone who's known for the SFU stuff, then going to the police when the predictable problems start.
I know Marsden from a news dicussion forum, where she posts some pretty funny and self-deprecating stuff, and she invited me onto her radio show, and, I must admit, I had a great time talking to her (by phone). My own journalistic specialty has been writing about the wrongly convicted and the wrongly accused in criminal and terrorism cases. I found the original version of this entry to be the kind of writing that I had seen used against Liban Hussein, Mahar Arar, and against people accused (and later vindicated) in so-called sex cases. I'm glad this has been fixed and I think bucketsofg has put everything onto the page that a person would need to determine that, in the SFU case at least, the issues were more complicated that a one-off false allegation of harassment. Mark Bourrie 21:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your forthrightness, Mark. I agree that the real important story here is the poor handling of such cases in the mid- to late-90s and the way in which this case forced changes not just at SFU, but at many universities. (I'm beginning to pull this stuff together: it might have to go into a different article.) And thank you for letting us know about your motivation. Cases like Arar are very unsettling. Here, of course, the question is whether the analogue to Arar is Marsden or Donnelly. Perhaps both or neither. Bucketsofg 22:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
There's no doubt that the Marsden case exposed what was a very flawed harassment complaints regime that was open to abuse, especially as the onus was effectively on the accused and the proceedings were in secret. SFU brass acknowledged that fact when they agreed to the mediator's recommendations at the time they reinstated Donnelly as swim coach.(text of agreement)(recommendations}. That said, it took a particularly egregious case (not to mention a legal and PR blitz from Donnelly's side; this was recapped in the Province sometime around August 1997) to deminstrate how flawed SFU's system was. The repercussions of the case on SFU and other schools of the case would be better dealt with in an article about harassment complaints in Canadian universities; what's relevant is that Marsden alleged harassment, her credibility was found lacking, and Donnelly produced evidence that she was harassing him. This would be a minor detail in the article if it weren't for the Margan case as well as Neil Boyd's allegations in 1999. Regarding Morgan, while my gut reaction to Marsden's stalking was along the lines of "well, he shoulda known, especially with her history," that also veers into blaming the victom. The cynical bastard in me thinks that Marsden's greatest contribution to date has been to force Canadian universities to re-examine how they deal with harassment complaints. Ianking 00:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. That's a better source for the story and I've added it to the referenceBucketsofg 01:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I added this in the interest of NPOV: "Marsden's claims were never adjudicated by a court or a reconstituted university sexual harassment committee and no charges were laid against anyone involved in the controversy."
suggested compromise on 20/20
Given that the IMDb article does exist, and that it does refer to Marsden working at 20/20 as a production assistant, I suggest that we say something like "Marsden's role as production assistant on 20/20 is difficult to substantiate, and there is no corrobating evidence that she was Connie Chung's assistant. According to a National Post reporter, ABC denies Marsden worked there in any capacity." Bucketsofg 20:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I think that's OK, with a link to IMDB and the National Post, to get both versions. MB
hazing
I've deleted the reference to a recent story about Donnelly's team being suspended for a hazing episode that included sexualized talk. The question is what is the relevance to an article about Marsden. Maybe one could argue that there is sexuality involved here and sexuality involved in the Marsden-Donnelly episode. But the report does not imply that Donnelly was actually involved: quite the opposite, it says that it was the 19-team members (story here), with the older members hazing the younger.Bucketsofg 19:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
This is interesting and is as pertinent as the material on Marsden's misdeeds. I have reverted to it, MB
I fail to see the relevance, Mark. Seven years after Marsden accused Donnelly of date-rape, Donnelly's team had a sexualized hazing ritual that we have no reason to believe that Donnelly had anything to do with. Bucketsofg 19:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Then why did the Globe feel it necessary to call him? This article is full of inneundo about Marsden. This leaves some doubt that the whole SFU story came out. MB
They called him because he was coach of the team involved. I fail to see any innuendo about the Marsden episode, who is not mentioned. Nor is Donnelly's involvment in the affair. There is clearly no connection that I can see. Bucketsofg 19:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
You don't get it. The Wiki article is full of innuendo about Marsden.
Re Donnelly: The guy is accused of sexual harassment/assault. He doesn't show up to his own hearing (with the lame excuse that his lawyerr told him not to, for reasons unstated and, quite frankly, unimaginable, when counsel boycotts the sessions, too. Would YOU show up? I work for a university, and I assure you that no lawyer would stop me from putting forward a defence, especially if my case was as open and shut as the Fraser Institute* paper claims.
Then, not a huge time later, his team is busted for weird sexual/hazing behaviour. The Globe calls Donnelly as a spokeman for the team -- his team, the one that he won coach of the year for operating. Why does the Globe call him? Because he's the guy in charge.
It must stay in.
for heaven's sake, go read the Wiki entry on the Fraser Institute, which is cited for bogus accounting for its "tax freedom day" and opposes curbs on cigarette smoking. No one seems to care that the guy who wrote the paper on Marsden ran for, and was elected to the SFU Senate on the platform of getting rid of the sexual harassment disciplining system. That type of fact doesn't fit the agenda, huh?
I take it Pasboudin, Homey, and, to an extent Bucketsofg, somehow support this prof in his work, and are willing to take his "research" at face value, knowing he's opposed to the university having a sexual harassment discipline system? I'm glad I'm not keeping company with this type of "academic".
BTW, please don't chop up my posts with your answers. Post them at the end, pls. MB
At least that's the way SFU has "spun" their story, which they released on a Friday night. Funny how Donnelly was keen to release Marsden's modeling pics way back when, but has clammed up over this particular controversy. He's certainly singing a different tune now, isn't he?
Nice bit of innuendo about Donnelly there. The preceding paragraph was added by User:17.255.241.226. You can add a signature and timestamp to your contibutions by appending ~~~~ (four tildes) to them. This also makes it easier to see who was saying what, and when they were saying it. Ianking 02:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Again, I don't see the relevance to a story about Marsden. If there were an article on Donnelly, it would surely be appropriate there. But this is an article about Marsden. Bucketsofg 22:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
On the Fraser Institute and its report. What I've been trying to do is to go methodically through the whole article and reference everything to the earliest and most reliable source. But I can't seem to get a single reference in without one side or the other reverting. It seems to me that the report is derivative anyway. Bucketsofg 02:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
On Donnelly's lawyer's advice. In retrospect, he got bad advice and decided to follow it. You, with the advantage of hindsight, say you would have acted differently. Me? I'm not sure what I'd do. The reason that one pays a lawyer is because you value their opinion. Let's try to find a way to lay out all these issues without assuming someone's guilt without reasonable evidence.Bucketsofg 02:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
My earlier objections satisfied
I have no problems with this article as it is now (Feb. 25). I think it covers the bases without being strident. I'd like to thank Bucketsofg for his thoughtful work on this. Mark Bourrie
Thanks for your kind words, Mark. I am going to spend the next few days tweaking and re-referencing it.
Headline text
IMDb
Hi, Mark. Listen, here is what IMDb says about itself ([3]):
The information in the Internet Movie Database comes from various sources. Though we do some active gathering of information, the bulk of our information is submitted by people in the industry and visitors like you. In fact, about 70% of our staff is dedicated to processing the massive amounts of information we receive and add to the database every week.
In addition to using as many sources as we can get our hands on, our data goes through a large number of consistency checks to ensure it's as accurate and reliable as possible. However, there's absolutely no substitute for an international team of movie buffs with an encyclopedic knowledge of trivia and a large assortment of reference works (and we include in this group many of our loyal contributors). Our main sources of information are on-screen credits. We also rely on press kits, official bios, autobiographies, and interviews.
Given the sheer size (over 470,000 titles and 2 million names) and the nature of the information we list, which is often subject to change especially on yet-unreleased films or long-running TV series, occasional mistakes are inevitable and, when spotted/reported, they are promptly verified and fixed. That's why we welcome corrections and submissions.
However keep in mind that our service is provided for the information of users only. It is not provided with the intention that users rely upon the information for any purposes.
In light of this, I think we should be careful about its value. For all we know, someone may have seen the 20/20 claim in Marsden's c.v. and added it to the IMDb. I have tried to neutralize this part of her career section. Bucketsofg 02:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
more on IMDb
There are clear problems with the IMDb article on Marsden (here). It includes among Marsden's 'filmography' an appearance on a "Crossfire" Episode dated 3 July 2002. There are complete transcripts for Crossfire on the CNN site, and that episode is (here). It makes no mention of Marsden. If you search for Marsden on the CNN site, you get this from the 2 July 2002 episode (here): "UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Good evening Mr. Carville and Mr. Novak. My name is Rachel Marsden (ph), and I'm from Vancouver, Canada. And this is a question for Mr. Carville. Mr. Carville: How do you respond to comments suggesting that Bill Clinton and his administration blew their chance at capturing bin Laden after the embassy bombings in 1998?" The mistaken date, of course, is trivial. But the characterization of Marsden's role is obviously inflated. Marsden was not cast, but a caller. Why did IMDb get this wrong? Because they rely on whoever submits information to get things right. Bucketsofg 03:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
A reading of the IMDB page shows this is the process:
"You may report errors and omissions on this page to the IMDb database managers. They will be examined and if approved will be included in a future update. Clicking the button on the left will take you through a step-by-step process."
That means someone checked and found the Mrasden page was valid. You do not write your own IMDB page (unlike Wikipedia). MB
Well, no, Mark. IMDb clearly got the above entry wrong. I've sent in a correction by the process described, and Marsen will soon disappear from the Crossfire page. True, people cannot write their own IMDb page, but they can clearly add incorrect details to the database, as has happened here. 'Rachel Marsden the unidentified female caller' has become 'Rachel Marsden cast member'. Note, too, that none of the other dozen or so guests or callers have been entered for these programs. Why? Because no one bothered to enter the data. Why? Again because no one was motivated. Bucketsofg 19:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
IMDB does say it checks before posting, but sometimes makes errors. Kinda like the National Post, and certainly like the Fraser Institute, which is relied on so heavily here despite the red flags raised by its Wiki entry. BTW can people please ID themselves in this discussion? MB
Go read the IMDb article in wikipedia, especially the criticisms section. According to that, IMDb has a full time staff of 17 and gets thousands of changes per day. In that kind of environment, they will be able to catch only the grossest of errors. The point, Mark, comes down to a question of Quellenforschung (I assume as a history graduate student you understand the term): a source is only as reliable as its source. What was IMDb's source? Bucketsofg 19:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
By the same token, go read the Wiki entry on the Fraser Institute, and see why so many academics shudder at using its work as a main source for an article like this. Seems any source is good enough for you, as long as it makes Marsden look bad. MB
As I explained elsewhere on this page, what you say is blatantly untrue. "The Canada Free Press article defending Marsden has long been a core part of the Rachel Marsden Wikipedia page. We even link to it." --Cyberboomer 00:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Mark. Time out. I'm trying to re-reference the whole article from the best contemporary sources available. But my attempts to slowly rework the article are being written over in the on-going reversion war.
There is a date conflict between IMDB and Marsden's own claims about when she did her stint at 20/20. Marsden's resume, both the one referenced on the page and an archived version from August 2003 from the Wayback Machine claims that she worked at 20/20 in 2000; there was no mention of any additional stints at ABC News. The IMDB entry states that the episode she helped prudice aired in June 2003. In addition, the archived version of her homepage from 2001 has a link to an entirely different 20/20 story than that in the IMDB entry. Ianking 01:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Mark
Sorry to have reverted you, but let's work slowly at this article and try to find common ground. Making sweeping changes will only get sweeping reverts.
Oopsy. You've been reverted three times. My changes weren't sweeping and they were explained. MB.
Yes. I reverted myself after more reflection. It might be helpful if you add explanations to each edit in the box. Also, I think it might be useful if you slow down a little so that others might find it easier to find a compromise.
can we work on an incremental and collaborative approach people?
Hi all. The reversion war that is going on here is getting hard to keep track of. Can both sides perhaps try to work towards versions that the other may find palatable (or if not palatable, then acceptable)? I'm going to start editing through this article in this direction. It might be helpful if we try an incremental approach: that is, one small issue at a time. Bucketsofg 21:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
opening sentence
This is my stab at how this article should start. "Rachel Marsden (born December 2, 1974) is a controversial Canadian media personality and political commentator, currently a columnist for the Toronto Sun." That she is controversial is surely well illustrated by the arguments about this article. 'Media personality'? Maybe, maybe not. Tell me what you think. "Political commentator" and "columnist" is there from before. If you want to change or improve this, say why here. Bucketsofg 22:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Good. If she was an activist, she isn't now, as far as I know. MB
2nd sentence
It seems to me that in these few sentences we need to tell the reader what is best known about her, which is (I think) the television punditry and harassment cases. (If you think otherwise, or have something to add) explain why.) For both these points, however, I think we should leave the details about what TV show and the specifics of the harassment charges to the body of the article below. Then I think we conclude with her current position. Bucketsofg 22:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
acting, modelling, photography
I suggest that we delete "Marsden has formal training in acting and experience as a runway model and portrait photographer" as not terribly relevant, but I'm happy for someone to revert me here if they can come up with a good reason to keep this. (Please note that 'it is true' is not quite enough to justify inclusion. Please explain relevance.) Bucketsofg 22:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Agree. I don't think she's done modelling lately. At 31, she's unlikely to break into it now in a big way. MB
alumnus vs. attended
I have revised "Marsden is an alumnus of the National Journalism Center's training program for conservative journalists" to "M. attended …". First, the direct verb 'attended' is more concise than 'is an alumnus of'. Second, sound usage requires 'alumnus' to be of the institution, not the program. (I am an alum of X university, not of the program in history of x University.) Third, one really doesn't use the word 'alumnus' in an educational context when the institutions in questions are are not colleges or universities. (It would in any case be, ahem, 'alumna') Bucketsofg 23:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
True. Apparently, it was a summer program. Is it needed at all? There's no degree or serious diploma for asummer course. MB
I'm inclined to leave it in because it is relevant both to her present career and to her political approach.
Is it supposed to have some meaning? I've never heard of the place. Would sessions at a colloquium or conference show up in any other journalist's entry? Or little unpaid internships and college clubs, like her radio show? Most people just have their degrees listed, and that would be it. MB
As I understand it, other prominent conservatives including Anne Coulter, have participated. Does anyone else have a view? Bucketsofg 01:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
career chronologically?
In the reversion tussle that's been going on, it seems to have escaped people's notice how unsatisfactory some parts of the article are. The background and career section is a good example. At the very least, I think we should invert these two paragraphs. I think both could use some trimming, too. Which I'll begin.
Go for it. You're doing a good job so far. The material on her career should include the IMDB, or use the much shorter version. I'll take a stab at this. MB
I'm a little bit suspicious about the validity of the IMDB, which allows anybody off the street to offer corrections.
As compared to an anonymous source quoted in one newspaper article that makes her look like an outright liar? I think in fairness we should go with the least derogatory. We are dealing with a person's reputation, so we should tread carefully. MB
I think the latest wording works. MB
OK. Can we maybe let it sit for a while to let those of other views to adapt it? (I've added a note above about IMDB)
Education and career in journalism
I've tightened this up, leaving all the allegations of resume fudging but taking out the quotes. I have no doubt that Marsden worked at 20/20 in some capacity, especially after finding the imdb database entry, which, to me, is as solid a source as one unnamed ABC employee quoted in a newspaper article. I do believe it was for a short time and was almost certainly as an intern. Rather than have the drawn-out Post quotes, I simplified it by stating the resume claims and saying they were challenged by media. MB
Again, Mark, the imdb article is not beyond question: perhaps one of us should try to insert himself into an entry. Why would the ABC employee lie?
Who is the ABC employee? No name, no title. Could be someone who just answered the phone. I really am amazed at how much trust is placed here in newspaper journalism. MB
I have taken out the suggestion she was fired by the Post because no one has proved it. Suffice to say she didn't last long. People who know the Post realize there has been a steady turnover of senior staff and editors. At most, she was canned after her boss was fired, but other sources say she was hired by one of the Asper brothers. There is no proof she was fired for cause or for anything connected with the harassment, as all of that stuff happened before Marsden was hired and surely was known by her employers )if the read their own paper). MB
I agree that 'fired' is not NPOV Bucketsofg 01:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Political work
I took this out: "Once a supporter of the federal Liberal Party, she volunteered in a federal electoral campaign for Kwangyul Peck in Burnaby—Kingsway."
Why in the world would anyone care?
I switched "fired" to "lost her job", since there's some dispute. The authors obviously discount Grewal's version, even though he was her direct employer. Too much POV. "Lost her job" says just that. People can read the paragraph and weigh the reputations of Grewal and the Conservative party's unnamed spokesperson. In my opinion, having to choose between the two requires too much of a leap of faith. MB
For the strident conservative she is today, I think her past as a Liberal supporter and volunteer, however briefly, is fascinating, and obviously points to an evolution. Conversion stories are always interesting. Speaking of rounding her out, all mention of her commitment to animal rights has disappered... more peripheral, maybe, but interesting, and I daresay she'd probably even agree it's a big part of who she is. Samaritan 01:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm kind of between the two of you on this. Samaritan, can you find a way to include these details in a NPOV that Mark can accept? Bucketsofg 01:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I've just never heard of the Liberal guy. I take it he lost, which means she didn't work for him for long. An election campaign, maybe? That's five weeks. Also there's no date or other time frame. It just kind of hangs there.
The animal rights stuff could be interesting. Don't tell me she let a bunch of minks go? I know she's written in opposition to the seal hunt. I believe the piece was called "When Newfies Go Clubbing." MB
I reduced the volunteer thing to a bare minimum. Suggestions welcome. Pasboudin 18:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
The Wiki entry for Toronto Sun identifies it as a conservative tabloid. Do you disagree with the entry? Pasboudin 18:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I think it's an accurate description. Problem is, if Fox is conservative, do we say CBC is liberal, or the National Post is conservative? It's clear for the Sun and for Fox, but it eventually becomes tricky. Like CNN, CTV, the Globe and Mail.
Harassment Controversies
I took out the reference to Prof. Neil Boyd. What is "contacted by the police" supposed to mean? She wasn't charged with anything.
I hope someone else reworks this section. Keep in mind, whoever edits this, that Donnelley refused to take part in the original harassment hearing, which means to me he was either involved with her and/or that he didn't have respect for the harassment complaint system. The fact that he boycotted the panel is glossed over in the report and, to me, leaves a glaring question unanswered.
I can assure you that, had I been in Donnelley's place, I would have been at that panel, no matter what my lawyer said.
Also keep in mind that the Fraser Institute report cited so often in this section was written by a Simon Fraser prof who now sits in the university Senate as a vocal critic of sexual harassment protection for women.
I suspect this was a very complicated case in which Marsden was very much at fault, but I doubt the entry should be this length.
As for the Morgan incident, the conviction was vacated (as in a pardon) when the condition of the discharge -- the year's probation -- was fulfilled.
The charge is criminal harassment, not criminal stalking. In fact, it's a better description, as stalking suggests following a person and invading their privacy. It appears Marsden was more intent on disrupting Morgan's life in a harassing way.
The section flips from active to passive voice and past and present and future tenses. This needs to be fixed. IKt's also poorly written and some of the verbiage could be cut.
Media Controversies
The issue of weapons of mass destruction is not so cut and dried. Marsden is not a spokesperson for the Administration, so she's entitled to believe there were WMDs in Iraq. Some conservative/rightist commentators in the US believe the WMDs were moved to Syria before or during the invasion. I've seen this scenario show up in the mainstream media. Marsden and those who share her WMDs views could argue that Saddam certainly had WMDs when he gassed the Kurds, and that it wasn't unreasonable to believe poison gas could be hidden in Iraq. Like many other statements in this article's original version, it casts Marsden as dishonest when a reasonable person could come to the conclusion she's in error or immature.
I would take this graf out. MB
Latest changes
I get the feeling that this is a very anti-feminist article. I also believe it has a strong underlying tone of "she's a bad woman and she gets to be on TV and in the papers. Why not me?" It reeks of envy, mysoginity and of anonymous back-stabbing. I've had enough of this piece. I'm going to ask Wikipedia to read the discussion below and take down the article.
I posted this on Jimbo Wales' talk page:
Something should be done about the "Rachel Marsden" page. In my professional opinion, as a journalist with 25 years experience in Canada, it breaches the Canadian libel laws and leaves Wikipedia open to a lawsuit. It's incredibly biased, uses discredited sources, ignores sources that contradict its negative POV, and appears to be an attempt to ruin the reputation of its subject. Marsden was involved in two harassment scandals, but the article tries to link her private life to her politics and her work as a columnist, and accuses her of lying about her qualifications. Formerly, it published information about a man with the same surname, claiming, without proof, that he was her father (as though that should matter). I have tried to make the article fair but have had it reverted. I don't want to become some kind of crank. It just bugs me that a couple of writers and a Wikipedia administrator perpetrate this entry and continue to defend it. I have never met Masrden and I don't work with her or have professional dealings with her. You have already posted on the dicussion page, but to no avail. I suggest the page come down or be reduced to a minimal entry, as the subject is not a major player in Canadian journalism and the harassment controversies are now of minimal public interest. Mark Bourrie M.J., PhD (cand) Dept of History University of Ottawa, Canada
I've done all I can to make this article fair. It's so obviously biased that I doubt anyone could take it seriously. It is a disgrace to Wikipedia and everyone involved with it should search their conscience and be ashamed.
Mark Bourrie
User talk:Jimbo Wales Did you have to put it at the top of Jimbo Wales' page? And for your information, the original link about Claude Marsden proved that he had been convicted in a criminal court. [4] He was sentenced to 8 months imprisonment in the community. I think this means house arrest. --Cyberboomer 00:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Are you ashamed Jimbo will see how you operate here? But is Claude Marsden Rachel's father? PROVE IT. And why does it matter? IK am not going to continue to roll in the mud with pigs. Pigs like it too much. Mark Bourrie
It matters only because you keep mentioning it. You complained about the Claude Marsden reference and so it was removed. And it wouldn't have been mentioned again if not for you. You wrongly claim that the links didn't say anything about a criminal conviction, which they clearly did. --Cyberboomer 00:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Marsden was production assistant at 20/20. See http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0501728/fullcredits a piece on Johnny Depp, 2003, where Marsden is listed as a production assistant. It was easy to find. Googled "Rachel Marsden" and "20/20". So, again, how much research has gone into making sure this entry is accurate and fair? Mark Bourrie
I think the latest version of this article works OK. I'm glad the stuff about Claude Marsden (her father?) has finally been taken out. I read the Fraser Institute paper and I didn't think much of it. The author is a professor at Simon Fraser who has launched his own campaign to undermine the university's sexual harassment system. He now sits on the university senate, where, even he admits, he's a disruptive influence.
I am still left with questions, such as whether a relationship did exist between Donnelly and Marsden, and why Donnelly did not make any defence at all to the first allegations. I have my own suspicions, but when things look complicated, it's usually because they are complicated. Suffice to say that if I was completely innocent and sitting on e-mails that showed my accuser was lying, I would have produced them right away, no matter what my lawyer told me.
As for the Connie Chung stuff, at least one Sun link says she actually did worked there. It seems that the National Post allegation trumps the Sun statement. Since Sun managing editor Gord Walsh has such an interest in this page (and no interest in defending a colleague), maybe he can straighten it out.
There was also an error in the old article saying Claude Marsden had been "convicted" of sexual interference with a student. A reading of the link does, in fact, show he admitted to it to a professional discipline board. there is no proof he was convicted by any court of law. There is also no proof that Claude Marsden is Rachel Marsden's father.
As for Marsden believing there are/were WMDs in Iraq, she certainly isnt' the only right-winger who held to that belief at the time. Does that mean Marsden is dishonest? Or does it mean the Bush White House propaganda about WMDs was so pervasive, and the later admissions so low-key, that at least some true believer-types missed the bus when the story line changed?
All this, of course, is used to structure a Wikipedia entry that says Marsden is dishonest. There are a handful of Wikipedia writers and at least one adminstrator who have taken a very personal stake in seeing that this remains the theme of the article. I doubt very much they are working from an objective or disinterested point of view.
That said, since the material about Claude Marsden is now gone and some of the rest of the article has been cut or toned down, I think it's probably best to leave it, unless someone adds something new and newsworthy. I think, between the obvious bias of teh arfticle and the material posted here, fair-minded people can find enough facts to draw their own conclusions.
Mark Bourrie
Entry Errors (re Marsden):
I think the stuff about her dad should go. Even if it's all proven it was not even a similar charge. He was accused of sexual assault of a student, an act that's far different, and much more serious, than Rachel Marsden's "stalking", which, in the second case, involved sending e-mails and making phone calls. In the Liam Donnelly case, Marsden was not the alleged sexual assault perpetrator, but the supposed victim. Rachel Marsden has never been accused of forcing anyone to have sex. She's been accused of lying and convicted of being a scary nuisance.
First, I think you either don't understand the definition of "sock puppet" or you are throwing around an allegation that's untrue.
This exchange on my messages file and explains my insistence that this entry is unfair and is not up to basic academic standards
Just because something is sourced with a link does not necessarily make it true. Many articles have errors and "truths" can be strung together to form innuendo. I find the stuff about Marsden's father to be utterly loathsome, and I'd fail you if you were one of my students and included that. You ignore the points I make, then go running back to the line that "links" are "proof". Links to blogs and one article do not form a proof. You obviously are unfamiliar with what is accepted as "proof" in academia and in law. Wikipedia suffers from this kind of "scholarship".
I think there are a handful of people with some sort of vested interest in retaining a high level of smear and innuendo in this article. The amount of bias is overwhelming. I think I've made my case about this article several times over. It's a shame that Wikipedia authors and editors work in anonymity. I suppose most cannot feel proud of what they do, at least in regards to this entry.
As someone who works at the Sun, I find myself baffled and confused by what's going on in here, particularly the recurrent suggestion that a Sun article is suspect because the Sun is a tabloid, as though we are on par with scurrilous supermarket tabloids. We operate under the same journalistic standards, with most of the same libel lawyers, as every major newspaper in Canada. We also employ Rachel Marsden, who is clearly on this site (right above me, I suspect) and seemingly in cahoots with Mark Bourrie. There is nothing in the Wikipedia entry that is false, and I have been watching this discussion for a while and have gone back through various sources to check out its veracity. The Sun Media chain does not print lies. If Ms. Marsden or Mr. Bourrie would like to continue to suggest otherwise, perhaps the Sun has a libel case on its hands. Gordon Walsh.
FYI the REAL Gord Walsh, Managing Editor at the Toronto Sun (who says he never goes by the name "GORDON Walsh"), was contacted about this fake entry and is "pissed". I wonder if the person who wrote it is aware that impersonating a living person constitutes a criminal offense?
The Sun doesn't print lies, certainly not on purpose. I know many people there and I've worked on the Sun, and they are honest. Including, BTW, Rachel Marsden. Writers have to keep their articles very short. A detailed and nuanced situation is hard to adequately report in six or eight inches. It does -- like all papers -- do its work very, very quickly. It's easy for people to find stories that suit their purposes. Mark Bourrie
National Library of Canada - Sockpuppets
142.78.56.9 and 142.78.64.223, both from public terminals in the National Library of Canada. Please stop removing sourced content. Wiederaufbau 16:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
The Most Biased Wikipedia Article Ever Written
So a guy with a **Ph.D** in media studies and media history (in other words, an expert and a professor) attempts to add balance to this highly biased and flat-out false Wikipedia entry, giving detailed justification and careful reasoning for each change, and all of his work gets reverted?! And people wonder why Wikipedia has developed a reputation of being nothing more than a bulletin board, run by left-wing militants, used as a vehicle for drive-bys against their ideological opponents?! The Rachel Marsden Wikipedia entry has to be the most blatantly biased and defamatory piece of garbage in the entire Wikipedia collection. Not to mention that the entry for this journalist/commentator is longer than the Wikipedia entry for the Canadian Prime Minister! Unbelievable. 70.25.152.39
Please spare us the hyperbole. You write, And people wonder why Wikipedia has developed a reputation of being nothing more than a bulletin board, run by left-wing militants, used as a vehicle for drive-bys against their ideological opponents?! I remind you that your own questionable and possibly defamatory statements about the right-wing Western Standard and its publisher Ezra Levant were removed from the relevant pages. The Fraser Institute, which wrote a lengthy report about Marsden, is about as right wing as one can get. If we are doing this as part of some left-wing plot to discredit Marsden, why would we side with the Western Standard and the Fraser Institute? --Cyberboomer 00:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I wonder, if someone were to contact the real Mark Bourrie and tell him that someone was posting in his name on wikipedia, would he say "yes, that's me" or would he be surprised and wonder who was impersonating him and perhaps take legal action against the impersonator?Homey 13:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
To anon, aka 70.25.152.39 (yes, your IP still shows up!)-- I've checked the history and see that you have repeatedly vandalized this page in the past, attempting to erase large portions of the article. I also see that you have already been blocked once for this abuse (on 12 December 2005). It doesn't matter if Mark Bourrie really is someone named Mark Bourrie, and it doesn't matter if he's a Ph.D candidate or not. Unless you, he, or anyone else can provide links disproving any of the material presented, there's no reason to go and erase all of the work that Homey, Pasboudin, Samaritan, and others have done. Wiederaufbau 14:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia does look bad when people put this much "work" in a smear job. Like the poster says below, this is the longest, most "detailed" article on ANY Canadian joyrnalist or columnist. Surely it's overkill. Jamie Bradie
Hi Jamie aka 192.197.82.203. If you feel other articles on Canadian journalists are too short in comparison, I think the solution is to improve them rather than removed sourced information from this one. The material you removed is well documented with links, so I have reverted to last known good. Wiederaufbau 16:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree that this seems utterly biased and an attempt to "slam" a Wiki article subject. From the first line, I learn that she's supposedly a "rightist"? That's a politically loaded word, and I have to wonder why aren't other articles for journalists labeled "leftists"? Consider other entires for minor players in the cable TV (see the FLUFFY entry for Amanda Congdon) and the rather straightforward entry for Mike Wallace (journalist) and the BY FAR downplayed widespread allegations of bias in the article on Dan Rather. And yet, considering the "scandal"-laden article for Brit Hume and Ms. Marsden, I think I'm seeing a pattern of bias here. Wikipedia's Neutral point of view policy requires a fair and sympathetic tone when discussing controversies, no bias, and no undue weight towards one view or another. I also have to point out that simply saying, "I've got sources" is no excuse to BURY an article in allegations and scandal. Sensationalism is not allowed on Wikipedia. Nhprman 02:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I think you see what you want to see re: bias. Care has been taken with Ezra Levant and Western Standard both of whom are right-wing. In fact, we've removed defamatory statements posted by 70.25.152.39. The Canada Free Press article defending Marsden has long been a core part of the Rachel Marsden Wikipedia page. We even link to it. --Cyberboomer 00:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I've edited the word "rightist" in response to this message. The sentence "I also have to point out that simply saying, "I've got sources" is no excuse to BURY an article in allegations and scandal" confuses me however, since all "allegations and scandals" here are well-sourced. It is actually some of the users who feel that this article is too biased who seem unwilling or unable to provide any sources to the contrary of facts that they deem unfair.
For instance through the latest editing debacle I'm unsure if anyone making heavy edits and/or blanking gave any specific sources at all at any point. We were supposed to rely on hearsay for everything (so-and-so newspaper is no good, I've heard elsewhere that so-and-so point is not entirely accurate, etc.) Wikipedia has to be verifiable as you know and can not be a primary source.
The subject of this article has involved herself in some controversial things whether her supporters like it or not, and I like to believe that care has been taken to make sure they've been presented without being unfair. If you disagree, feel free to point out specific parts of the article (indicate offending sentences) and suggest changes, counterpoints (needless to say, sourced) and we can work on them. If you'll notice, several issues presented by Bourrie were dealt with exactly as he wanted without a middle-ground compromise (removed ALL mention of Marsden's father, removed all mention of unmerited credits, etc.) Let's work together to improve this article as with every article on Wikipedia. Pasboudin 03:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Your points are good ones, Pasboudin, as is your sound advice on collaborative editing. I think scandals should be covered, not covered up. That said, by FLOODING an article with one viewpoint, it gives undue weight to that view. I may or may not have ever seen this woman on TV (I vaguely remember seeing her) but this article, as written, may as well say "Rightist. Well-known liar" across the top. That's POV, and it's not allowed. And it doesn't matter if every one of the dozens of accusations has a source, if it results in an overwhelmingly negative article. My view is that accusers should tread lightly, since it's not the duty of people to prove their innocence with 'sources' - especially in cases receiving high degrees of negative publicity. It's also very hard to find a rebuttal source sometimes in cases of widely-publicized accusations. Nhprman 04:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Do you know the guy who organized the first Woodstock festivl gets about 1/10th of the entry length of this.
It's ridiculous that a few people should go out and find the most sucrrilous stuff possible, including things like the Western Standard article that are known to have major errors, and insist the target of the work must "prove" that these articles are wrong.
As for the WMD controversy, there are still people who believe somehow it was taken out of Iraq during the invasion, particularly to Iran and Syria. I don't agree, but certainly believing that scenario does not make someone dishonest.
Mark Bourrie's Opinion
I have edited this page and I would have taken out more but I don't want to be accused of vandalizing. At best, Marsden has been involved in a very local Canadian controversy.
Much of the personal material is drawn from a single source, The Western Standard, which is not a publication known for its veracity. Much of the rest is drawn from a few tabloid newspaper articles.
You offer no proof. Why should we doubt The Western Standard? Were the facts presented in their articles challenged by Ms. Marsden? What tabloid newspapers?
The Sun/Canoe newspapers MB
Hi Mark. Could you please provide links to where the facts where challenged? Wiederaufbau
I think they're right. Who would hand in a high school essay with sourcing from a couple of blogs, the Western Standard and the Sun newspaper? Those are hardly credible sources. Wkipedia scholarship should be at the level of hard copy encyclopedias, especially in an article that is this negative.
In Canadian and US libel law, it's up to the author to prove the statement is true. It's not up to the reader or the smear target to prove the statement is false.
Mark, is that you using a terminal at the National Library of Canada? 142.78.64.223? I ask because it's very similar to the points raised at Mark_Bourrie. I'm not sure what you mean about creditable sources. I see there is one link to Antonia Zerbisias. That is to her Toronto Star web page and I would say that is a creditable source. I agree with Pasboudin and ask you to provide details for why The Western Standard and the Toronto Sun newspapers are not creditable sources on this subject. (I believe Marsden now writes for the latter.) Have they retracted anything? Otherwise, I would argue that the authors have proven their material is accurate with their links and that content should not be removed. Until someone can present some links showing that the original authors are in error, I see no reason why this article should change. I am reverting to last known good. Wiederaufbau 00:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Is an old stalking controversy in Canada really worth this much Wikipedia space? The first instance did not result in charges, while the second was settled with a conditional discharge. In the Canadian system, that's a sort of warning. The "seriousness" of this case can be determined by the actions of the court. The court found there was no need for any sort of incarceration, fine or even probation. The conditions of the discharge appear to have been met and there is no criminal record. In effect, Marsden got less of a sentence than a common shoplifter mighht expect.
The controversy is important due to her public profile and the media attention the controversy attracted. Ms. Marsden is not a common shoplifter but a public figure.
Marsden is not a public figure. She holds no public office MB
I would argue that a Public_figure is not only a bureaucrat but could also be a celebrity or a journalist. Wiederaufbau
There is no good reason at all for including the material about Marsden's father.
Same for the fact that she was granted credits so she could graduate.
As well, I see an implication throughout the article that Marsden acts unprofessionally as a journalist because of these stalking incidents.
If the ownership of the Washington Times and UPI is to be placed in this article, for whatever value it has, then the ownership of the rest of the media mentioned -- the Western Standard, the ABC network, the National Post, the Toronto Sun, Fox News, HBO -- should also be included out of fairness. Better yet, leave it out.
These points can be reasonably debated. Her father's case is interesting because of the parallels.
Really? Or is this just innuendo?
I agree with Pasboudin. The father's case is interesting because of the parallels. Wiederaufbau
The material about Marsden's "work" at ABC is unfair, since no one seems to have researched whether all "interns" and student volunteers are on file, or whether someone can just volunteer as a "go fer" at ABC. Years ago, when I was a student, I worked for free as an assistant to a newspaper columnist. I doubt there's a paper record of it.
She is not just claiming to have done gopher work, she is claiming the title of "Production Assistant", researcher, and editor. Your experience may or may not be true but we can't rely on anecdotal evidence on Wikipedia.
Nor can we rely on this level of "proof" that someone fabricated a claim. MB
The link to the ABC source does seem to be dead. If nobody can provide another link to sourcing, perhaps this section should removed. Wiederaufbau
The "suggestive pictures" on Marsden's web site were fully-clothed modelling shots and were flagged as such.
I also took out the entire "controversy" in the "conservative press" because it involved, on one side, one article in a low-circulation commercial magazine and, on the other, the comments of a single blogger. I also took the blog links out.
In all, it appears this article is cudgel being used to do as much damage as possible to the reputation of a middling Canadian newspaper columnist. It is sourced, for the most part, a very small number of obscure and untested articles. A proliferation of this type of entry can give Wikipedia a bad rep.
I would also remove some of the rest of the links, which are, again, to material of dubious value to scholars.
As a Canadian historian, I would not be happy with a paper that relied on this material -- a single article in the right-wing fringe Western Standard, a report (not peer-reviewed) by the Fraser Institute, one court document in a case that ended in a discharge, without punishment and a criminal record, and some Sun tabloid stories -- to make the case that someone is unfit to be a newspaper columnist. And I can't see any other interpretation of the theme of this artice.
All in all you shouldn't remove massive amounts of sourced information from articles on this site. I realize that you only signed up a couple days ago so this should be more evident with time. This article is particularly contentious due to all the vandalism we've had to put up with. Be sure to explain edits well instead of deleted huge blocks of text while giving no reason for it. In fact it seems like it took several reverts for you to make any comments on the edits at all. Pasboudin 02:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
It is not "sourced" well. It relies primarily on a report (not peer reviewed) from a right-wing think tank, on one magazine article, some material from the Sun tabloid newspapers, and two blog entries. It is over-kill and smacks of a smear job. I doubt anyone who had anything to do with writing this would put their name and their reputation on it. It goes far past anything resembling scholarship and well into voyeurism. MB
Mark Bourrie MJ, Ph. D. (cand), Dept. of History/Communications, University of Ottawa
I do not think the use of non-academic sources diminishes the validity of any of the points (save the ABC comments). Mark, if you have sources that disprove any of the information provided, could you please post links. Thanks. Wiederaufbau
While your opinion is interesting, I do not see why valid information should be removed. If you think it's an "old stalking controversy", perhaps you could put this entry forward for deltion. 20:26 -- 31 January, 2006.
Mark Bourrie replies:
Why is the ownership of the Washington Times more important, then, than the ownership of The Western Standard? Since when is an argument between a small regional magazine and a single blogger a "conservative controversy"? Since when does Wikipedia include the records of a person's father on a biographic post? This article is not up to any reasonable standards of scholarship. It looks to me like the author and some Wikipedia people have an ax to grind with this woman and are prepared to do whatever it takes to keep this post up. I think someone from the States should look at the post and this discussion and determine if this is up to Wikipedia's standards.
The initial harassment controversy at SFU received a significant amount of press - I remember reading about it at length in the Globe and Mail. It also gave Marsden signficant national exposure. 70.28.159.194 02:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
'
Another Opinion
I think Bourrie's right. His version covers the bases without going into the crimes of her family and, for heaven's sake, how many credits she earned/did not earn. Does every Canadian newspaper columnist get that kind of treatment or is this something local/personal? The fixation on this woman is strange. For instance, she's often satirised in Frank Magazine. So what? Isn't everyone who's famous in Canada? Is Frank Magazine even in business anymore? Is being in Frank Magazine justification for a huge Wikipedia entry on one columnist on a Toronto tabloid newspaper? Come on, folks, have some sense of proportion. Maybe you can get her driving abstract, too? Or her dental records?
Michael Valpy, who has been a far more successful and long-term columnist, a former managing editor of the Globe and Mail, who has written books, won awards, and run for Parliament, gets six lines on Wikipedia. Peter Worthington gets 16 lines ()less than half Marsden's entry. Paul wells gets 15 lines and one link. Perspective, please! 70.25.152.39
Educating Rachel
Just for reference, two bits about her education that fell out of the orbit of the main article:
Started to pursue a diploma (listed as "P.B.D.") in criminology from Simon Fraser. "In Progress" as of 1998 per the old CV listed in External links, which can be seen by Google cache, at least
Started to pursue a Master's in National Security Studies. This appeared in author tags on her op-eds and a biographical blurb on an Angelfire page. [5] This would be during the Washington period or shortly afterwards. The university is never identified. Samaritan 23:58, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Overall tone
Speaking now as an ordinary editor, I feel that the tone of this article is excessively negative to the point of editorializing inappropriately.
As an example, we say "with a minor in French, a language in which she claims fluency.". Ok, if she did minor in French in college, is there any particular reason why we should doubt her claimed fluency? What is the purpose of the clause? Has any published source ever doubt it? (If so, then let's have a citation.) Just because she is controversial, this is not a justification for random insinuations.
There are many other details of this nature in this article and related articles.--Jimbo Wales 12:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
I've tweaked it considerably, towards hopefully avoiding such a tone. Further tweaking is welcome, and the thoughtful outside perspective is appreciated; I think we needed it. Samaritan 13:06, 15 September 2005 (UTC) , who's previously added both flattering, and less flattering, but I believe mostly neutral information to the article
I don't think minoring in any language necessarily implies fluency. It's unlikely that you'll be speaking like a native after a dozen or so credit hours learning even the easiest of languages. However I see that the sentence in question has been removed entirely so no big deal.
No, of course minoring in a language does not guarantee fluency I suppose. But is there any particular reason why we should doubt her claimed fluency? (And, where does she claim fluency? How do we know detractors haven't spun a tale about her to make her look bad?)--Jimbo Wales 01:33, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
It's listed in her CV listed under External links, or its Google cache if unavailable. It's very common for English Canadian public figures' fluency in French to be overstated by the figures themselves or their supporters, so given the other small controversy or two over disputed credentials, and the subjectivity of "fluency", it seemed to merit a bit of caution when I added it. On the other hand, I took that she's had training in acting and worked as a runway model and portrait photographer, where her CV gave references, with complete faith; other edits subsequently ratcheted them down to "claims." Samaritan 13:22, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
I also believe that while Samaritan has made some excellent edits on the article so far, this latest round is a bit excessive and has generated some POV. I will be making some edits in the next little while -- not full out reverts but I'm going to attempt to restore some balance. I'm open to comments. Pasboudin 22:28, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Why not just say she has proficiency in French? Also, to take even first year French at SFU, you need the equivalent of five-years of high school French. You have to be pretty darn competent to do even a minor. But why not just avoid the issue and say "proficiency"?--Westendgirl 07:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Wow, I'm surprised Marsden is worthy of an entry!
Solution - Every statement without a real article (BLOGS DO NOT COUNT) in a mainstream newspaper (vanity pamplets like the Western Standard don't count) gets deleted. 70.25.152.39
The Western Standard was widely quoted in the election when they leaked the Liberal platform. I'm not particularly a fan of the magazine but I think it's certainly been shown to be an acceptable source - particularly on conservative topics. I wonder, 70.25..., would you consider the Canada Free Press" a "vanity pamphlet" not worthy of being cited or does the fact that it has praised Marsden and published her articles exempt it from that epithet? Homey 16:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
The Canada Free Press is a blog. The Western Standard is a magazine with a minimal paid circulation of 20,000.
Hello 70.25.152.39. Please see below re blogs. I have now added newspaper sources (incl. publication date and page number) to the article. Thank you for the suggestion. However, you have provided no reason why the Western Standard should not be used as a source - clearly you have something against that publication, since you have recently vandalized the entry. In your most recent edit of this article, you also attempted to remove a link to the Provincial Court of British Columbia transcript for no reason. Your talk page shows that you have been attacking this article since August 2005 and have already been blocked once for your actions. Please stop, or you will be blocked again. Wiederaufbau 16:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
"2) Alternative measures shall not be used to deal with a person alleged to have committed an offence if the person
(a) denies participation or involvement in the commission of the offence"
So she had to admit to the court that she had committed the offense in order to receive the sentence of "discharge" So the problem in the article is to adequately set forth this rather complicated situation rather than expressing the matter in the bald but inaccurate statement: "She was convicted of stalking." Fred Bauder 14:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
HOTR: Please supply some source that shows that a guilty plea was actually entered. Fred Bauder 19:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
`1
Marsden has no criminal record, period. Her condition -- a year's probation -- is over, and she is discharged by the court. HOTR continues to revert to a version saying she was convicted of "criminal stalking" when the charge was actually "Criminal harassment". In fact, once the year's probation was completed, her conviction was vacated.
The article does not assert she has a criminal record or that she has a criminal conviction recorded. It asserts, correctly, that she pleaded guilty of a crime and was given a condtional discharge. Mark, I suggest you read the conditional discharge article rather than removing the link to it from this article. I have not reverted to a version of this article that claims she has a criminal record, I have reverted to a version that states, correctly, that she pleaded guilty and was found guilty and given a discharge. I'm sorry Mark either doesn't understand the difference or feels it's necessary to make an untrue statement about what I've reverted to. Homey 02:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
The link forged which while it does not focus on forgery as a felony, unfortunately has the connotation of serious criminal behavior while the actual incident was more of a prank. Another problem is that this is expressed as a bald statement of fact, not an "according to" statement. Fred Bauder 14:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Guilty plea
Please stop removing references to Marsden's guilty plea. In Canadian law a conditional discharge involves a judge finding an offender guilty. Though there is no conviction there is still a verdict of guilt. Please read the conditional discharge article. Since conditional discharges are usually offered only in a plea bargain, they usually involve a plea of guilt from the offender. This was the case with Marsden:
"Marsden, a right-wing political pundit who has made several appearances on the U.S. network Fox News, pleaded guilty last October to criminal harassment of former Vancouver radio personality Michael Morgan.
The Vancouver radio host received a conditional discharge with one year of probation.
Police said the pair were involved in a sexual relationship for about a year, but when it ended, Marsden began a barrage of unwanted phone calls and e-mails.
Part of her conditional discharge involved an agreement she would not write about Morgan or his family on the Internet, as the pundit has her own website." (You've got (threatening) mail! Online harassment followed romances gone wrong in these cyberstalking cases By Dave Breakenridge -- Sun Mediahttp://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/TechNews/TechAtHome/2005/01/31/915660-sun.html
Again, please stop removing references to Marsden's guilty plea. Homey 15:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Addressing concerns
Mark Bourie, I've addressed several of your points in my latest edit. I've removed the link to the blog entry. I've removed the reference to Frank magazine which isn't entirely relevant. I also removed the sentence about Marsden receiving several unearned credits. Hopefully with this good faith gesture we can all work together to make this article better. Much of the rest of what you're deleting (and I've reverted) is relevant and referenced with reliable sources, however. Pasboudin 21:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I think the stuff about her dad should go. Even if it's all proven it was not even a similar charge. He was accused of sexual assault of a student, an act that's far different, and much more serious, than Rachel Marsden's "stalking", which, in the second case, involved sending e-mails and making phone calls. In the Liam Donnelly case, Marsden was not the alleged sexual assault perpetrator, but the supposed victim. Rachel Marsden has never been accused of forcing anyone to have sex. She's been accused of lying and convicted of being a scary nuisance.
What if we were to shorten the reference to a single setence, as I have done? I'd be interested to hear the opinions of others about this, personally I think it's at least a noteworthy parallel. Pasboudin 02:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Single sentance is fine with me. Wiederaufbau 22:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
(Great spelling, chum)
The Western Standard article is a poor source because it contains errors. For instance, it calls her a "convict" -- which a click on the link to the "conditional discharge" entry will show is false -- and a "fraud artist", a criminal allegation that is not based on a charge, let alone a conviction.
I'm not sure we can discount the entire article on the basis of this particular slight semantic inaccuracy. If you check this article's history you'll notice that we ourselves struggled with this detail one as we shaped the article. It took a lot of editing back and forth here to have the word "conviction" removed, for a little time nobody knew which term was more accurate. The "fraud artist" label is probably referring to her other questionable activities (eg. "Elle Henderson" controversy). Pasboudin 02:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I think these allegations against Marsden would have greater weight if the police had charged her with mischief in the Donnelly case. I don't know why they didn't, but I suspect there were aspects and complications which they did not wish to draw out in court. However, for people like us who are picking through the ashes, such a case would have certainly clarified things.
Donnelly did provide proof Marsden stalked him. However, the allegation that he had a sexual relationship, one that is unethical, between a student and a university instructor/coach, was never dealt with by any forum except the one boycotted by Donnelly. I would state the allegation against Donnelly was "unproven", rather than false, but that Donnelly "proved" Marsden was a willing participant in anything that happened, and did harrass him.
Which sentence or paragraph are you referring to, and how would you rephrase it? Pasboudin 02:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm also not sure the line about Les Pyette hiring Marsden is right. I heard she was hired by one of the Asper brothers and she stayed a while after Pyette was fired. I've heard Jonathan Kay, the editorial page editor, pushed her out, not the new publisher. Since Pyette's not known -- doesn't even warrant a Wikipedia entry on his own -- you might re-consider. Something else to consider: the Post cut most of its freelance budget at the time, and Marsden's column was pretty expensive. It did, apparently, pull a good readership, perhaps for the same slowing-down-at-the-accident-scene reason that this page gets. With all the other nasty talk in this entry, I wonder if someone in the general public might draw the erroneous conclusion Marsden was fired for cause.
You're free to edit this in with sourced information. As it stands we can remove the mention of Pyette and the result would be something like "In 2005, she was hired as a twice-weekly columnist for the National Post, but was let go not long after." Would you be ok with that? Pasboudin 02:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
This sounds good to me. Wiederaufbau 22:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
By the way, Pasboudin, your sourcing and your skills as an editor would be more impressive to me if you spelled my name right.
I apologize if the typo offended you, but please rest assured that I am not at all concerned with impressing you. Pasboudin 02:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
(Don't worry in that regard. MB)
Mark Bourrie, MJ, Ph. D. (Cand), Dept. of History/Communication, U of Owe.
Blogs and Newspaper Articles
Hahahahhaahhaha. Riiiiight. Because someone links to a BLOG, then it MUST be TRUE! Lol! Are you people that freaking stupid?! Or just blindly biased against this Rachel Marsden person? 70.25.152.39
Hi 70.25.152.39. I'm guessing that the blog links to which you refer are numbers #2 and #4. I assume the original authors used these links because they reproduced newspaper articles they were quoting as sources. In order to dispell any doubt, I have looked up and included the hard copy publication date and page number of each source. The ABC News quote comes from the National Post, Aug 9, 2003 (pg. A.21), and the source for the Grewal material (i.e., hired agains wishes of Conservatives) is the Vancouver Sun, May 8, 2004, (pg. A3). Please feel free to verify these on your own through the Proquest Canadian Newsstand archival system (accessible for free through most public libraries). The Proquest ID for the first article is 640079871, and the second is 637272991. Wiederaufbau 22:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Attempts to censor Wikipedia
As the vandalization of this entry continues endlessly, I have to ask what any of this has to do with political leanings, with liberal versus conservative? This woman was involved in a scandal that saw one person's career almost ruined. The president of a major Canadian university ended up losing his job as a result. The events made major headlines. A few years later, she pleaded guilty to criminal harassment of a fairly well-known figure in B.C., suggesting, perhaps, a pattern of some sort. She is a public figure whether she likes it or not DUE TO HER OWN ACTIONS and would be regardless of her political leanings.
There is also nothing in the Wikipedia article that has been proven false or libellous, and in fact it is all well-sourced and has been previously reported in various reputable news publications. I get the feeling from watching this unfold over the past few days that in fact only two people are taking issue with this article: the subject of the article herself and her friend, Mark Bourrie. Their arguments have nothing to do with libel; they have to do with attempting to curtail freedom of speech. In fact, through their repeated harassment and vandalization of this entry, they are attempting to censor Wikipedia. As so-called journalists, I would have expected these two to know the difference between libel and freedom of speech. They apparently do not. Aunt Clara
Yes, I do. Libel is when you distort the truth to harm someone's reputation, and that seems to be both the method and the goal of several posters here. Trying to tar me as Marsden's "friend" is a smear from an a anonymous coward, typical of the garbage that's appeared on this page. I've never met Marsden. I know her writing and I've seen her post some humourous stuff on discussion boards.MB
Mark's POV
Interesting, you drop any mention of Marsden being fired by the Post (the way you put it she could have left because she got a better offer), you denigrate the Western Standard but have no comment on the Canada Free Press (or, for that matter UPI). Looks to me like several of your edits are quite POV.[6]Homey 04:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
That's rich. Prove she was fired. If you can't, give her the benefit of the doubt.
Les Pyette was gone barely five days as publisher of the National Post when it was announced this week that one of his most controversial hires there, political columnist Rachel Marsden, would also be joining the ranks of the unemployed. Like Pyette, Marsden's stint at the Post was brief: two months, compared to his eight. The right-wing pundit, who recently moved to Toronto from Vancouver, told fans on her website Tuesday that the Post was "a bad fit from day one. Given these developments, I'm in the process of looking for a new adventure, and am open to any opportunities or suggestions." Surely a resumé must have landed on the desk of former Post editor/now Maclean's chief Ken Whyte by now. (Globe and Mail, July 30, 2005) Pasboudin 04:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
That article doesn't say she was fired. Read it again without the blinkers. Maybe she left because Pyette was fired. Your POV and scholarship need serious work. Mark Bourrie
The Western Standard has been assailed for printing the Muhammed cartoons and for publishing a quote saying the premier of Alberta's wife would be "just another Indian" when he leaves office. It is definitely a fring publication. I work on Parliament Hill and it has zero presence here.
As for Canada Free Press, I simply don't know it.
I have made the articele fairer. I dug up the 20/20 stuff by doing a very simple Google. Seems to me you are hell-bent on publishing as much derogatory material as possible, adding new stuff (the Maclean's stuff) when your old claims of dishonesty against Marsden are proven false.
There are several people, including the founder of Wikipedia, who've said this article is way over the top. Too bad we don't know who the handful of people are who insist on its very biased tone. It certainly does seem personal.
Mark Bourrie
* *
You do not prove Marsden was fired. Maybe the Sun gave her a better offer. You ignore link in imdb that shows Marsden was a production assistant at 20/20 on at least one show. The fact that the claim turns out to be recorded on imdb, while the National Post source is wrong, suggests pretty strongly that the National Post is wrong about this and the story should be used with care as a source. UPI is still used by newspapers all over the US, it is not a fringe organization. The Washington Times has a circulation of 125,000. Surely all those people Washintonians aren't Moonies? Again, if you are going to put the ownership of UPI/Washington Times in, why not ownshership of all the other media outlets? Are you suggesting Marsden is a Moonie? Or that everyone else who writes for UPI and the Washington Times is one? Western Standard figures are accurate, from recent stories about them printing cartoons of Muhammed. 20,000 paid circulation, another 20,000 given away. Hardly mainstream. As for CFP, if yo have something to add, add it. I really don't know it. It's one of hundreds and hundreds of Canadian blogs. Taken together, an argument between one very controversial (google publisher Ezra Levant's name and read about his decision to run anti-Islam comics) small-circulation magazine and a web site/blogger can hardly be portrayed as some kind of big controversy in the Canadian conservative media. In terms of public exposure, the Sun is far, far bigger, and they employ Marsden as a columnist. HOTR's NPOV is very, very questionable. Mark Bourrie
"The guilty plea seems redundant, since she was found guilty."
You know, you can plead not guilty to a crime and be found guilty. Given that Marsden has at some points denied pleading guilty or making any admission it is not redundant to point out her guilty plea.
It is interesting how you denigrate the Post, a paper that subsequently employed her just as you previously denigrated the Sun, a paper that now employs her and that you now praise. Looks like your opinion of newspapers is determined by their relationship to Marsden more than anything else. Homey 13:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
As for Jimbo's comments, they were in reference to the article as it was several months ago, not to the article as it is now. Homey 13:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
The IMDB listing shows the Post was in error. The version criticised by Jimbo is substantially the same as this one, and, at the time, Homey refused changes to that version, too. The Post story quotes an unnamed ABC person -- no title or name attached -- who says she didn't work there, while IMDB credits her with being there for at least the Johnny Depp story. So who would a reasonable person believe. As for Marsden not suing the Post, there were, in fact, corrections to the article published after Marsden complained. Homey continues to revert to a version that says Marsden was fired from the Post, with no proof. Homey is hell-bent on publishing a Wikipedia entry that has errors, innuendo and unsubstantiated derogatory information. Mark Bourrie
The Internet Movie Database is hardly the authority on who worked as what at ABC News, but as far as I can tell nobody is trying to remove this reference. However, ABC is officially on the record as saying that Marsden was not in their payroll or database, as Homey pointed out, and that simply can not be ignored. Pasboudin 02:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
"ABC" is officially on the record?!? Who at ABC? The person who answered the phonme? The president? Someone in HR? Someone who could be wrong? Obviously it wasn't much of a source, or the Post reporter would have named her/him and stated their position. That, in fact, is standard journalistic practice.
"As for Marsden not suing the Post, there were, in fact, corrections to the article published after Marsden complained."
Please publish the text of the Post's correction announcement. It's not exactly straightforward to say they published a correction and not say what it was they corrected. Did they retarct the entire article? Did they retract the ABC News claim? Did they simply correct a minor fact such as the year she graduated or what her BA was in? If you teach journalism surely you know better than to just say something as vague as "there were...corrections to the article published" without going into specifics. Homey 02:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I am not a J-school teacher. I'm a history prof. I used to be a journalist. In my professions, you do not publish speculation and innuendo, then demand the target of the innuendo prove that you are wrong. You do not publish second-hand drive-by smears, then say they're accurate because the target didn't sue. The Post story was wrong about 20/20. It said, or at least strongly implied, that she was never there.
I am sticking with this entry because I believe it is exactly what's wrong with Wiki: people with hidden agendas and personal axes to grind doing hatchet jobs under nicknames and in anonymity. If you won't put your name on it, you can't be very proud of it. Mark Bourrie
"She might have been an intern" said the ABC source. May she, perhaps, have interned as a production assistant? Has the claim that she was not on ABC's payroll been refuted?Homey 02:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Marsden never claimed to be on ABC's payroll. Cyberboomer's incredible bias shows when s/he tries to take off the imdb link, saying it might be wrong, but accepting everything in a newspaper article, even quotes from anonymous sources, at face value. MB
Fine, you're a history prof- you still haven't told us what, exactly, the Post corrected in thier article. Homey 19:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
You don't deal with any of my objections, including the one about 20/20, imdb, and the fact that she never claimed to be on their payroll. It's not up to me to do your research Re: the Post's clarification. Spend your own money on InfoMart to find it, rather than using Atonia Zerbisias' links to the uncorrected article. You have a "smear 'em and make 'em defend themselves" attitude. It's not up to any standard of scholarship to post or publish derogatory information, then demand the subect of the post or publication prove they are not guilty. And one or two newspaper stories using unnamed sources does not constitute enough proof of wrongdoing by any standard of fairness? Why don't you get it? Plus you can't spell. MB
Picking out minor spelling errors in a discussion is poor form. At the risk of being called a hypocrite, I must point out that it was you who spelled isn't as isnt' in the Latest Changes subsection up above [7]. We all make minor spelling errors at some point. --Cyberboomer 22:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Grewal
Mark 1) why have you removed the (sourced) Grewal material
2) why did your edit note not mention this rather major change?Homey 19:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I\'m not sure which sourced material. I changed \"fired\" to \"lost her job, as there\'s some matter of debate on this (between the newspaper and Grewal). I took out the reference to her Liberal work because it seemd brief and unimportant. The guy was a candidate and was never elected, so by definition it was short-term work. I suppose it is interesting that she was a Young Liberal, and someone put in a date. MB
Mark's Sticks and Stones "fact" addition
Nice edit on the Sticks and Stones documentary, Mark.
The majority of letters about the show, posted by the CBC, were from viewers who believed the documentary was unfair.[[8]].
If you bothered to consult your own source, you might have realized that:
- 5 of the 12 letters posted were negative (majority?)
(I did a recount and found 6 and 6, if you interpret the last letter as hostile to the piece. I realize now its meaning is unclear) MB.
- 85% of all received letters were positive
(So the CBC says) MB
But of course as we all know by now, you care very little about the accuracy of your entries. It is clear that you are simply here to push a particular viewpoint with unsubstantiated claims like this one and whitewashing, incredibly while baselessly accusing your fellow editors of the same thing. Your POV-pushing is mind-boggling. Pasboudin 02:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I certainly never accused anyone of whitewashing this entry. MB
MY POV-pushing? Really. You should talk. You are desperate to maintain innuendo. There are three people who insist on this article being as slanted and laced with innuendo as possible, despite critcism by Jimbo Wales and many others. What is their agenda? Why is my version of this article, which has all the harassment scandal but tries to be fair, so troubling to HOTR, Pasboudin and Weideraufbau? Why revert my version of article to one full of errors? Why take out the imdb material for no good reason at all, while leaving in the Post story, which is an obvious hatchet job? Why leave in so much that depends on the Western Standard, when the Standard calls her a fraud artist, something she was never charged with. Are single sources from the media (selected ones, since imdb was to be deleted) considered so solid that they can be strung together to make an article that is an obvious attempt to poison the opinion of anyonew who reads it? These three people have decided to portray Marsden as an unfit journalist by innuendo. I see her as more complex, extremely immature in her relationships, but fairly successful as a young columnist. Wikipedia does not exist to determine if her opinions are wrong. It's here to properly explain things. In Marsden's case, it's being twisted, despite protests from Wikipedia's founder, into a smear mechanism.
Pepple might enjoy seeing how "Cyberboomer" and "Pasboudin" work in tandem to keep this smear page going. Seems they also work on the Judi McLeod entry and received similar complaints from Jimbo. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cyberboomer.
MB
More flights of fancy from Mark Bourrie. Pasboudin has never contributed to the Judi McLeod entry. Jimbo never complained about my contributions to the McLeod entry. HOTR did. What irony! I also removed an unproven allegation about McLeod's firing from the Sun that some other party posted. Last week I posted information about the award she won in 1983. I polished somebody else's otherwise excellent contribution to remove feelings of bias - which were easily understandable - from the Canada Free Press page. McLeod recently accused Wikipedia of being in cahoots with Kofi Annan. I thought her allegations were worth exploring. I didn't care if she was proven correct and Wikipedia had made a covert edit. I brought it to the attention of several Admins. One of them wrote her asking for details. She hasn't written back. --Cyberboomer 22:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Pretty obvious from the latest reverts that Pasboudin and Cyberboomer are not interested in dicussing the obvious problems in this article, nor can they be shamed by exposing their little tag-team of smear. MB
If anybody needs shaming it is you Mark Bourrie. Least of all for your antics on other message boards which were brought to my attention shortly after you began posting here. I also remind you that Pasboudin - Saint that he is - incorporated some of your earlier suggestions. --Cyberboomer 22:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
You are WAY out of line. You refuse to deal with any crticism of this POS article. I am not "stbear" on any board and you have a lot of nerve adding me to your smear campaign. People like you are ruining Wikipedia. You neveraddress the errors and biases in this article. All I am asking for is fairness to someone who is not a Wikipedia administrator and so cannot defend herself. There is no shame in trying to try to face down a lynch mob. You and HOTR are using moderating powers to attack the livelihood and reputation of a journalist and now you are attempting to smear me based on innuendo. You hide in anonymity and are the worst kind of cowards.
And don't forget "the worst kind of coward". Actually, I consider it an honour to have the legendary Mark Bourrie attack me. I'm not offended at all and don't mind his original comments remaining. I'm more concerned about his earlier attack on User:Aunt Clara. He wrote Trying to tar me as Marsden's "friend" is a smear from an a anonymous coward, typical of the garbage that's appeared on this page. MB --Cyberboomer 20:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
It's certainly a fair comment to what Cyberboomer wrote.
(written by Mark B.)
It's a violation of the policy and can get you yet another ban if it were brought to the ArbComm's attention.
Mark, I think it's time you come clean on your association with Rachel Marsden. You are hardly a neutral observer coming to her defence. Homey 04:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I have no "association" with Rachel Marsden. As I said earlier, I have read her posts on another discussion board. That's it.
I have fixed my statement re: Cyberboomer, but I do note that the slur against me remains. Cyberboomer is also guilty of a personal attack. At this point I don't care if I get banned from this group. Complain about me, but make sure you add Cyberboomer, too.
Elsewhere on this page you write, I know Marsden from a news dicussion (sic) forum, where she posts some pretty funny and self-deprecating stuff, and she invited me onto her radio show, and, I must admit, I had a great time talking to her (by phone). --Cyberboomer 01:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
How am I guilty of a personal attack? --Cyberboomer 20:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Essentially of accusing me of being a troll. But you don't get it. You always work from a double standard. You have a very immature and under-developed sense of fairness.
And I do believe that people really should use their real names, especially when writing articles that affect the reputation of others.
Essentially accusing you of being a troll? That's your interpretation. And you continue with the personal attacks when you say, "You always work from a double standard. You have a very immature and under-developed sense of fairness." --Cyberboomer 00:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Missy Tee
I know Marsden from a news dicussion forum, where she posts some pretty funny and self-deprecating stuff. Mark Bourrie
