- Rachel Marsden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
This article was unilaterally deleted on 07:03, 1 January 2008 citing unarticulated WP:BLP concerns, none of which, in any event, couldn't be remedied editorially and/or via full page protection to prevent editing in violation of WP:BLP. In addition to being involved in the Simon Fraser University 1997 harassment controversy, Rachel Marsden is notable as a TV personality, a columnist, and an aide to a politician. Though the deleting administrator asserts that the "article is totally out of proportion to her current importance", notability is not temporary. This deletion is completely unjustified.
John254 01:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn Eh nearly all of our articles on civil war figures and any number of other dead historic people are "totally out of proportion to [their] current importance"... I seriously hope this isn't the new standard for deletion. --W.marsh 02:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. I agree with what W.marsh said above regarding the most recent deletion. I doubt highly that every revision of the article has had WP:BLP problems, so the protection was probably out of order per the arbcom ruling cited. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 04:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn, of course, per nom; it is quite clear that whatever problems that may have existed (there were, IMHO, very few) might be dealt with in a more narrowly tailored fashion. Joe 06:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep deleted I have watched this article on and off for 2 years. It has been the subject of 2 Arbitration cases, and been deleted or stubbed for BLP problems about 7 times that I can count. In all those versions I have never read anything positive about this person. The most recent version covered the end of her two most recent jobs. (Quoting her on her blog saying "Much has been made of my being escorted by FOX security to gather my belongings from the Red Eye office...this is standard procedure...Any other inferences of any kind are totally baseless and inappropriate" is merely a backdoor way of making that selfsame baseless inference that you can't get in the front door.) The article never said what about her made her interesting enough to get hired in the first place. Even the Simon Fraser University 1997 harassment controversy is terribly unbalanced because it focuses almost entirely on her case and barely mentions that the University president resigned and the University was forced to rewrite its policies for dealing with sexual harassment allegations and overturn 11 other cases--this context was completely missing from this article as if the only thing that happened was one student made one false allegation. When an article needs to be deleted or stubbed 7 times in two years it means that the people interested in writing negative things about this person are much more interested in her than anyone else; as an ex-low level aide to a politician, an ex-columnist and an ex-TV commentator, I'm not convinced her importance outweighs the repeated concerns over content that keep happening. Thatcher 11:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, here's why she was hired in the first place. From the New York Times:
Asked what brought her in, Mr. Gutfeld said: “I think they just thought she would be a good kind of lightning rod. We did one or two rehearsals, and I know for a fact that people liked her legs.”
- So how would you incorporate this into the article? Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 17:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion, mainly per Thatcher above. This article stank. No matter what was done to it (numerous stubbings, several tear-it-up-and-start-again deletions, 2 ArbCom judgements, pages and pages of AN and ANI postings) it continued to stink. All of this for a woman who wasn't very notable to start with and now, having had the trappings of celebrity fall away from her, isn't notable at all. The encyclopedia will not be poorer in any way for not having this article around. ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 12:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Endorse People who obsess about this woman, who has simply been a freelance columnist and a short-term late-night pundit might want to put some effort into the bios of truly notable journalists.64.230.106.232 (talk) 15:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
[reply]
- Overturn. "Her article causes drama on Wikipedia" is not a Wikipedia:Speedy deletion reason. If you think you can convince people that she's not notable any more, take it to Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Declare my conflict of interest - well, simply because a friend of mine has contacted the individual (not Wikipedia-related BTW), so it's presumably a COI. Recreation could happen, but it would have to keep to the very letter of WP:BLP. However, the arbitration rulings may make this a hard article for editors to work on, due to the delete-and-recreate, 2 ArbCom cases, and numerous postings at WP:AN. I can't really say much more than this for now... --Solumeiras talk 18:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse The deleted article was a hatchet job and if we dcan't do any better after 2 years then BLP allows us to do without. Spartaz Humbug! 20:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Deletion Horrendous mess, BLP issues and undue weight for a figure of highly marginal notability. Eusebeus (talk) 23:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. Rachel Marsden's behaviour changed the way Canadian Universities operate. This is not a small issue, and her (a)history and her (b)role in propagating mistrust at SFU need to be described in conjunction with each other. Rachel Marsden's further exploits in the media, her faking of portions of her CV, and her harassment conviction are all part of the explanation of this damaged individual. Her accomplishments are not notable, but that's not the issue. _She_ is notable. The fact that her bio is getting so much attention indicates that it is a matter of interest - and what defines wikipedia's entries is that they should be "of interest". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.100.172 (talk) 04:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Then this deserves a small mention in the relevant articles about Canadian universities not a biased hatchet job of a bio based on original research, synthisis and dorect reporting of first hand sources. The article was a disgrace. Spartaz Humbug! 06:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The way I look at it, Patricia O'Hagan and President Stubbs changed the way Canadian Universities operated by using and endorsing a flawed process in multiple cases, and Donnelly was the respondent who managed to fight back the best. Why not focus on them instead of RM? Marsden was one complaintant; O'Hagan and Stubbs were responsible for mishandling 11 other cases. If not Marsden, it would have eventually been some other case. Marsden's role is documented in Simon Fraser University 1997 harassment controversy and that is all that is needed. Thatcher 06:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thatcher makes good points. Myself and at least one other person have suggested that the article on the harassment controversy be refocused on the institutional impact of the case. Unfortunately the Arbcom remedies and general toxicity surrounding the article are a clear deterrent to good editors spending time rewriting it. As for why the media and public focus was on this particular case and on Marsden, some of the later sources do address this question (BTW when a major university gets unsolicited advice from other institutions about how to handle the press, something notable has happened). It would be good to explore that angle in the articles. Note that the answers are not heavy on the idea that the publicity was due to leftists trying to dig up dirt on a conservative to make conservatives look bad -- pretty much the only people who believe that are Wikipedians. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 17:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thatcher's argument amounts to "If Max Schmeling hadn't knocked down Joe Louis, someone else would have, so we shouldn't have an article that focuses on Schmeling" which is of course complete crap. We summarize the sources as they are, not as we want them to be. This is the crux of the whole vendetta by the BLP radicals against the editors of the Marsden article. Quite obviously none of them has ever looked at the source material in full, or even requested to. Instead we get proof by assertion arguments, continuous moving of goalposts, rampant bad faith insinuations, and censorship with the instrumentality of glad thoughts. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 13:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn WP:BLP has been successively misinterpreted and abused to mean that any article with any information that could be interpreted to be negative can be deleted by any admin regardless of sourcing, notability or the possibility of removal and discussion of the supposed BLP issues. This is a perfect example of this abuse. That there are so many who will tolerate these disruptive practices only undermines Wikipedia's credibility. As there are clear claims of notability, as the content in question is properly sourced and as there are remedies for any imagined WP:BLP issues well short of deletion, Wikipedia process and policy has been violated and the article in question should be restored. Alansohn (talk) 05:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. This is an encyclopedia. We don't pander to people's personal whims - we write factually accurate and verifiable information that does the subject no harm because the information is readily available already. The Daniel Brandt and Angela Beesley cases have been worrying in this respect.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 07:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn I preface my comment by pointing out, in the spirit of openness, that I have contributed to this article in the past, began the discussion when it ran into trouble last month, and later voiced my objection when it was reduced to a stub. I agree with much of what has been written above by both users who have endorsed the deletion and those who have called for an overturn. That said, respectfully, I cannot agree that Rachel Marsden "wasn't very notable to start with and now... isn't notable at all". This runs counter to notability guidelines. I add that just two days ago she was featured in a Toronto Star new story. That the article has a troubled history cannot be argued. For the most part, this has had to do with the participation of numerous socks and single purpose accounts. I note that this very review features two single purpose accounts, one of which, 64.230.106.232 (talk · contribs), was blocked three hours after commenting on this page (in the interests of openness, two of the user's acts of vandalism were directed at myself). Wikipedia has methods which deal with such abuse. For an article to be deleted due the disruptive practices of a few individuals leads one to question the future of any article and the viability and the credibility of this grand project.Victoriagirl (talk) 08:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep deleted, WP:BLP mess. --Coredesat 11:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. BLP issues? {{sofixit}}. Neıl ☎ 14:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn, list at AfD WP:CSD is unambiguous on this: "If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it may not be speedily deleted, except in the case of newly discovered copyright infringements." This is nothing but an ongoing attempt to disenfranchise the community and game the system by circumventing AfD, where the article has been speedily kept on three separate occasions and the notability of the subject has been established by strong consensus. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 14:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion per Thatcher131. Please note that the article must not be undeleted without an actual consensus to do so. east.718 at 15:04, January 8, 2008
- That would only apply "if every previous version of it significantly violated any aspect of the BLP policy" - I don't believe that was the case. Your own last version ([2] - admins only, sadly) would make the BDJ ruling null and void, ignoring the other 1,637 versions. Neıl ☎ 15:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The consensus to keep has already been established three times. The current speedy deletion is a clear challenge to the community consensus and should only be upheld if there is consensus to do so. East718's reading of the ruling is clearly in violation of the 5 pillars. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 14:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and send to AfD A speedy deletion was inappropriate, this requires a wider community view. RMHED (talk) 15:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion - if an article has to be stubbified twice within ten days for BLP issues, there's something seriously wrong with the article. Will (talk) 16:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As I recall, Will was one of the editors who stubbed the article. Furthermore, the fact that it was stubbed twice in 10 days does not imply that such action was necessary. John254 16:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if we were to accept that "there's something seriously wrong with the article", sometimes WP:BLP problems need to be resolved editorially and/or via page protection -- deletion isn't an acceptable cure for everything that ails Wikipedia articles. John254 16:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. I stubbed it. I also think resolving editorally has been tried and failed too many times. If problems occur even after an request for arbitration, you know the article's more trouble than it's worth. Will (talk) 16:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The problems occurred when the article wasn't fully protected. If it were fully protected indefinitely to avoid WP:BLP violations, it is highly probable that they wouldn't recur. John254 16:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Leave the beauracracy of {{editprotected}}s to Cary and Mike. Will (talk) 17:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As this article has a major history of conflict, and a serious potential for WP:BLP problems, it might be better for the article to be written by administrators, with scrupulous attention to the policy. While this is hardly an ideal state in which to place a Wikipedia article, I would assert that full protection is better than destroying the article completely. John254 17:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm all for full protection. I add that one of the two stubs mentioned came about when a flurry of edits made by a puppetmaster and two socks were reverted by other users. The puppetmaster objected to the insertion of information garnered from then current news stories in The Toronto Star and National Post. This is the very issue I address in my comments above. Are we to allow for deletion or reduction of an article to a stub due to the disruptive actions of - in this case - a single individual? With all due respect, I shudder at the thought that any article is more trouble than it's worth. Will other articles, like Brian Mulroney (currently protected) and John F. Kennedy assassination (which has just come off a seven month protection), follow? Yes, the Marsden article appears rather trivial when compared to these two examples, but the subject more than meets notability guidelines. I see nothing in Wikipedia to indicate that "more trouble than it's worth" is a valid reason for stubbing or deletion. Victoriagirl (talk) 17:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There's something very wrong with an encyclopedia that everybody can edit when people want to recreate an article and then lock it from further editing. If nothing else, this builds future edit-warring, sallow complaints, wrong-versionitis and a whole host of drama and dysfunction directly into the process. That can't be good for anybody: bewildering new editors, making admins axiomatic wrongdoers, defying the spirit of the 'pedia. This is either very poor judgement or process-wonkery taken to extremes. Fie, I say. ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 20:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Except, of course, that the current status of Rachel Marsden already infringes upon Wikipedia's status as "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" because it is protected against recreation. I strongly disagree with the assertion that it's better to delete articles completely than to protect them. John254 20:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Furthermore, do we not effectively impair our status as "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" when we delete large numbers of good edits for the sole purpose of preventing future bad editing? What use is the privilege of anyone to edit if those edits will be deleted without a compelling reason? John254 20:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You appear to have forgotten who our audience (customers, if you will) are. Are they editors? Nope. They're the readers, who vastly outnumber the number of editors we have. They can be converted into editors, but only by them being able to click [edit this page] and for something to happen. Recreating an article that stinks for such absurd process-wonkery reasons as "we've heard of this woman, so we must have this article, and then we can permanently protect whichever disputed version we choose!" and then permanently protecting it is a nonsense. It's also an oxymoron in an editable encyclopedia: why create something that has been and will be continually disputed in order to protect it forever from editing? The question as to why this should be done, for whom and what it would solve are being ignored on the basis of absurd inclusionism. ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 21:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- With all due respect, I don't see that anyone has put forward the argument "we've heard of this woman, so we must have this article, and then we can permanently protect whichever disputed version we choose!" The fact is that people come to Wikipedia in search of information. As Rachel Marsden is a person of note, a reader would expect to find an article. Again, with respect, I don't follow the logic in the statement that readers "can be converted into editors, but only by them being able to click [edit this page] and for something to happen". After all, as it currently stands, this same possible convert, noting no article on Rachel Marsden and seeking to create one, is prevented from doing so. Should full protection be permanent? I would argue not. If it weren't for recent vandalism (some of which I've mentioned above), I would propose semi-protection (a not at all uncommon status for articles on public figures). No one is denying that it would be best if every user, whether new or seasoned, anonymous or not, was permitted to edit all entries. Unfortunately, as evidenced by this article, there are those who seek to disrupt. Wikipedia has the means with which to deal with these abuses - and it is for this very reason that full protection, semi-protection and other methods of discouraging vandalism exist. Finally, an obvious but important point: articles under full protection can be edited by administrators; they are not set in stone. Victoriagirl (talk) 23:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (outdent) With sincere respect to those advocating the idea, I think having a fully protected article that we consider open to editing by administrators is the worst possible outcome. If admin tools are required to edit the article, edits unfavourable to the subject are likely to be met with threats of desysopping. The article will become out of date if new source material arises and nobody in the small pool of administrators bothers to incorporate it (note that not only a small fraction of source material is free). If we go this route there should be a prominent notice that the article is under special editing conventions; a little gold padlock will not do. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 17:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- overturn Marsden is obviously notable. There's no good reason to delete here. BLP requires us to be careful not to throw out articles about notable people. Gothnic (talk) 19:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Óverturn and AfD. Sure, Speedy deletion is the way to handle BLPs, but if they still need community input, so it should have immediately been sent to AfD. ViridaeTalk 04:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep deleted - Like many others, I have watched this article periodically, and except for its periodic stubbings, it has always been a hatchet job. Concur with Thatcher's reasoning. The recent articles in The Toronto Star and The National Post relate more to a local bias on reporting any and all cases that relate to domestic violence (note that Marsden wasn't charged), and not to Marsden's personal notability. Absolutely do not bring it back and lock it with only admins editing it; if any article of such minor notability requires that level of protection simply to exist, then it shouldn't exist. Risker (talk) 04:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The recent articles you mention do not relate to domestic violence at all. Just pointing this out before a rumour takes off that RM has been involved in a domestic violence controversy. She has not. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 18:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You have just proven my point unintentionally. In the Southern Ontario region, all "relationship violence" is consistently reported as being a domestic dispute, whether it is "Man said to have hit wife" or "Woman allegedly stalked ex-boyfriend." In most areas, neither of these cases would even make it to the newspaper, but in Southern Ontario it is always Big News due to several very brutal murders and murder-suicides extensively publicised and discussed in recent years. Knowledge of the local lexicon puts this otherwise relatively trivial court appearance (remember, the Crown did not proceed with the charges) into perspective. Risker (talk) 19:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How best to respond? We have a charge of local bias leveled against a national paper for printing a story that was also covered by United Press International. We have a story headlined “Ontario anti-terror officer investigated on leak allegations” likened to “Man said to have hit wife" or "Woman allegedly stalked ex-boyfriend." We have the terms “domestic violence” and "relationship violence" raised, though they were not used in any news story associated with this discussion, are absent from the discussion itself, and were not included in the Rachel Marsden article. In the interests of fairness to all concerned - most of all Rachel Marsden herself - let’s please be careful. Victoriagirl (talk) 21:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that just shows the media bias in reporting trivial events about famous people. I can assure you that if I allegedly stalked my ex-girlfriend, it wouldn't be in the local papers, let alone the national ones. Unless, of course, my ex-girlfriend was someone well-known like Rachel Marsden. I'm not saying the we should include that episode in our article, should we chose to have one, but it just screams out that Marsden is very notable in Canada. --JGGardiner (talk) 21:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn Fix any BLP issues, there is no way in heck that she doesn't meet notability requirements. SirFozzie (talk) 05:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn The BLP claims are tenuous, and most 'Keep Deleted' responses seem to be of the "well, it's had a lot of controversy so far". So, I don't see anyone moving to delete abortion or Middle East pages on that grounds, why is it sufficient grounds for this article (yes, I am aware that there is a relevant importance difference, but I can't see how in any way that those principles trump anything else)? Don't even start me on the 'fully protected, admin-only editing indefinitely' proposal. A quick look at the history revealed a whole slew of administrative messes. Achromatic (talk) 06:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn per nom. I researched her a while ago and was pleased to see that we had a reasonable article on her. People who see BLP as an excuse to delete articles on living controversial people understand neither BLP nor NPOV. But articles like this do need more than normal levels of protection, by one means or another. Restore a good version and protect. WAS 4.250 (talk) 07:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and restore a prior version that does not suffer from the BLP problems. Catchpole (talk) 08:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. I am seeing a lot of arguments above that the article is a stinking horrendous mess, but all that boils down to proof by assertion reasoning. We need to look at it dispassionately: If the contents of the article can be reliably sourced, then there is no BLP violation, and calling it one is dangerous because it undermines the acceptance of the policy. If keeping all facets of the article in compliance with BLP means cutting it down to "stub" or "start" quality, then do so, but don't exaggerate by deleting the entire article, and protecting it to prevent an article from ever being created. Furthermore, "not currently notable" is outside the notability guidelines on permanency for notability, and the article was previously kept on an AFD. I concur with the reasons given by WAS 4.250, HisSpaceResearch, and AnonEMouse for overturning this. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Overturn and edit by consensus. Any BLP concerns in the deleted version were minor. Impatience with the editing process is not a reason for deletion. An incorrect use of BLP, which should serve as a warning to us about its possible undue extension. Other reasons given are not reason for deletion let alone unilateral action. DGG (talk) 13:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Endorse deletion of the article as it existed, though there's nothing wrong with carefully recreating the article in compliance with any BLP concerns. krimpet✽ 22:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to say that I appreciate Thatcher's vigilance for BLP concerns. I know that s/he's tried very hard to keep the article in line for a long time now. I share those concerns but I have to wonder if there is not an intermediate solution. I'm not exactly an inclusionist per se but I think that Marsden is notable generally. I'd hate to delete articles that become difficult because that could happen to any article. Like it says at WP:NOT, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and the community is "a means to that end". In my opinion, writing articles is not more important than having articles. I'd rather see a permanently protected stub than a protected non-article. I do hope that there is a solution short of that. Hopefully some Tutnums know of something that this apprentice does not. --JGGardiner (talk) 22:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. I have only been recently aware of the drama with regard to this article. The main complaint with regard to this article was the fact that it was overly negative. The article was well sourced and used The Toronto Star and The National Post. Two very reliable sources. If the article is overly negative, add positive information if it exists. If it doesn't exist, then the article stays put as is. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 06:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. This is absurd. I do see that this lady is hardly the most notable of individuals, and am sympathetic to the theory that this article is more trouble than its worth, but I strongly object to the deletion reason that since she no longer has a notable job, she is no longer notable. That is not how notability works. Simply put, this should never have been deleted; all BLP issues can be fixed like all other BLP issues are. Nothing makes this special. Relata refero (talk) 06:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've read Kla'Quot below, re-read the ArbCom case, and gone through some of the hundreds of Lexis results on her name. I'm sorry, but this person is clearly notable. If we cannot write an article about her, let the article be stubbed and protected with an OTRS notice, rather than wikilawyering hypocritically about 'temporary notability'. Relata refero (talk) 10:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral I weakly endorse the status quo, without endorsing how we got here. I also weakly support sending this to AfD. Hundreds of reliable sources exist on the subject, originating in at least eight of the past ten years. The sources are from a variety of writers and publishers distributed across the political spectrum and are from many (if not all) Canadian provinces plus a few other countries. They include pieces written by highly respected journalists and by academics, in publications of high international repute. The reliable sources that are independent of the subject do not disagree with each other very much. The problem that we have is that the reliable sources tell a story that is not allowed to be told on Wikipedia. This article has been completely rewritten (as opposed to merely being stubbed and reverted) at least three times by three completely different sets of editors. One version was written by user:Jreferee, an experienced and trusted writer of biographies who later passed RfA. His version lasted a few minutes before being speedied. The article keeps acquiring the same so-called-problems as before for the obvious reason that various writers read the same policy page on reliable sourcing and conclude that the same sources meet those criteria.
- There is a plausible argument that the reason the story is so unfortunate is that the sources, despite being numerous, are not well-rounded enough to support a biographical article. I believe that the sources are sufficient to write a Wikipedia article, although it should not read like a biography.
- Ever since this matter was taken to Arbitration (if not before), contributors have been told that the story told by the article is too harsh and that they are supposed to go find some information that would make the story dfiferent. The story can be made different, but I do not think it can be made substantially different and still be faithful to the sources. We have never had a mediation or content RfC to actually look at what the sources say and discuss due weight with respect to sources. What we've basically had is a parade of senior administrators raising their eyebrows and murmuring "she can't be that bad", and blaming other Wikipedia editors for what's in the sources. The Arbitration Committee of 2006 did what the committee tells the community every day that it doesn't do: It made decisions on what constitutes due weight and what sources (that would normally be considered reliable) were too biased to be worthy. We had Fred Bauder telling us, in contradiction to all the reliable sources, how to interpret nuances of Canadian law. For more details, see my blog.
- The situation we have right now is that the Rachel Marsden page consists of a salt notice that probably makes sense to about 50 people in the world, not including myself. It basically announces that Wikipedia is unable to produce an article on the subject. Given the circumstances I have described above, I find this actually quite fitting. The only alternative that BLP hardliners are currently prepared to accept would be a permanently whitewashed article, and I currently believe that a nonsensical salt notice is better than a permanently whitewashed article. I am sympathetic to the complaint that this deletion is an attempt to disenfranchise the community, however the community was already disenfranchised in November 2006. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 07:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- COMMENT. I find this very disturbing especially the article on your blog. If it is an accurate portrayal of what went on in wikipedia with regard to this article then I think a second arbcom case on this matter is in order. It's not unheard of to have two arbcom cases about the similar things. For example Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Armenia-Azerbaijan and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Armenia-Azerbaijan_2. I am specifically concerned about the allegations that Canadian Law was interpretted incorrectly and it also seems like WP:BLP is being twisted to give the wikipedia bureaucracy the license to enforce how much positive and negative content should be in an article. Just wait until all the subjects in category:Canadian far-right figures demand the same (not an implication that Marsden belongs in that category). Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Quote from SALON feature article - "it is one thing to have a private past in which you behaved badly or got into youthful scrapes. It's another thing altogether when your misadventures result in institutional upheaval and someone getting fired and rehired, and when the scrapes culminate in harassment charges well into your adulthood. And it's another thing again, knowing that these shenanigans have been documented by the press and the courts, to pursue fame by becoming a conservative noisemaker. Fair enough to leave someone's past alone, if they want to be left alone. But when you make it clear that you are dying to be noticed and now make a living attacking the kinds of ideological groups and institutions that were once your defenders: Well, that's downright impossible to ignore."[3] - WAS 4.250 (talk) 12:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Are we sure that that's relevant here? Relata refero (talk) 12:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The article is a disgrace to Wikipedia. The subject of the article is unemployed and has left no footprints like a best-selling book. The paragraph above hardly shows Salon to be objective. In fact, it calls into question the use of the Salon article as a source. It is far too negative POV. 132.205.148.69 (talk) 17:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- overturn Oh for crying out loud, are we still arguing over this? As Clayoquot observes, we have literally hundreds of reliable sources about this person, and as Was observes Marsden voluntarily went into politics after the initial incident had already been a multi-year press saga. The bottom line is that we have a situation where we need to have an article about someone because that person is very notable, and that article won't be pretty. In that regard, it is somewhat similar to Kent Hovind. We aren't going to delete the article on Kent Hovind simply because almost all reliably sourced statements about the man are negative, and this one shouldn't be any different. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn as per JoshuaZ above. With the range of references available in major media both Canadian and U.S., Marsden is obviously notable and an article can and should be included about her that meets BLP. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn Being neutral doesn't mean neutralizing negative statements in reliable sources. The article is neutral in reflecting those negative statements. The notability of the subject isn't ambiguous, as it needs to be, for BLP concerns to weight so much. If she has been a major part of multiple incidents wherein she has received negative attention, we can't make it sound like that's not the case and undue weight doesn't really apply anymore. What we can do is make sure all the claims are sourced, and insert 'positive' claims where possible, like the quote by Kla’quot above. –Pomte 13:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep deleted = Thatcher said it all.--Doc g - ask me for rollback 17:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
|
