Talk:Rachel Marsden/Archive 6

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.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Unimportant Information

Currently the article contains this sentence: "In October 2007, she was a panelist on CNN's The Situation Room." Must every detail of this person's recent career be included? I think the article already reflects the fact that she is a TV commentator. Syntacticus (talk) 03:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the major national shows on which a TV commentator has appeared is a minor detail, unless she has appeared in too many to count. The article does not contain every detail of her recent career; it would be rather long if it described every article she wrote. –Pomte 07:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Yah, actually, I came here to find out what show I might've seen her on. Don't recall seeing any other mention of television work, which surprised me. I thought she had her own show or something. Eaglizard (talk) 15:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Grand Central Political info and reference

This is probably my bad, but when I replaced an unsuitable American Chronicle cite with a fact tag, I was assuming (based on search results) that the info was basically a press release. Since this article stayed on my watchlist, and there have been several edits to equally unsuitable sourcing, I discovered that the GrandCentralPolitical.com launch has had no media coverage other than a reprinted single column and no real mention on Marsden's website other than a brief mention of where her column is carried. I have removed the paragraph and latest cite pending legitimate sourcing per BLP policy, but I wouldn't be opposed to adding a link to GCP (without the TCVmedia stuff) to the external links section. Flowanda | Talk 02:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I also found this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Chronicle.

Adding GCP to the external links sounds ok to me as well. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

This was raised in Feb 2008, but I cant see any other discussion. This new source[1] being used now[2] says that she may launch the website at Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC), it mentions TCV Media & Nathan Tabor, but it doesnt given an decent understanding of what the website will be. Jim Kouri appears to be notable, and New Media Alliance might be, but that source is mere speculation about the website, and I havent been able to find any better sources. We dont need top quality sources for the mere existence of a website, but we do need to be sure this website is worth mentioning otherwise the inclusion is merely promoting her website. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Mywikibiz.com page

Since Marsden's MyWikiBiz.com profile is linked from the official RachelMarsden.com site as containing the "full bio" and appears to be written by Marsden herself, it seems like the page should be included in the external links section with the other self-published pages at knol and imdb. Flowanda | Talk 03:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with that, so I have gone ahead and done it. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

per our other guidelines for external links, if it is prominently linked from her official site, there is no need for us to link to a less official site. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I havent seen that guideline; could you point me to it? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

From footnote #2 at WP:EL "However, Wikipedia does not provide a comprehensive web directory to every official website, and more than one official website should be listed only when the additional links provide unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites." Its talking specifically about linking to an "official" page on a social networking site, but I see no difference in application. -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

So, let's examine this phrase, "prominently linked". If you go to RachelMarsden.com, there is not one link from the home page to any page on MyWikiBiz. There are five different category links in the maroon header of the home page. If you click the fourth of five header fields, "About Rachel", it says "Rachel is a political analyst, political and media strategist, writer, radio/TV personality, entrepreneur, and Editor-in-Chief of GrandCentralPolitical News Syndicate", which is linked. After that, it says, "Click here to view Rachel's full bio", which embeds the link to MyWikiBiz. There is no text mention of the site MyWikiBiz or any explanatory note about the link. This constitutes the status of being "prominently linked", in your estimation? "Prominently" can mean the second visual link on the fourth of five sub-directories? That's not how I would define "prominently" in web usability parlance. -- Thekohser 04:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

So two clicks, one labeled "About" and the next labeled "Bio" is difficult navigation to a Biography site to find unique information about Marsdens biography? And as you said, they are 1 link of 5 and one link of 2, so its not like you have to search for a needle in a haystack. Yah, I say its prominently linked. -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

M'kay, whatever you say, boss. -- Thekohser 01:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think MyWikiBiz is an official website of Rachel Marsden. If her website linked to a nndb entry, would that mean we shouldnt link to the nndb entry? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

If it is not going to be considered an "official website" then I see even less reason for considering linking to the site. -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

You haven't addressed my comparison to imdb, nndb, etc links. Please keep in mind that policy/guidelines are usually out of sync with best practise. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

imdb, nndb are not "first party"/"official/semi-official" pages published by the subject of the article and so I dont see them as covered under the "and more than one official website should be listed only when the additional links provide unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites." language of WP:EL. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course, the big question is, "Does the content at the externally-linked page provide the Wikipedia reader with more information about the subject than Wikipedia currently provides?" The next question is, "Does the content at the externally-linked page violate the mission of the Wikimedia Foundation in any way, such as being a hate/attack page, or unnecessarily exploitative of the site visitor?" And, then, there is the question of "How reliable is this information, and was it written by a credible publisher?" In this case, the answers are Yes, No, Sufficiently, and Yes. Unless, of course, you have a personal axe to grind against the website in question, in which case, your answers will vary. -- Thekohser 13:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, per the guidelines, WP:EL "Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links, or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links." and "No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable." What is justifiable: "Such pages could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic; information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail; or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy." So what is the content on the target that justifies a link? -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems EL is a draw - there are as many reasons to exclude the link as to include it (and no real deal breaker either way). I'm not going to speculate why Marsden set up her bio the way she did, but her reasons and choice of website don't (and shouldn't) matter for the purposes of inclusion in this article. I suggest we focus on BLP considerations and service to the reader to determine the link's usefulness and appropriateness. As it is now, the reader would have to go to the official site and then look for and click on the bio page and then click on another link to be taken to Marsden's "full bio" at MyWikiBiz.com. Not horrible, but not helpful or easy either. I understand the dangers of overlinking, but the page provides detailed biographical information written by Marsden herself (unless she asserts otherwise) on a page that appears fairly stable. The information clearly includes Marsden's perspective and personal details that would never be included in this article, but would be of interest to a number of readers. And given that Marsden's attempts to edit or have the article deleted are prominently noted in the article and on the talk page, a link to what Marsden considers notable about herself seems fair. Unless there are copyvio or BLP issues I'm not aware of, I think a descriptive direct link to the page would be a useful addition to the external links section. Flowanda | Talk 06:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Per "The information clearly includes Marsden's perspective and personal details that would never be included in this article, but would be of interest to a number of readers." I will no longer oppose the inclusion of the link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2009-07-16T11:21:01 (talk • contribs) TheRedPenOfDoom

Y Done I have added it again. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

"Tweak" doesn't mean adding a Knol link without discussion or consensus, and readding the link shouldn't be listed on the edit summary as reverting an established editor's edits made in the best of best faith. The Knol link needs to be removed until it is discussed here, but hopefully, if it contains similar information, we can use that link instead of linking to MWB. In any case, Knol probably has 100 percent less POV than MWB. Flowanda | Talk 03:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I indicated above that I would no longer oppose the MWB link - so that is no longer an issue. -- The Red Pen of Doom 04:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I was only undoing this edit, and "tweak" is only to indicate that I slightly altered the description of the knol link. The use of "undo" in the e/s is meant only to describe what happened, rather than why. I should have added "per talk" or something. It was not meant as a dig at anyone.

The Google knol link has been there for six months, and is similar to the MWB page. Do you want to do a comparison of the MWB and Knol pages? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Any comparison of the Knol article and the MyWikiBiz article should take into consideration that the Knol article carries the baggage of having a comment that begins, "Why does anyone listen to this b*tch?" I thought that part of Wikipedia's mission is not to unnecessarily harm people, and I would think that if either of the aforementioned external links were to be removed, it would be the Knol link, not the MyWikiBiz link, Flowanda. I don't know what your agenda is against MyWikiBiz, but it's coming through loud and clear. -- Thekohser 11:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

My agenda is to not talk out of my ass, but that's what I did in absolutely every loud and clear way possible. I'd like to say "what was I thinking?", but that would be giving me credit for actually thinking before I commented. My apologies to all here. Flowanda | Talk 00:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Good form. Apology accepted from this particular hurt party. -- Thekohser 01:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Unprotection?

Can this article and talk page be unprotected now so that unregistered users can edit and make comments? We can quickly restore protection if necessary. --TS 19:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello Tony. I'm willing to unprotect, but would like to wait for more input given the history of this article and the potential for trolling and BLP vandalism. If there are no objections, I'll go ahead. Regards, Skomorokh 19:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

It went exceedingly poorly, see the article history. Let's not do that ever again. This one article puts paid to Tony's whole approach, IMHO. ++Lar: t/c 02:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

You're over pessimistic. A few unsuccessful attempts--which we fully expect to happen--don't mean we can't review semiprotections regularly. Our standard response to inappropriate editing is as it has always been, to remove the inappropriate material, and semiprotection is very much an exception to that. --TS 02:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)An instantly reverted piece of vandalism followed by two productive contributions counts as "exceedingly poorly"? That is an extremely questionable judgement (as is the drive-by reprotection incidently). Skomorokh 02:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you're right. I took Lar's word for it that unprotection had gone "exceedingly poorly". Actually it went okay. One BLP in a week is more than zero, but it isn't so bad either, considering that it was automatically tagged and instantly reverted. I don't quarrel with the sysop who reprotected, but I don't think this was any kind of failure at all. --TS 02:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Now now, Skomorokh - a little AGF, please. You make it sound like some sort of criminal act ('drive-by prot' - lol). As you likely know, I've been working at WP:RPP for years now and at one time had more edits there than anyone else except VoABot. I do know a bit about BLPs and article protection. Calling what I did "extremely questionable" is unfair in the extreme, especially given this article's edit history & protect logs. There have even been oversight issues here in the past - Alison ^❤ 04:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It definitely wasn't a bad call. Being cautious in a situation like this is always an acceptable option. --TS 05:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

My two cents...all BLPs with problematic histories should be left semi-protected until flagged revisions are implemented. Cla68 (talk) 05:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I stand by my comments. This article shouldn't have been unprotected on a whim, and to that based on some cookie cutter request was a bad idea. The entire cookie cutter request process is a bad idea that is wasting considerable time. Get real flagged revisions going and until then, as Cla68 says, all BLPs with problematic histories should be (at least) semiprotected. ++Lar: t/c 09:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I have personal correspondence from the biography's subject that she was not pleased with the IP edit's contribution to the biography, and that displeasure really doesn't change regardless of it persisting for one second or for one year. The point is, she was of the understanding that the article about her was under a status of semi-protection, she had relaxed her concern over it, and even that she had heard that Wikipedia was INCREASING vandal-prevention measures. So, it came as a disappointing surprise to her to learn that the article had been unprotected on a whim. I am curious, did Tony Sidaway make any attempt whatsoever to contact the biography's subject, to seek her preference? I'm doubtful that ever happened, even though it would be the barest modicum of human respect. -- Thekohser 16:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Footnote 19

There was a lot of material re: a domestic fight with a police officer that relied on a citation that links to a Cabadian Broadcasting Corporation story that has one line about this alleged incident. i have removed everything that is not backed up by the citation on the expectation that, if this dispute actually happened, those who want it included will find a source that does, in fact, verify the "facts." Spoonkymonkey (talk) 22:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

IMDb

In general I would agree that IMDb is a suitable location for biographical links. However, in this case, we have others issues since Ms Marsden is not a movie star. The Internet *Movie* Database may be a suspect site. There is a possibility they are in violation of a copyright -- the exact wording appears on multiple sites. In addition that bio appears to both summarize and distort from this page, and her own biography. It does not add additional, independent information as a true investigative journalist would have done. Finally, it was written by an anonymous source, IMDb does not vet, nor edit these sort of biographies. Everything it has is either, already at better sites, by known and respected authors, or written by the subject herself. We should be careful on BLPs to connect only to writings of people who are known experts-in-that-field or who are known respected journalists and not merely because some web site is hosting part of an anonymous source's content. IMDb does not get a blanket-trust exception in this regard. Wjhonson (talk) 09:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a number (about 100) selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Many of the articles were selected semi-automatically from a list of indefinitely semi-protected articles.
Please confirm that the protection level appears to be still warranted, and consider unprotecting instead, before applying pending changes protection to the article.

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Penfding changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 23:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC).

Sciences Po teaching

Marsden is an Enseignant at Sciences Po, one of literally hundreds of "business professionals" who teach a few classes there. She is not a tenured professor, a full time Professor or Associate Professor, a non tenured Research Professor or visiting professor i.e. not faculty at Sciences Po. She is a freelance lecturer. SEE http://formation.sciences-po.fr/enseignement/2013/KJOU/2250 Wikipedia has a reference page for ranking Professors and university teacher/lecturer status. See "Chargé d'enseignement" HERE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_rank_in_France CammieD (talk) 15:18, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Claim of international swimming fame

Wow, this bio is full of uncited amazing achievements. Marsden swam for Hyack swim club in the early 1990s. “Donnelly and Marsden met in 1990, at New Westminster’s Hyack swim club, where he was a coach and she was a swimmer” “at 17, Marsden and her family quit the club” (1991)

Tried out for, but quit the team at Simon Fraser University. (1993) “Donnelly met up with Marsden again—this time at SFU, where Donnelly had begun to coach.Marsden, on an academic scholarship, tried out for the swim team briefly, but quit after a few weeks.” Source: Vancouver Sun, May. 31, 1997: Coach presents lurid evidence SEE https://bucketsdata.wordpress.com/category/marsden/page/7/

Swimming records are public. She has a few from Canadian swim meets available online. These are not an international meets. SEE http://bcsummerswimming.com/docs/Provincials-2013ProvincialRecords.pdf http://archive.is/SwAbO

Her past as a swimmer is relevant because of the SFU scandal, but otherwise is unremarkable. CammieD (talk) 16:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Education accuracy

Marsden has a B.S. in biology/minor french from Simon Fraser University Spring 1998 SEE http://www.sfu.ca/~science/ann_rpt/97-98.pdf (control + F search for marsden)

She did not complete any graduate degree in law or criminology or anything else at Simon Fraser University or anywhere else. She has no degree higher than the B.S. from 1998. A few courses is irrelevant & incomplete when you drop out or leave or whatever, and reference to it should be removed. The only reason her time there is relevant to her notoriety is because she was also accused of stalking another Simon Fraser University faculty member, criminology professor Neil Boyd. In fact, in 1999 Marsden was ordered by Simon Fraser to stay away from Boyd, Donnelly (apparently an ongoing stalking issue) and another faculty member under a threat she would be kicked off campus. https://bucketsdata.wordpress.com/1999/06/02/toronto-star-2-june-1999-marsden-returns-to-sfu/ "Toronto Star, 2 June 1999, Leave faculty alone SFU tells Marsden" None of that needs to be added into this bio if the incomplete graduate courses are deleted.

Marsden has a technical diploma from British Columbia Institute of Technology 2000. http://www.bcit.ca/study/programs/610ddiplt This is a 2 year technical training degree. The prerequisites for new students are 1) a high school diploma (though sometimes grade 11 students can apply) and 2) English proficiency. http://www.bcit.ca/admission/changes.shtml CammieD (talk) 04:13, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

The education section has redundancies. I'm going to edit it so it does not repeat. CammieD (talk)

Governor's Medal for Academic Excellence.

Marsden received the BRONZE level medal in high school for good grades. SEE http://www.gg.ca/honour.aspx?id=7747&t=1&ln=Marsden She was awarded it in 1992. In Canada, this award is like being named to the honor roll in the U.S. and getting a form letter from the current President. This is the sort of award you would reference on a college application or for your first job, but not after that. The placement of this information in this bio page after her academic activity in college and technical school incorrectly implies it is an award she received later in life. I'm removing it because it is not a collegiate or higher academic recognition, the citation is listed as poor and that is because the source of the information is Marsden herself in a speaker bio blurb she wrote that does not accurately describe what the award is for or when it was given. CammieD (talk) 05:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Singer/Songwriter - no evidence

Again this claim is listed as poorly sourced because the sole source for this claim is Marsden writing about herself. There are no professional credits for Rachel Marsden (this one anyway) as a professional singer or songwriter. If Ms. Marsden (or anyone else) can produce a professional songwriting or singing credit in this category, she should do so. I've looked in a lot of databases. Nothing. CammieD (talk) 05:22, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Acting training - irrelevant

Marsden has no professional credits as an actress. Her appearances on television have all been as herself. Her acting training is irrelevant to anything she's done in a professional capacity. Removing. CammieD (talk) 05:43, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Author/Novelist Fiction/NonFiction?

Marsden is a columnist with professional credentials for the same in numerous publications. She also self published a fiction novel.

I'm not sure why she would be listed also as a non-fiction author? No citations are given for any other work beyond her self published book and newspaper columns. Editing for accuracy CammieD (talk) 05:53, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

specialistspeakers dot com as a source

I agree, that is a dodgy source (it was already in this article when I began editing). It is a bio blurb written by Marsden, and most of the information in it is simply not panning out. Thanks CammieD (talk) 08:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

National Post and Toronto Sun

Marsden worked for the National Post for eight weeks. They removed her columns from their website completely. But she did work there briefly and her columns were published. The citation I have up is not great. Looking for better. CammieD (talk) 19:52, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Marsden worked for the Toronto Sun for two years, but if her columns are still there they are only available through pay serviced archive retrieval via the Toronto Sun, which makes them difficult to link. I cited her work there to other news items that refer to her Toronto Sun columns. CammieD (talk) 21:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Dennis Miller appearances

Marsden appeared on Dennis Miller a few times, apparently as a guest. She is not among the regular panelists/cast listed by episodes in tv guide SEE http://www.tvguide.com/tvshows/dennis-miller/cast/432011 I found her listed as a guest and as as "columnist" on two episodes in 2004 on http://tv.msn.com/tv/series-episodes/dennis-miller.1/?sb=2&si=146&ipp=25 This doesn't qualify as "frequent". Changing narrative to reflect that CammieD (talk) 22:23, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Bill O'Reilly appearances

The Bill O'Reilly archives on his site only show her appearing as a guest on two airings in 2005. Editing to reflect that. SEE http://www.billoreilly.com/search/searchresultsframe.jsp?searchstring=rachel+marsden&x=0&y=0&sortby=0&sortdir=1&searchcategory=0 CammieD (talk) 22:57, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Red Eye and Getting Fired

It seems she was fired or dismissed or asked to leave during controversy from a lot of places (Simon Fraser University)(Grewal's Campaign while criminal case pending)(National Post after 2 months) (Toronto Sun after two years) and there are numerous places she says she worked that have erased any reference to her or her work from their websites.

The fact that she tends to end employment with negative press (blogs and newspapers) probably isn't really worth putting in a bio here. However, Marsden was fired from Red Eye after being there only five months. The quote from a producer of the show complimenting her is odd in this page because they fired her right after that. It should probably be removed. It is sourced material, but so is her firing. CammieD (talk) 23:10, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Political Strategist

The only place I see her having done anything like this for employment would be when she worked at Grewal's campaign writing press releases. That's not exactly high level campaign strategy consulting. She does political commentary as a columnist, which means she has ideas about what politicians should do, but has no known professional credit working for a political campaign or organization as a strategist, paid advisor, etc. Removing CammieD (talk) 01:18, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

All I know about her is what I read in the article, but I don't see anything that merits "political strategist". -- Hoary (talk) 02:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Self published novel

Marsden's book "American Bombshell" is a thinly veiled, fictonal retelling of her being fired from Fox News and moving to France. It seems she shopped around for a publisher and sent out excerpts from the book, but no publishers were interested. Gawker published the excerpts SEE http://gawker.com/5440653/the-revenge-of-a-booted-fox-news-babe So Marsden self-published and the book can be bought on Amazon as print on demand. http://www.amazon.com/American-Bombshell-Domestic-International-Invasion/dp/1466380969 There are only two customer reviews - one that describes the book for what it is and gives it one star, and one that gives it five stars and a review so glowing it compares Marsden's writing talent to "prose a la Truman Capote spiced up with not-so-subtle influences of Henry Miller and Simone de Beauvoir!" leaving very little doubt as to who the likely author of that review is.

Reference to her book shouldn't be removed, she did write the thing, even if only one person, possibly two, bought it. But I am removing "fictional author" from the lead intro to this page as it isn't a significant achievement the way "best selling author" might be. I'll go out on a limb and suggest her book is not what may bring people to look her up on Wikipedia, but it is a fact they might find interesting about her. CammieD (talk) 01:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

While the gist of what you're saying is fair enough, I think your views of the publishing industry may be a little dated. CreateSpace is indeed self-publishing. However, many books are print on demand. Having been very impressed by a library copy of Robert I. Binnick's Time and the Verb (mostly its content, but also its handsome binding), I took a deep breath (it's expensive) and ordered a copy for myself. Well, the content of the pages of my copy are the same as the library's, and the paper's decent. A product of the Clarendon Press, it ain't. OUP now admits this; if it did so when I ordered the book, I didn't notice. The process is now endemic in academic publishing. It's also common elsewhere in publishing. -- Hoary (talk) 02:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I've got nothing against self publishing and I am impressed with anyone who writes a novel, good or bad. That takes a lot of work, especially if you are the one who also has to edit it!! CammieD (talk) 02:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Free Congress Foundation

Marsden was supposedly working for FCF in 2002 when she was arrested for Criminal harassment in 2002. There are quite a few blog posts referring to that being her job at the time, but those are unsourced. Once again, the official website has no reference to her SEE http://www.freecongress.org/?s=marsden Whatever she did there, it made no news for the work itself (only in context of her being arrested) and no record of it seems to exist any more. Removing CammieD (talk) 00:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I hadn't realized that it was you who had removed it. I thought that it was me who had done so, accidentally. Looking back at a much earlier (2008) version of the article, I found the same claim with a reference. The reference is one that's still used elsewhere in the article, and that does say that she was working for FCF in 2002 (or, if you want to be pedantic, two years before 2004). I've therefore readded the reference. -- Hoary (talk) 02:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad you are editing along side me. I cheated and copied your "needs citation" notation because I could not figure it out myself :) CammieD (talk) 02:53, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Modeling claims

This bio page shows a better citation is needed for Marsden's claim to be a former print and runway model. The current citation is from a bio blurb she herself provided to "specialistspeakers.com" There is no proper citation available because Marsden has never been employed as a print or runway model. There is zero evidence supporting her claim. No print ads featuring her and no runway credits.

Marsden has a variety of photographs taken of her posing in skimpy clothes that were taken by a David Anthony in 1994 when Marsden was 19-20 years old. She used these photographs as part of her harassment of Coach Donnelly at Simon Fraser University in 1994-1995. Donnelly released a few of the pictures to the press during the controversy and Marsden has featured a lot of them on her own websites.

“Last week, Donnelly released e-mail he says Marsden sent offering him sexual favors, as well as photos of her in modelling poses.Photographer David Anthony said this week he took the pictures about three years ago. He said Marsden told him she was interested in someone who didn’t seem to reciprocate the romantic feelings. “She made a comment that maybe these photos would help her get the person,” said Anthony, who added that Marsden appeared to be joking.” (Vancouver Sun: June 6, 1997 Kitchener Record: June 6, 1997: University defends firing coach who skipped hearing) http://bucketsdata.wordpress.com/1997/06/06/kitchener-record-june-6-1997-university-defends-firing-coach-who-skipped-hearing/

She has second set of photographs (see imitation leather suit photos) taken by a Ken Villeneuve, who is a self described “pervert” photographer who advertises his services on Model Mayhem. This is his own description of himself from Model Mayhem "over the hill, overweight, pervy shutter monkey at your service. Will work for peanuts, (the salted in the shell kind), and beer. Satisfaction guaranteed. I shoot implied nudes with my implied camera. Burp..." SEE http://www.modelmayhem.com/65265

Lots of young women have pictures taken of themselves hoping to become a model. They even sign up for modeling classes. They might even do a free "runway" event at the local mall. That is not professional modeling. Marsden does not have professional modeling credentials. I recommend the reference to a nonexistent modeling career be deleted. CammieD (talk) 16:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, what you say is persuasive.

Although nothing in particular that you say above seems problematic, when I view it as a whole it seems to show a certain relish. Comments in talk pages about articles on living people should avoid creating such an impression. Then again, I may be misinterpreting. I hope so.

Also be careful with inferences. You write: "There is zero evidence supporting her claim. No print ads featuring her and no runway credits." I have no particular reason to think you're wrong; but the modelling industry is so large, and so many people (including several I know) have made brief appearances within it, that I doubt if anyone can be qualified to write it. Instead, perhaps: "I know of zero evidence that has been proffered to support such a claim...."

This may all seem like mere nitpicking, but we don't want this talk page to descend to its much earlier mess: that would be unfair to the biographee and also a huge waste of time for people wanting to make constructive edits to the article. -- Hoary (talk) 03:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Good point. I have been trying to make the wiki page accurate and to give proper credit where it could be given, and to remove things that can't be sourced. I started by trying to very the information in the specialistspeakers bio, but as claim after claim turned out to be unverifiable (or inaccurate) I let sarcasm get into the mix and forget the Talk page isn't private. I need to check that and keep to neutral, factual information. It's been a long two days of editing, but I do think this bio page is now fair, accurately sourced, concise and focused on areas that merit a wikipedia bio page, and it covers some of the damaging things that can't be ignored without piling on a bunch of unnecessary negativity. CammieD (talk) 03:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Relying on the subject as a source

The subject of this article has released numerous biography blurbs that contain claims that have been proven unreliable or nonexistent. People embellish their resumes and promotional biographies all the time, so I am not making a character judgment, but the subject of a bio article's statements on their own websites, promotional blurbs and self written press releases aren't a reputable or reliable source for factual material. CammieD (talk) 19:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

"Every article on Wikipedia must be based upon verifiable statements from multiple third-party reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. A third-party source is one that is entirely independent of the subject being covered, e.g., a newspaper reporter covering a story that they are not involved in except in their capacity as a reporter. The opposite of a third-party source is a first-party or non-independent source. A third-party source is not affiliated with the event, not paid by the people who are involved, and not otherwise likely to have a conflict of interest or significant bias related to the material." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Third-party_sources CammieD (talk) 19:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Tribune Media Services - career section

To be added to the Career section: Marsden was hired by Tribune Media Services as a weekly columnist and added to the "American Voices" syndication bundle package in May 2011. The news release for that is here, and it is sourced to Tribune Media Services http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/tms-to-offer-new-conservative-commentary-voice-121991823.html CammieD (talk) 21:10, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Where did she learn French

Since she does media commentary and teaches in France, it stands to reason she speaks French,probably very well. However, right now the article gives no hint about where she learned French. This would be an interesting addition to the article.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 00:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

A little Googling provided the answer. She was schooled almost entirely in French until high school. Source OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 01:33, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the classes she teaches at Sciences Po seem to all be in English only. SEE http://www.journalisme.sciences-po.fr/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=13&Itemid=36&lang=french#catalogue1A I've never seen her speaking French and assume she does. Just found that interesting. CammieD (talk) 06:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, all her classes listed there are indeed in English. (But it's possible that she's fluent in French all the same.) -- Hoary (talk) 10:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

CEO of Rachel Marsden Associates

Marsden claims this company is a Limited Liability Company headquartered in both Paris, France and Toronto, Canada.

(Redacted)

The business has not filed any annual accounting. Date of Incorporation: 01/08/2010 Siret: 521244921 NAF code 8559B – education, teaching. Legal Form: (Other) Individual (there are no employees) (no distinction between personal/business assets) APE: 8542Z VAT: FR6521244921 Activity: Higher Education – she is an adjunct professor at Sciences Po in Paris.

Marsden is registered as a freelance entrepreneur "profession liberale". This means she is self-employed. She is not registered as a company that has other employees or officers.

(Redacted)

There is no listing in France for Rachel Marsden as the officer (CEO or otherwise) of any company. There is no listing in France for a Limited Liability Company or any other business entity for a Rachel Marsden Associates.

In order to teach in France as a non EU foreigner Marsden had to register as a “profession liberale” (independent worker) through the URSAAF and obtain a SIRET for taxation and social security purposes. Her code assigned authorizes her to teach. And that is what she does in France.

As a part time, adjunct lecturer, she is not full time faculty at Sciences Po nor an employee. She is a guest worker similar to an independent contractor.

(Redacted)

Maybe Rachel Marsden can clear this up? CammieD (talk) 06:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

After a great deal of investigating I still find no news referencing this company or any evidence of it doing business. There is evidence it does NOT do business. The only references to it are bio descriptions of Marsden submitted by Marsden. No news sources, no objective reporting on any activity, nothing. The website for it exists, but that is it. The info portion of this page reads like an advert for the company. This should probably just be an external link. CammieD (talk) 17:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Removed 'businesswoman' from bio because her businesses are 1)columnist and 2) lecturer at university which are already listed. CammieD (talk) 19:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I know nothing of French or Canadian tax law (and am too lazy to look it up), but can easily believe that the company is actual and legitimate. In the nation where I happen to live, it was until recently difficult and expensive to start up and run a limited liability company, but now (thanks perhaps to encouragement of "entrepreneurship") it's rather easy. It's now not rare for self-employed people who are at least moderately successful to form companies that in practice are no more than themselves. So if your company was previously employing an external graphic designer, it might now be employing an external graphic design company (consisting of that same graphic designer). And you could truthfully call the graphic designer a businesswoman, although this would only be a trivial truth. -- Hoary (talk) 10:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

A LLC supposedly founded in 2002 with 50+ employees purportedly doing global business on two continents that has no financials or compliance documents or news items in ten years? No. Those are sole proprietor/freelance registrations without significant enough income to trigger filing requirements 70.94.98.13 (talk) 12:56, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Bare References need filled in

‹The template below is included via a redirect (Template:Edit protected) that is under discussion. See redirects for discussion to help reach a consensus.›

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

There are bare references on this page. I used Reflinks, but couldn't save the output.

Can someone use Reflinks themselves to fix this?--Auric talk 20:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: According to the page's protection level and your user rights, you should currently be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:24, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Message from the article subject (Rachel Marsden)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No legal threats

My name is Rachel Marsden and I am the subject of this Wikipedia article. For the past week, this biography of me has been subjected to repeated outright defamation and fallacies by an individual (some kind of apparently obsessed fan) who has waged an online campaign of harassment against me in various online forums, and through direct and indirect contact with my family, associates, employers, and clients, since approximately August 2013, the details of which have been included in at least two police reports and a U.S. civil court filing, and are available to anyone who might be interested in viewing them. The individual in question has posted on this article's talk page under both her IP address (resolving, as expected to Kansas City), and under the username "CammieD". A usercheck will serve to verify that this is indeed the same woman targeting me under different accounts. Moreover, this person has recently posted what she believes to be my home address and personal information on Wikipedia, in violation of all privacy laws of the jurisdiction in which I reside. She has made repeated allegations of criminality against a person who has never been convicted of any crime. She has further expressed a desire to obtain financial records related to my privately held company - a fact that should serve to underscore the nature of this individual's bad-faith intentions in targeting this biography. This biography was more or less accurate and complete, and the product of many years of Wikipedian collaboration, prior to this person creating a single-purpose account on February 27th, for the sole and intent purpose of targeting me for yet more of the same kind of ongoing online defamation, stalking and harassment to which she has subjected me, my family, and my employers for several months. Further details and documentation pertaining to this person's activities can be obtained via direct contact with me at rachelmarsden at gmail dot com. I kindly request, in the light of the aforementioned circumstances, that the stable version of this biography which existed prior to this person's targeted and bad-faith involvement please be reinstated and retained. Please feel free to contact me directly should you have any questions. Many thanks (in advance) for your time, effort, and consideration. Kindest regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.132.58.181 (talk) 02:29, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

All information in the article and Talk page posts associated with them edited by me are sourced to information readily available in public records or reputable news articles. Links are provided. Any reader/editor/admin can verify the information is public and sourced. CammieD (talk) 02:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The information presented in the sources is NOT reflective whatsoever of the content of your edits, (Redacted). You have a civil case pending against you at the moment, working its way through the court system and pending service. Let this represent the sole and final time that I ever bother to engage with you directly. As you might imagine, it's generally not advised for a public figure to engage directly with a tirelessly obsessive fan like yourself, as it tends to only exacerbate the harassment by affording the obsessive the attention that they crave. Suffice it to say that your ongoing campaign of harassment, this time turning to targeting this editable biography of me, is as objectionable as your other means of harassment - and no less conspicuous. I demand that you refrain from any further direct or indirect involvement, contact with, or harassment (online or otherwise) of me, my family, my employers, my associates, my company or any associates thereof.

An ANI has been filed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Legal_threat_by_IP_user_claiming_to_subject_of_an_article EvergreenFir (talk) 04:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

But yes, the article is dodgy

During occasional short breaks from editing something utterly unrelated to WP, I'm looking at the references. Today I found that one link was dead (this doesn't reflect badly on the editor; links do die) and when located at the Wayback Machine the source turned out to look like something knocked off in ten minutes by a journalist after a lunchtime o'booze. One other reference was to a more or less open wiki, agreed at WP:RSN not to be a reliable source. (I removed both references.) A single reference explicitly cited three times did say pretty much what it was claimed to say, but an event described in it was melodramatically described in the WP article as "tumultuous": arguably an accurate summary, but gratuitous editorializing all the same. It would be helpful if a number of experienced editors evaluated all the sources, checked them against what's said in the article, and removed exaggerations.

A lot of edits have been made in the last couple of weeks. They've been explained both above and in the summaries to a standard much higher than the average for Wikipedia, and on balance they've been an improvement. But NB while the content must be verifiable this isn't enough: the article should also reflect a neutral point of view. -- Hoary (talk) 07:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

There also seems an intent to push a POV when a source with a headline of "Wanted: Conservative columnist. Convictions for stalking not a problem."" is used to verify a claim that she wrote for a newspaper. Really? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 07:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The page is hosted by Western Standard, so it's not negligible. Yet it's an article whose content is deeply marinated in snark. Yes, there's sure to be a better alternative. Please do replace it. (I think I've devoted enough time to this article and related [non-] issues for one day.) - Hoary (talk) 08:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

[Attends to other matters; returns, hoping to find edits.] No? Oh well, I gave it a go. The source isn't used to say that she wrote for any newspaper; it's used to say that she wrote for the National Post. So I googled "rachel marsden" "national post". There were a lot of hits. But in news, there were none; so I had to go back to the regular list. Notoriously, Google creates a "bubble" for the user. Perhaps it's because I'm allegedly a paid stooge for liberalism that the list of hits for my own bubble is full of material that makes the "Wanted" article look pretty tame. There might be something in the part of this Maclean's article that you have to pay to see, but the gratis part seems written with lip-smacking relish (and the article has a title to match). Over to you, Pen. -- Hoary (talk) 08:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

the lip smacking relish seems to be the nature of most of the coverage: it would seem she is notable for being the target of media snark? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:11, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

That is a problem with articles written while she worked in Canada. The SFU scandal was a huge deal in the papers, so every writer seems to have an opinion of her. And it is probably why they wrote about her at all. I tried to find sources that had done some factual research, but it is really hard to avoid snarky slants. She was a controversial person there CammieD (talk) 15:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

given the lack of wide coverage of her stint w/ the post and the blp issues raised by this particular source, it is WP:UNDUE weight to include in the lead.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Reminder

Just came across this Arbitration Committee ruling regarding this article which might be important to post as a reminder:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rachel Marsden#Articles which relate to Rachel Marsden
Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:08, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Newspapers via blog

Single purpose accounts

Of the many things Wikipedia does not need, single purpose accounts fixated on biographies are close to the top of the list. Assuming good faith, we still ask such editors to step away from the article, or be prevented form editing altogether. The reasons for this are obvious if you think about it: wider experience is certainly important when editing controversial biographies, such articles are a really bad place to go through the learning process on NPOV, sourcing and the like. Changes may of course be suggested on this talk page. Guy (Help!) 12:36, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I was going to go look at Rob Ford's page next. Bad idea? CammieD (talk) 15:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm about to respond to this on your talk page. -- Hoary (talk) 09:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

MyWikiBiz as a factual source

"MyWikiBiz is a wiki directory that allows people and enterprises to write about themselves." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MyWikiBiz CammieD (talk) 20:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

PS: I don't really care where Marsden is from. Just source it correctly. CammieD (talk) 20:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

It's also a site that has an agenda against Wikipedia in general, Jimmy Wales in particular, and will do whatever it can to undermine both. As a source of amy material related in any way to Wikipedia or Jimmy, it is worse than useless. Guy (Help!) 12:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

But Guy, what you say, if true, seems utterly irrelevant to the purpose for which (I think) CammieD brings up the matter. Here is the bio page in RM's own website. In itself, it's not helpful: it's what would here be called a stub. Note that it says "Click here to view Rachel's full bio", and note that the "here" is "Rachel Marsden" at MyWikiBiz. This in turn redirects to the page "Directory:Rachel Marsden" within MyWikiBiz. Take a look. (It will all be easy to grasp, as the website obviously uses MediaWiki software.) The history of the page shows that aside from some administrative interventions it has been edited exclusively by a user named RachelMarsden (though it hasn't been touched for the last year and a half). All in all it seems safe to say that this is effectively an extension of RM's own website. CammieD didn't choose the best title for this section, but despite the title CammieD is I think pointing out here that on this page of MyWikiBiz RM herself says that she was born in Vancouver. And yes, she seems to be saying it. We normally take people's word for it when they say that they were born in such-and-such a place. Of course her birthplace has nothing whatever to do with Wikipedia or Jimmy Wales. If this page also included a tirade against either, I wouldn't see how this would be of any consequence; but as it happens the strings "wikipedia" and "wales" appear nowhere on the page, which appears polite and indeed humdrum. -- Hoary (talk) 06:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC) .... slightly reworded for clarity Hoary (talk) 14:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

CammieD's input here is rather unhelpful, based on a review of edit content. It doesn't matter if the words appear on the page, MyWikiBiz is a plainly conflicted and unreliable source where it relates to any person with any connection to Wikipedia or Jimbo. And now little bells are ringing so I will go away while I am still assuming good faith. Guy (Help!) 17:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I should have titled this section "MyWikiBiz is not a neutral 3P source". That was my point. The subject is the author, it is not fact checked and is not reliable. Didn't know about it being a site with an agenda, but keeping that in mind now. Sorry for confusion. CammieD (talk) 17:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)