Talk:Rachel Marsden/Archive 1

[edit] The Rug is Not Big Enough

Yes. That's what everyone wants to read about. Yup. Really. Nothing else to see. Yea, she called herself "Elle Henderson" once. No other reason why anyone would want to look her up. Folks, just move on. Nothing to see here. Kurt Turkulney (talk) 00:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• The first time I edited this page ad admin jumped down my throat for adding the 'wrong' names. I'm just giving new editors to this article a heads-up so that they don't get jumped on. Canuckle (talk) 00:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• There are plenty of reasons people come to read this article. Presumably though, they're probably interested in her life given that this is a biography. Using a different name is a pretty significant aspect of anyone's life. The name could be one reason. You can find a plethora of other reasons in the rest of the article. Do you think it is damaging, trivial, or what? –Pomte 00:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Probably not nearly as notable or crowd-drawing as shagging Jimbo Wales and exposing his wiki fixing, I'll wager. Kurt Turkulney (talk) 00:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

In the grand scheme of things, this most recent controversy will not be what history will know her for. But that's my perspective, just as you have yours. I look forward to your adding content about the 'wiki fixing.' Canuckle (talk) 01:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

By the way, the Western Standard is up before a Canadian Human Rights Commission for publishing hate literature. [1] But, hey, that's why people are coming to this page, right? Right? Kurt Turkulney (talk) 00:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, the complaint (about republishing cartoons) was withdrawn.

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

Or get it right from Levant [2] Kurt Turkulney (talk) 00:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• I stand corrected. But whether they are being sued or not doesn't change the facts. Replace with a more reliable source if you like but those were the reported facts. Canuckle (talk) 01:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't make it muich of a source. But then, this is about dfestroying Marsden's credibility, right? Kurt Turkulney (talk) 01:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

A better source: Peter O’Neil, "MP fires aide on harassment charges: B.C. woman linked to controversial stalking cases", National Post (May 8, 2004), A2

• destroying her credibility? Maybe that's your motivation. I began editing Marsden's bio months ago and actually got a consensus on a balanced (as much as BLP let us) version that sat fine until some skullduggery over new year's. Getting fired by Grewal doesn't affect her credibility - it wasn't based on her work performance but on a politician avoiding controversy before an election. Canuckle (talk) 03:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Taking a Bullet for Mr. Big

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

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

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