This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
I've just stubbified the article and archived the talk due to constant bickering between sides ad nauseum infinitum. Constructive contribution is required, and anything that appears not to be will be reverted. Will(talk)23:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No Unsubstantiated Allegations
It's against Wiki policy (and also the arbcom ruling on this article) to post unsubstantiated allegations against a living person. If you're going to accuse someone of criminal wrongdoing based on gossip, without even an arrest or charge, let alone a conviction, that's an awfully dangerous game. Ms. Marsden is a highly controversial political figure with many enemies. Let's please keep that in mind when people start posting unsubstantiated criminal allegations (made by someone who's under investigation themselves, yet) without even so much as a charge or even an arrest. I would tend to agree with the person who said to revert this article to the pre-war Dec 10th, 2007, version and lock it for the time being. lolzing(talk)24:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I actually don't think that that's the best idea, as the edit war would continue. I think that demolishing and rebuiling is better than relaying the bricks. Will(talk)00:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The quotes from 70.68.151.228 (talk·contribs), Republicon (talk·contribs) and 64.26.147.175 (talk·contribs) provided above are sourced from edit summaries. Unfortunately, 70.68.151.228 and Republicon have not yet participated in the discussion concerning the material in question. 64.26.147.175 (talk·contribs)'s sole contribution is to accuse me of pushing a "leftists agenda (sic)". In the interests of moving forward and building a new article I reveal here that I am actually a centrist (and a fiscal conservative to boot) and remind 64.26.147.175 of the Wikipedia policy concerning the assumption of good faith.
I must add that one of my greatest disappointment concerning the stubbification of this article was the decision to also archive the discussion page. This included the archiving of the unsubstantiated claims & restoration section, which I began little more than 24 hours ago in the hopes of discussing how the information contained in the Toronto Star article would be treated.
In the interests of restarting the discussion, I offer the following:
The Toronto Star story concerns an ongoing investigation of Marsden by the Ontario Provincial Police. Nowhere in the article (or now deleted versions of the Wikipedia article in question) is it stated that Rachel Marsden is guilty of the allegations. As I wrote in the now archived "unsubstantiated claims & restoration" section, the investigation of a public figure for possible wrongdoing is indeed newsworthy, appropriate and anything but anything but unusual. I again point to the articles concerning Ralph Goodale and the Canadian federal election, 2006. Further to this, I again point to the Requests for page protection on which Republicon has stated: "Allegations minus a charge, conviction, or even arrest are nothing but gossip and in violation of Wiki standards and practices." For a second time I ask to which policies and guidelines Republicon is referring. And again, nowhere - not in the Toronto Star, nor in the removed passages from the Wikipedia article - is there a claim that Marsden is guilty of anything. What is mentioned, is that there is a police investigation into wrongdoing. The source is the newspaper with the largest circulation in the country.
Clayoquot (talk·contribs) has kindly informed me that the requests for arbitration page concerning Rachel Marsden is found here. I note that the case does not address the Toronto Star article, and in fact pre-dates the news story in question by more than twelve months. Victoriagirl (talk) 04:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The over-riding conclusion of ArbCom was Marsden's bio has been the focus of relentless torquing by Canadian admins and editors. Its conclusions should be kept in mind here.
I am left wondering what happens if the "investigation" end without charges. Will the papers report that? And if they do, and both the "investigation" and the "no charges" stuff is placed in this bio, does "no charges" negate the "investigation" material. Or does this, like ArbCom said a year ago, become part of a long string of unproven claims woven together to make Marsden look like a psycho and a liar? 64.26.148.20 (talk) 14:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's face it, this woman needs to be punished. Victoriagirl knows all the rules and how to use them to best advantage to "get" the neo-cons so let her get this one. Chucky the barber (talk) 22:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
