Talk:Rachel Marsden

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)

with white stains that she claimed belonged to Wales

Can someone please elaborate on these "white stains" that are mentioned near the end of the article? I am concerned about the NPOV of the paragraph containing this context. Is this implying that Jimbo experienced pre-mature ejaculation in Rachel Marsden's presence?130.49.142.153 (talk) 21:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, yes it is. 66.27.163.146 (talk) 01:03, 29 March 2011 (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:

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).