Talk:Warren Kinsella: Difference between revisions
Anti-neo-Nazi activism |
No edit summary |
||
Line 216: | Line 216: | ||
Could somebody please expand on ''Web of Hate'' and his conflicts with the far right? I don't want anyone puzzling at his inclusion (at my own hand, a while back) in [[:Category:Anti-neo-Nazi activism]]... Thanks! [[User:Samaritan|Samaritan]] 03:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC) |
Could somebody please expand on ''Web of Hate'' and his conflicts with the far right? I don't want anyone puzzling at his inclusion (at my own hand, a while back) in [[:Category:Anti-neo-Nazi activism]]... Thanks! [[User:Samaritan|Samaritan]] 03:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC) |
||
:Anybody who does such a section might want to look at the criticisms of the book as well if they go through with it. One of these "conflicts" is deciding that anybody who once was photographed shaking hands with an anti-Semite at a public rally was themselves a "far right neo-Nazi". The six degree of separation method, as it were. "Far-right", already a meaningless smear statement itself, further was used to the torture of the English language, as I hope any subsection praising Kinsella's work in this subject balances itself out with the responses by those who discovered they hated the Jews when they read about it in "Web of Hate" |
Revision as of 09:04, 12 May 2006
[[Kinsella is suing me for changing this entry (which I do admit to. I changed the part in regards to me.) I have posted the statement of claim on my web site
Mark Bourrie www.ottawawatch.com]]
Gomery Inquiry Info Missing
Someone, likely Kinsella, edited the page March 3 to get rid of all the material that makes him look bad in the Gomery section.
Why is there no information at all on this page about Kinsella's role in the Gomery Scandal that brought down the Liberal government that he worked for? It's not rumour or innuendo, there is a transcript of the judicial proceedings with statements by the judge about Kinsella. Or does this Wikipedia board only serve as a smear machine against conservatives while propping up liberals by leaving out damning and crucial facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.25.152.39 (talk • contribs)
- No, Rachel. As you yourself should know your possibly defamatory statements about Ezra Levant and The Western Standard were quickly removed from the relevant articles. --Cyberboomer 00:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
- Isn't that cute. Geoff NoNick 15:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I believe Kinsella writes this page. He uses the same words to misrepresent the blog entry that he's suing over (2006). He calims it accuses him of being an "important actor" in a "kickback scandal". A check of the blog entry in question (www.ottawawatch.blogspot.com, Jan. 14) shows the words are taken out of context. In fact, the blog entry says Guite was a key actor in Sponsorship, not Kinsella. There should be something in this entry about Kinsella, Sponsorship, and the Gomery Commission. (George Sestostris)
Relevance
I'm unconvinced that Warren Kinsella is a significant enough figure to warrant an article of this length (or one at all) in an encyclopedia. Without the pictures and sidebar, the article is roughly the same length as Wilfrid Laurier's! Anyone care to comment? Geoff NoNick 20:54, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
- He's published several books with major Canadian presses, so I think he deserves an entry, but I agree it should be much briefer. HistoryBA 23:22, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
- I've tried to group the main body of the article into the two main reasons he's notable - "Politics" and "Writing" - and trim some of the anecdotes ("the Flintstones wasn't a documentary", et al) to bring down the size to something more reasonable. If anyone doesn't like it, revert away. Geoff NoNick 19:31, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
- Well done! HistoryBA 23:22, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
- To me, that's less a reason to trim Warren Kinsella than it is a reason to expand Wilfrid Laurier! -Joshuapaquin 23:40, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
2004 Libel Controversy
I think this section needs a little discussion. Here's how it appears today (Oct 23 2004):
In 2004 Warren aroused controversy when he threatened legal action against Canadian bloggers who he alleged libelled him and his family. For many in the Canadian blogosphere, his resort to legal action, instead of open discussion, was seen as an attack on free speech. The issue was eventually settled without the need for litigation, and is considered a pivotal moment in the Canadian blogosphere's coming of age.
This is definitely an improvement in NPOV over the original wording. I still think two things need to be discussed though:
1) Does anyone else think that the phrase "legal action, instead of open discussion" unnecessarily paints Kinsella specifically as unreasonable, given that no context about the nature of the alleged libel is provided?
2) From what I've read, it looks like most of the controversy took place around October 15, 2004. It is now October 23. Might it be premature to describe this as a "pivotal moment" in the blogosphere?
If no comments on this for a while, I'll unilaterally make some edits to try to improve upon the text. -Joshuapaquin 03:32, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
Changed "Punk Rocker" to musician. The title case was inappropriate, and the term itself overly subjective for an introductory paragraph. Not even Johnny Rotten describes himself as a punk rocker.
addressing recent changes
Hi,
Thanks for editting the original post. You are right, there was alot of NPOV, as it was written very close to events. To address your second point first.
1) Mr. Kinsella sent libel notices to four bloggers over a period of at least two months (if you want me to provide links I will do so). It was only the fourth blogger who decided to "stand up" to him, and this was within the period in October you mention. So this was obviously when heat was generated on the boards.
I believe it is very accurate to describe this as a pivotal moment for the blogosphere. In the case of the fourth blogger, it was only after it became clear that Canadian bloggers from across the political spectrum (I'm an NDP supporter) would come to his aid with money, moral support, technical help that compromise could be reached. This gave the cross-spectrum of bloggers (right to left) involved a sense of community, of purpose, and an idea of what could be done if they worked together. Even those bloggers who were supporters of Mr. Kinsella's party said they were happy, in the end, a compromise could be reached. So there was a sense bloggers negotiating among themselves, without any outside help, could come up with a solution. These are all very important events in the development of any community.
2) Your first point is much tougher, and it might be something that might be difficult for your subject if it is addressed. Most bloggers believed the libel threats, especially the fourth one, were spurious, and were prepared to retain legal help to prove it so. I believe the phrase as it stands accurately describes events, and would be difficult to change without distorting what happened. If you wanted to add context, specifically about the libel allegations, then we might also have to add a qualification about the libel allegations being spurious. As Mr. Kinsella is a lawyer, and spurious legal actions are frowned upon, this might reflect badly on him in his wikipedia entry
I'll conclude by adding some links below. It might be best, if you find the above points difficult to concede to read about what happened. But be warned, it is very involved.
Cheers S.P.
http://www.blogscanada.ca/egroup/CommentView.aspx?guid=4963ee56-c66c-4476-b444-aa4ef74ef040
http://www.blogscanada.ca/egroup/CommentView.aspx?guid=13125679-9bda-4963-84e4-af0e2cce7afb
http://www.blogscanada.ca/egroup/CommentView.aspx?guid=318771cd-d95c-4471-b7c9-340b72d6b78d
- I'm troubled by the use of the word "compromised" to describe the way the dispute was settled. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I understood that three of the four bloggers simply backed down and removed the material in question from their blogs. One issued a clarification saying that he didn't mean to say that Kinsella's parents were "retarded." It seems to me, therefore, that there wasn't so much a compromise, but that the four bloggers backed down. I'm not trying to take one side or the other; I'm merely trying to find the wording that will best describe the incident. HistoryBA 13:17, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Proposal for compromise: For many in the Canadian blogosphere, his resort to legal action, instead of open discussion, was seen as an attack on free speech becomes instead For many in the Canadian blogosphere, this response was seen as an attack on free speech. I just think that contrasting "legal action" and "open discussion" carries an inescapable NPOV connotation, especially for those who may not understand how "open discussion" works in the blogosphere.
- By the way, I hope you aren't getting the impression that I am a raging Kinsella fan - I used to be, but then he got himself photographed wearing this. I just think the controversy here should be explained in such a way that all parties involved would say "Yeah, that's basically how it happened." -Joshuapaquin 17:39, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
/IMHO/ You're just adding fuel to the fire with this one Joshua. The only one with a law degree that I could see is Kinsella.
Larry Darrell- Oct.27- BA History's latest post and comments on Joshua are quite accurate- A bit of the (Martin) Liberal Youth wing seeping through the original Joshua posts
- Larry, I don't understand this exactly. I think HistoryBA's latest modification is a good one, and I would have made a similar one myself, had I more confidence in my knowledge of the details of the issue.
- As for alleged "Liberal Youth wing" seepage, I'd point out that I started this discussion because I thought the paragraph was unfairly harsh to Kinsella - check the page history, it's all there. Kinsella is, of course, unabashedly anti-Martin. So it's utterly nonsensical, I think, to label me a Martinite zealot. -Joshuapaquin 00:03, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
Larry Darrell- Oct.28- 1- Joshua,I didn't say you where a Martin "Zealot", now did I ?
2- I did say BA History's mod was good, did I not ? 3- You are saying " had I more confidence in my knowledge of details of the issue" are you not ? Yet, you flew into this controversy and posted all sorts of material. 4- Your comments where posted in conservative blogs as supporting their views.Yet you, proclaim you are a Liberal supporter. Since, it's no secret that Kinsella and Martin aren't great buds, and Mike Robinson pretty well suggested they didn't need (or want) Kinsella in the last election what else I am to conclude ?
- Oy. Here we go.
- 1) When you said that a "Martin Liberal youth wing" was "seeping" into my contributions, I interpreted that as an accusation of pro-Martin bias. I still fail to see any justification for that claim. Please, enlighten me.
- 2) Yes you did. So did I. So why start an argument? That's what I was really asking in my first response above.
- 3) My position on this 'controversy' is that of an interested Wikipedian, not a blog expert. I have challenged no one on the facts- I've sought to improve the language.
- 4) Have my comments been reproduced in conservative blogs? Wow. I'm flattered. Please, send a link! -Joshuapaquin 17:15, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
Here you go, Joshua: http://reviewing.blogspot.com/2004_10_17_reviewing_archive.html
Larry
re: "compromise"
Only the first two bloggers unilaterally took down their posts. The second two negotiated with Mr. Kinsella for changes on his website and on theirs. In the case of the third blogger, Mr. Kinsella mentioned white supremacist hate mail he recieved about the time of the controversy, and said it showed what kind of circles his "detractors travelled in". Kinsella later compromised by changing this to "some of" his detractors after communication with the third blogger
Please see http://www.polspy.ca/items/2004/10/16/841.html
which also includes mention of legal opinions stating Mr. Kinsella's libel threats were spurious.
Mr. Kinsella's logs showed about the time he was saying his critics in this controversy were racist, he was reciving visits on his website from a white supremacist website. In the past, Mr. Kinsella has shown he was capable of reading and understanding his logs. It seem unethical then to many bloggers that he should attempt to smear his critics in this affair as racist when it seemed very likely the hate-mail came from racist organizations he has fought against for many years.
See: http://warrenkinsella.com/stats/usage_200410.html#TOPREFS
and look for the domain "stormfront"
The compromised between the fourth blogger and Mr. Kinsella can be seen here:
So I think it is accurate to say most of the parties involved compromised, which I think is also an important lesson for the future in the blogosphere. The blogopshere treats everyone more or less as equal, and this can be distorted when someone who is well-off and a trained lawyer like Mr. Kinsella starts to use these real-world advantages. I think by compormising without using legal action, Mr. Kinsella set a good example, and it bodes well for the future of the blogosophere.
I also urge you to explore many of the links of this page, especially the blogcannada links. Your understanding seems to come from Mr. Kinsella's website, and it might be useful to see the other side.
Cheers,
S.P. --66.38.128.10 18:07, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
re: Joshua's suggestion
Good suggestion. Though I think we could use this entry to educate people a little bit on how the blogosphere works. How about something like: For many in the Canadian blogosphere, his use of legal action, instead of initiating discussion, was seen as an attack on free speech.
S.P. Oct 24, 2004
- We're very close to reaching an agreement here! But we can't say he used legal action if he never actually filed a lawsuit, can we? How about, this threat of legal action, rather than further discussion, was seen... -Joshuapaquin 00:33, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
- I have to disagree with the suggestion that we "use" this entry to "educate" people on the blogosphere. The purpose of this entry is to provide information on Warren Kinsella. People who want to be educated on the blogosphere should click on the link to that entry. HistoryBA 00:59, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Joshua first:
- Yup, we're almost there. Good point about the legal action, you're right there. I think "further discussion" is problematic. Much of the intensity in the whole controversy came from the fact many bloggers percieved Mr. Kinsella as threatening legal action first, before discussion with the community. Thus "further" might not be accurate, because discussion was not offered in the first place. How about For many in the Canadian blogosphere, the threat of libel action, instead of open discussion with the bloggers, was seen as an attack on free speech.
- You'll notice I changed "legal" to "libel" which I think is important, because the issue here was free speech in the blogoshere. One of the central dynamics in the controversy was the fact Mr. Kinsella was a well-connected lawyer who could easily back up his threat of a libel suit, whereas the bloggers were ordinary people. Mentioning libel here also underlines the tension that exists in free societies between free speech and defamtory speech.
- I also added "open discussion". One of the central features of the blogosphere is the fact that debate takes place in an open and transparent manner with posts, comments etc. It is fact of life in the blogosphere that if someone posts something that is incorrect or silly it is immediately taken apart with the whole community watching. If its okay I'd like to say "open" discussion, because I think its one of the most important features of the blogosphere.
- We'll get there yet :-)
- S.P.--66.38.128.82 01:15, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- HistoryBA --
- I have to disagree with the suggestion that we "use" this entry to "educate" people on the blogosphere
- You're absolutely right there, and I apologize if I suggested it was appropriate to hijack Mr. Kinsella's entry for another purpose. I do belive though that some mention of the Canadian blogosphere is appropriate in his entry. Mr. Kinsella is perhaps the most popular political blogger in the Canadian blogosphere, and definately foremost in the public eye. On his website he says he recently went to a conference at Trent U where he spoke as an expert on bloggers. In that respect then, an even-handed description of his activities in the blogosphere is warranted.
- Cheers, S.P.--66.38.128.82 01:21, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I went ahead and entered the changes I made above, as other interested parties have made changes in the meantime. Please indicate if you find them acceptable/unacceptable. The qualifer "Some consider the controversy" was added, and I agree this is a good change as it gives a more neutral POV.
- S.P.--66.38.128.82 06:18, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I'm satisfied with this revision. -Joshuapaquin 21:53, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
- Cool. Good luck in the future. S.P.--66.38.128.59 23:35, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
This page may be buzzing on watchlists again. We've got an anonymous, hit-and-run delete freak. So I'm just going to keep reverting to the most complete version until he has the guts to get a username, or post on the talk page. -Joshuapaquin 15:07, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
To balance the statement of Mr Kinsella's belief that the posts in question constituted libel under the law, I added a statement of the blogger's belief that the posts in question were not libellious. I believe this balance is important for the context of public discourse and how it can be effected by the notion of "libel chill", and how the issue percieved differently by different parties. Please see above for links describing the blogger's POV. S.P.--66.38.128.55 00:03, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- OK, if we're going to put that in, I think we need to restructure the paragraph a bit for readability's sake. Here's a proposal:
- In 2004 Kinsella aroused controversy when he threatened legal action against certain Canadian bloggers who he alleged libelled him and his family through blog posts. The bloggers, who believed that their posts did not constitute libel under the law, perceived the threat of legal action as an attack on free speech. The issue was eventually settled without litigation when most parties involved compromised. Some consider the controversy a pivotal moment in the Canadian blogosphere's coming of age.
- The only sentence that has been entirely removed, rather than reformed, is that saying Kinsella believes libel law applies to the internet- which I think is fairly obvious after the first sentence. I further propose that we take one of the links S.P. has graciously provided and put it under the External Links section, to substantiate the information in this paragraph. -Joshuapaquin 00:18, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
- Oops! I failed to notice that the part I had deleted in my proposal was actually exactly what HistoryBA had added. I'm sorry about that, no slight was intended. But could you (HistoryBA) please weigh in on the above proposal to see how we can fit in that information while keeping the paragraph concise and simple? -Joshuapaquin 00:23, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
- OK, so it turns out that HistoryBA and I have been doing some simultaneous editing. How about that. But actually, I'm content with his revision. Let's see what S.P. thinks, and hopefully we can be done with all this. -Joshuapaquin 00:27, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
The statement not all the bloggers in question had made libellous statements is not accurate. The members of the blogosphere involved in this controversy concluded after much discussion (see the first of the E-group posts above) that none of the four bloggers had made libellious statements. Obviously, Mr. Kinsella saw things differently, but the position of the opposite side must be accurately represented. Change to: In the view of many in the Canadian blogosphere, the statments the bloggers made were not libel and the threat of legal action was an attack on free speech. S.P. --66.38.128.183 23:07, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- That's fair. Good change. -Joshuapaquin 00:22, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
- I agree that S.P.'s proposed change makes sense, though I don't think S.P.'s summary on this page accurately reflects the situation. S.P. implies that there was unanimity among bloggers that none of the posts was libellous. Note, however, the following text taken from one of the sites S.P. listed above: "I don't know if what I wrote meets the legal definition of defamation, and I can't afford to find out, so I've deleted the post." This certainly shows that not all the bloggers thought the all the posts were free of libel. At least one of the bloggers was neutral on the subject. In any case, this is a minor quibble, and, as I say above, I agree with the latest change. HistoryBA 00:04, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Hi. I think HistoryBA's minor quibble should have some context, beginning with the entire quotation that was pulled. This is the full paragraph, with the missing sentence in italics:
I'm not a lawyer, like Warren Kinsella, LL.B. I don't know if what I wrote meets the legal definition of defamation, and I can't afford to find out, so I've deleted the post.full post
- I don't know if the blogger's unfamiliarity with the law can be construed as "neutrality". In any event what was written in the particular post HistoryBA is referring to was considered unlibellous by a member of the blogosphere who had completed a year at Dalhousie Law School. This blogger wrote:
I did read Damian's post that drew the latest threat. It was not anything I saw as being even remotely defamatory. I've only got a year of law school, so my legal knowledge is very small, but I don't think that it would come close.Full post
- For the record, I guess. Cheers. S.P.--66.38.128.29 23:08, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, that was the context. The point is that the blogger in question did not have an opinion one way or another whether the post was libellous. I called this neutrality, meaning that the blogger voiced no opinion. The fact that some law student had an opinion does not change the fact that it was incorrect for S.P. to say that all the bloggers in question thought all the posts in question were not libellous. I'm just asking for balance in reporting the story. I'm not arguing over whether or not the posts were libellous. HistoryBA 23:40, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I strongly recommend that the controversial paragraph not be restored. -Joshuapaquin 15:33, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)
- I guess there's been alot of changes but no discussion. Does anyone know why the latest changes occurred? S.P. --66.38.128.61 05:33, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
"NPOV" changes
Is the latest revision by 216.208.161.20 - inexplicably titled "NPOV" - some kind of joke? -Joshuapaquin 16:05, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
- It must be a joke. I reverted the edit, using "NPOV" as justification. HistoryBA 19:00, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Anti-neo-Nazi activism
Could somebody please expand on Web of Hate and his conflicts with the far right? I don't want anyone puzzling at his inclusion (at my own hand, a while back) in Category:Anti-neo-Nazi activism... Thanks! Samaritan 03:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Anybody who does such a section might want to look at the criticisms of the book as well if they go through with it. One of these "conflicts" is deciding that anybody who once was photographed shaking hands with an anti-Semite at a public rally was themselves a "far right neo-Nazi". The six degree of separation method, as it were. "Far-right", already a meaningless smear statement itself, further was used to the torture of the English language, as I hope any subsection praising Kinsella's work in this subject balances itself out with the responses by those who discovered they hated the Jews when they read about it in "Web of Hate"