Talk:Rachel Marsden

• Archive 1, August 2005 – March 1, 2006
• Archive 2, March 2, 2006 – February 7, 2007
• Archive 3, February 21, 2007 – December 23, 2007

Stubbified and archived

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)

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)

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)

I'll begin by registering, with respect, my objection to the stubbification of the page in question. I short, I do not understand why it is that the entire article was scratched when it is apparent that those who objected to the inclusion of material sourced through the 21 December 2007 Toronto Star news story accepted the version of he page that existed pre-21 December. In fact, 70.68.151.228 (talk · contribs), Republicon (talk · contribs) and 64.26.147.175 (talk · contribs) all returned, repeatedly, the article to the version I mention. The objection to the inclusion by the users 70.68.151.228 (talk · contribs), Republicon (talk · contribs) and 64.26.147.175 (talk · contribs), is similar, if not identical: 70.68.151.22 has written "no allegations please. only charges and convictions" and "undid "unsubstantiated claims. just because iti's (sic) in the paper doesn't mean it's true. no charge or conviction = no legitimacy", Republicon has written "rv to pre-war version. Agreed - we do not print unsubstantiated allegations when someone has not even been arrested, let alone charged or convicted", and 64.26.147.17 has written "Since when is Wikipedia a gossip site? See ArbCom decisions re this entry" and one-sided material does not conform to arbcom ruling. For instance, story says cop is still subject of internal investigation, something you decided toi (sic) out. Read Arrbcom (sic) decision and beware. As a brief aside, I can find no arbitration committee ruling concerning the material in question and ask 64.26.147.17 to kindly provide a link to this decision - I add that the Toronto Star story does, in fact, report that the "OPP's criminal investigations branch recently cleared the officer of any wrongdoing".

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.

Since beginning this rather long post - apologies - Lolzing (talk · contribs) has written of his/her preference that the article be restored to the 10 December 2007 version. While I might disagree on other points, we most certainly agree on this. Victoriagirl (talk) 00:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)