Talk:Warren Kinsella/Archive 3

Gomery material

Since the Nspector version is actually about Kinsella rather than Quail, I prefer the Nspector choice of material. Kurt Turkulney 17:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Slo-mo revert war

CJCurrie and GoldDragon: stop reverting each other, please. If it keeps up much longer, I'm full-protecting on whatever version it's on at the time until you two actually, y'know, TALK about what the issues are here. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I've outlined my reasons for two changes (here and here), and I await GoldDragon's response. CJCurrie (talk) 02:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

"Gomery Commission" is an inaccurate section header, as it only referred to the inquiry, plus many mainstream sources use "Sponsorship Scandal". Also, why did CJCurrie delete mention of the 2007 blog post? GoldDragon (talk) 03:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

(i) Actually, the section deals primarily with Kinsella's relationship with the Gomery Commission -- therefore, "Gomery Commission" is the more suitable title, (ii) I removed your gratuitous use of the word "sexist", which is completely inappropriate for an encyclopedia entry; beyond which, I'm not convinced this trivial pseudo-scandal is important enough for a mention. CJCurrie (talk) 03:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Beyond the specifics of this particular dispute, I should note that I've had several run-ins with GoldDragon over the last few years. From my experience, his strategy is always the same: revert to his preferred edit over and over and over, and thereby force his interlocutor to either give up or get caught in a silly edit war. I've generally managed to resolve my disputes with GoldDragon by drafting carefully-worded compromises, but these are a drain on my time and I'm frankly getting tired of playing his games.

Could someone else please weigh in on the issues addressed in this dispute? CJCurrie (talk) 03:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Since Kinsella had nothing to do with the Sponsorship Scandal (he didn't even work for the government at the time) and much of his criticisms of Gomery were pretty accurate, my vote is for "Gomery Commission".Spoonkymonkey (talk) 00:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

We can have both. GoldDragon (talk) 20:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Spoonkymonkey makes a lot of sense to me. AverageGuy (talk) 22:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Move of National Post material

I know this is a controversial page and I don't want to get bogged down here. I moved the material about his resignation from the National Post. It was in a section on legal action and there is no sign that there was any litigation involved between him and the Post. I placed it in a new section that I created out of the list of his books. People may want to work with that or move it elsewhere. And I hate to kick a hornets' nest, but Kinsella's take on Gomery was pretty much vindicated by the Federal Court of Canada last week. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 13:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Inaccurate Description of Blog Post

I've looked up the blog post regarding Lisa Macleod. She's actually supposed to be saying, in a speech balloon on a photo, that she'd rather be baking cookies than be seen with one of the candidates on the podium. She is not saying she'd rather bake cookies than run for office. Would one of the "regulars" like to change the section? Spoonkymonkey (talk) 16:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, hang on a sec

We need to be a bit more tactful than blanket reverts when someone claiming to be the subject turns up and says "my bio isn't very good". Particularly when the material removed was all negative and constituted most of the article. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 19:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware this article has a very contentious history and that makes care doubly important. A good first step would be to have a good look at the removed material. Obviously we don't want a whitewash but the sheer amount of critical material previously present did seem excessive compared to the rest of the article. If Wkinsella (talk · contribs) really is Warren Kinsella, please mail the relevant meta:OTRS team to confirm your identity and to present your specific complaints with previous versions of this article. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 19:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Not all of the information was negative, and much of it was cited with reliable sources such as the national library of Canada. However, the editor did seem to prove to me that he is who he claimed to be (see my talk page). Someone needs to go through and restore valuable information, as it seems that at least some of it is relevant and doesn't conflict with WP:BLP. Double checking the sources may be a good idea, too. I'll keep the page in my watchlist and let the reversion stand for now. Okiefromokla ^questions? 19:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, ok, that sounds reasonable. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 19:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Kinsella has indicated on his blog (http://www.warrenkinsella.com/index.php?entry=entry080715-134559) that he is, indeed, the user noted above. 007blur007 (talk) 20:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

er... isn't this a rather obvious conflict of interest situation? What Kinsella did here wasn't an edit, it was a blanking of several sections, backed up not by blog posts as he seems to suggest in his edit summary, but by strong reliable sources. It would seem to have been kind of important to the article, you know? I'm kind of late to the party here, but I'd have suggested that if he wanted to edit the article, then perhaps *editing* instead of just deleting the stuff he didn't like would have been more reasonable. Considering we usually urge the subject of articles to avoid editing their own articles, reverting back to the blanked version and suggesting tact over editing seems odd. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to go over what has been deleted and reinsert anything that doesn't conflict with WP:BLP and that is well cited. Okiefromokla ^questions? 16:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this conflicts with WP:BLP. One might argue that it is too critical, but someone else can always find positive material as well to balance it out. GoldDragon (talk) 03:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Considering his role as a strategist and a blogger, these controversies are not too out of the loop.GoldDragon (talk) 03:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• Just a note: an IP claiming to be Kinsella has written an explanation of his objections here. Okiefromokla ^questions? 19:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Recent reverts

Can we please have some discussion on the issue before making further reverts? The two comments below are copied from my talk page. Okiefromokla ^questions? 03:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the material for the article, I checked that section and didn't notice any consensus to remove the material. While the subject of the article (Mr. Kinsella himself) has objected to the material, there is definitely no denying if it is backed up by third party sources, and furthermore, it does meet the notability test. Furthermore, given that he is a political strategist and blogger, these controversies are not out of the world for such a person. GoldDragon (talk) 20:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the material seems to be sourced reliably. However, if there is a chance that it could be in violation of WP:BLP — in this case, for over representing criticism — we have to be cautious, which is why I wanted some discussion to be initiated before the material was reinserted, especially since Warren Kinsella himself objected to it. Okiefromokla ^questions? 20:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Page protected

Since editors here seem unwilling to discuss the problem without reverting, I've protected this page until this content dispute is resolved. Okiefromokla ^questions? 17:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Let's get something moving so this protection doesn't have to stick around indefinitely. As I said above, Warren Kinsella appears to have written to me using an IP address and explained why he claims some information in this article is false. That can be found here. This is the same material that's at the heart of this dispute, so let's clarify if this is a BLP issue and expedite the discussion so the page can go back to normal operations — without the edit warring. Okiefromokla ^questions? 00:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• I can see his points in some cases. Let's start with the Gomery section. The issue he brings up is that the Gomery commission has been discredited; that's fine, but the fact still remains that Kinsella was observably involved as noted in the article. We could probably cut it down substantially, remove some of the quotes, something along those lines, but I don't see it being something that we can remove entirely.

Warren's second concern I don't frankly understand. Why is he referring to a CBC court case, and pointing to Ernst Zundel's site? I don't see the reasoning for that comment at all. However, we could probably again consider shortening it and maybe combining it and the other two contentious sections into a "career" subhead. We've got plenty of references that are to solid media sources that can be used to shape a new combined section and move forward.

I'm not sure if these would entirely make Mr. Kinsella happy, but at least it's a starting point. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Whatever happens, Mr. Kinsella should refrain from editing his own biography. Otherwise, that might deserve mention in this article.

Is it permissable to place Mr. Kinsella's "PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL" on this talk page, so we can go over the points in detail? GoldDragon (talk) 16:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course. I've copied it below under a new heading for easier reference. Feel free to change the formatting. Okiefromokla ^questions? 16:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Kinsella's statement

• 1. The Gomery Commission has been found to be "biased" by the Federal Court of Canada, and its central findings thrown out, so an entire section on it is hardly merited: http://blog.macleans.ca/2008/06/26/death-of-a-dog-and-pony-show/

• 2. The next section is speculative and/or erroneous. The CBC are currently being sued by a former associate of the Ku Klux Klan in Canada, in a case that has not made it to court in 13 years. That is the only active case involving the undersigned. No other is before the courts. http://www.zundelsite.org/english/zgrams/zg2001/zg0104/010424.html

• 3. The next matter referred to is also erroneous. No such case against me exists. I cannot provide you with a media report, as none exists to my knowledge. My lawyer, Brian Shiller of Shillers LLP, will confirm this, however.

Note: Per this comment, I have already removed an unsourced sentence that claimed there was a pending lawsuit against Kinsella. Okiefromokla ^questions? 16:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• In summary: three entire sections in the page in question are erroneous, or wildly out-of-date, or both. They have been placed there by partisan critics, and Wikipedia refuses to do anything about it.

Yours truly,

Warren Kinsella, LL.B —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.191.220.178 (talk) 18:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• 1. We can add information about the Federal Court's findings on the Gomery Commission. It must be noted though that it overturns the original findings that stated that Chrétien and Pelletier bore responsibility, but it did not touch upon the Kinsella memo.

• 2. Besides various blogs, the Roger Rocan lawsuit is listed here [1], though the other sources also mention the settlement of the lawsuit.

• 3. Several sources came from the Globe and Mail.

Perhaps the first can be said to be out-of-date so it can up updated, but all three cannot be said to be erroneous. The language used is not POV, and they are backed by multiple sources. GoldDragon (talk) 03:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Blankings

I can't be bothered to babysit this page anymore. The subject's back at it, from the looks of what the most recent IP blanking information has done in the past; it's obvious this is going to continue to be a pain in the backside unto the end of time. I don't feel like sparring with the guy, so I'm unwatchlisting. Someone else can decide if the blankings by these IPs the last few days are warranted. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Kinsella, if he is already behind the anon IP that is blanking the page, has already been warned repeated not to edit his own wikipedia biography. GoldDragon (talk) 02:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The material has been removed again; I'm looking at a rewrite and selective trimming of the information, because I believe that some of Mr. Kinsella's claims have merit (besides that, both the sourcing and the quality of writing in the contested sections is really very poor). I should be done this by the end of the weekend. I would be very grateful if editors would refrain from restoring those sections until then, as an olive branch to the article's subject. As well, note that there is no Wikipedia policy prohibiting article subjects from editing their articles, and no Wikipedia guideline imposing an absolute restriction. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 14:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, idealist. That sounds great. I haven't even known where to start in term of a rewrite. Okiefromokla ^questions? 15:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I've inserted a rewritten version of the sponsorship scandal material. It eliminates the unsourced statements from the previous version, relies on secondary rather than primary sources, and gives enhanced weight to the federal court's findings about the Gomery inquiry. I hope this is satisfactory to all concerned; if not, I would strongly urge editors to raise grievances here rather than making unilateral edits to the material (though I obviously can't demand that). I'm going to keep working on rewrites of the other disputed sections. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

After reviewing the "Legal action" section, I've concluded that none of what was in there is appropriate for this article. The only source that meets WP:RS or WP:BLP is the Ottawa Sun article about his suit against Bourrie, and I just don't think we have sufficient sourced information to include this in here; for example, I can't find any reliable source that says how the lawsuit ended, though I've found blog posts to the effect that Bourrie posted an apology and clarification. In any event, unless we can tell the story in its complete context, I don't think we can include it here. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I've re-inserted some of the material from the Earnscliffe section. Because it dealt with the sponsorship scandal, I have included it in that section rather than giving it a section of its own. I have not re-inserted the material supported by the Globe & Mail, because the article is no longer available for free and so I haven't read it; given the problems with this material, I would rather not re-insert anything supported by a source that we can't actually verify now. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Still a Whitewash

I have no axe to grind here and haven't edited this page once before today, but wow...it almost looks Kinsella himself wrote it. (Which it seems from other comments that he might have). And the regular removal of sourced but negative information from the history...wow...Camera123456 (talk) 03:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to elaborate on your complaints in such a way as to make them actionable. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 12:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I will get onto this, but it's going to mean a lot of sorting through previous edits. Fun :) In the meantime, you reverted my reference to Paul Wells' 2001 article because (please let me know if I'm putting words in your mouth) that 1) it came from a blog and 2) it's not important enough for the article. #1 I totally understand. Paul Wells' article was originally written in the National Post and I can reference that instead, but it will be a paper reference, not a web link. However, it's all kind of irrelevant if people would still feel that it isn't relevant. I have a position that it is, because it presents some context to the implications (in this article and elsewhere) of WK's importance. Paul Wells is a respected journalist, with his own wikipedia page. Or is not important because it was 2001? I agree that any reference to it should say that it was 2001, explicitly.Camera123456 (talk) 01:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

It coming from a blog had nothing to do with it; I'm well-aware that it was originally a column (I even remember the column; I'm a pretty close follower of Wells' stuff). My first issue was that you took Wells' opinion and stated it as fact, which clearly isn't appropriate. My second concern was that Paul Wells' opinion isn't worth the weight you were giving it (close to 10% of the entire Kinsella article). My opposition to inclusion could be softened if it was limited to a single sentence tacked on to the end of the first paragraph of "Politics", which I think would be more suitable weight. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I think that's very reasonable and is exactly what I'll do.Camera123456 (talk) 22:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I've slightly modified your sentence; I'm fine with its present form. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

And I slightly modified yours :) Just to change significant to significantly.Camera123456 (talk) 03:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

99.231.137.97

Just wanted to log here 99.231.137.97's history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/99.231.137.97) which appears to be that of a SPA (only edited this page, going back to November 08) with a very specific POV, and also removing properly-sourced material that conflicts with the apparent POV. I've asked this user whether s/he has a COI s/he would like to declare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:99.231.137.97).

If things turn ugly on this page again, I thought having a record of this information would be useful.Camera123456 (talk) 20:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Various I.P.s have acknowledged being Kinsella before; I wouldn't be surprised if that's the case here as well. That said, we evaluate all contributors based on their contributions; if they're bad, we revert them (as I've done here), if they're good, we don't. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

This IP is now self-acknowledged as being Kinsella himself. (see my talk page here - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Camera123456&redirect=no). Shouldn't he have to explicitly recognize his COI? It seems that there are wikipedia policies that address this situation and that perhaps Warren can be limited to the talk page. I don't want to cause shit or have an ax to grind, but it's a bit annoying to see the same properly-sourced edits continually getting reverted just because those aren't favorable to the subject in question.Camera123456 (talk) 00:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Page protection

Due to ongoing WP:COI issues with an anonymous IP, this article has been semi-protected from anonymous editing for the time being. This is not to be construed as an endorsement of the existing version — however, as per COI policy, the anon IP may discuss his concerns with the article on this page but is not entitled to directly edit the article himself without explaining his reasoning. I've requested the input of neutral editors from WP:BLP/N and WP:COI/N, in the hopes of coming to a resolution here. Bearcat (talk) 22:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Harper communion controversy

I know LifesiteNews is not really a mainstream source, but I would like it if any extra sources could find additional information about Kinsella's alleged role in the Harper communion controversy. [2] ADM (talk) 22:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Gomery material

Since the Nspector version is actually about Kinsella rather than Quail, I prefer the Nspector choice of material. Kurt Turkulney 17:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Move of National Post material

I know this is a controversial page and I don't want to get bogged down here. I moved the material about his resignation from the National Post. It was in a section on legal action and there is no sign that there was any litigation involved between him and the Post. I placed it in a new section that I created out of the list of his books. People may want to work with that or move it elsewhere. And I hate to kick a hornets' nest, but Kinsella's take on Gomery was pretty much vindicated by the Federal Court of Canada last week. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 13:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Slo-mo revert war

CJCurrie and GoldDragon: stop reverting each other, please. If it keeps up much longer, I'm full-protecting on whatever version it's on at the time until you two actually, y'know, TALK about what the issues are here. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I've outlined my reasons for two changes (here and here), and I await GoldDragon's response. CJCurrie (talk) 02:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

"Gomery Commission" is an inaccurate section header, as it only referred to the inquiry, plus many mainstream sources use "Sponsorship Scandal". Also, why did CJCurrie delete mention of the 2007 blog post? GoldDragon (talk) 03:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

(i) Actually, the section deals primarily with Kinsella's relationship with the Gomery Commission -- therefore, "Gomery Commission" is the more suitable title, (ii) I removed your gratuitous use of the word "sexist", which is completely inappropriate for an encyclopedia entry; beyond which, I'm not convinced this trivial pseudo-scandal is important enough for a mention. CJCurrie (talk) 03:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Beyond the specifics of this particular dispute, I should note that I've had several run-ins with GoldDragon over the last few years. From my experience, his strategy is always the same: revert to his preferred edit over and over and over, and thereby force his interlocutor to either give up or get caught in a silly edit war. I've generally managed to resolve my disputes with GoldDragon by drafting carefully-worded compromises, but these are a drain on my time and I'm frankly getting tired of playing his games.

Could someone else please weigh in on the issues addressed in this dispute? CJCurrie (talk) 03:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Since Kinsella had nothing to do with the Sponsorship Scandal (he didn't even work for the government at the time) and much of his criticisms of Gomery were pretty accurate, my vote is for "Gomery Commission".Spoonkymonkey (talk) 00:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

We can have both. GoldDragon (talk) 20:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Spoonkymonkey makes a lot of sense to me. AverageGuy (talk) 22:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Inaccurate Description of Blog Post

I've looked up the blog post regarding Lisa Macleod. She's actually supposed to be saying, in a speech balloon on a photo, that she'd rather be baking cookies than be seen with one of the candidates on the podium. She is not saying she'd rather bake cookies than run for office. Would one of the "regulars" like to change the section? Spoonkymonkey (talk) 16:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, hang on a sec

We need to be a bit more tactful than blanket reverts when someone claiming to be the subject turns up and says "my bio isn't very good". Particularly when the material removed was all negative and constituted most of the article. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 19:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware this article has a very contentious history and that makes care doubly important. A good first step would be to have a good look at the removed material. Obviously we don't want a whitewash but the sheer amount of critical material previously present did seem excessive compared to the rest of the article. If Wkinsella (talk · contribs) really is Warren Kinsella, please mail the relevant meta:OTRS team to confirm your identity and to present your specific complaints with previous versions of this article. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 19:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Not all of the information was negative, and much of it was cited with reliable sources such as the national library of Canada. However, the editor did seem to prove to me that he is who he claimed to be (see my talk page). Someone needs to go through and restore valuable information, as it seems that at least some of it is relevant and doesn't conflict with WP:BLP. Double checking the sources may be a good idea, too. I'll keep the page in my watchlist and let the reversion stand for now. Okiefromokla ^questions? 19:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, ok, that sounds reasonable. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 19:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Kinsella has indicated on his blog (http://www.warrenkinsella.com/index.php?entry=entry080715-134559) that he is, indeed, the user noted above. 007blur007 (talk) 20:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

er... isn't this a rather obvious conflict of interest situation? What Kinsella did here wasn't an edit, it was a blanking of several sections, backed up not by blog posts as he seems to suggest in his edit summary, but by strong reliable sources. It would seem to have been kind of important to the article, you know? I'm kind of late to the party here, but I'd have suggested that if he wanted to edit the article, then perhaps *editing* instead of just deleting the stuff he didn't like would have been more reasonable. Considering we usually urge the subject of articles to avoid editing their own articles, reverting back to the blanked version and suggesting tact over editing seems odd. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to go over what has been deleted and reinsert anything that doesn't conflict with WP:BLP and that is well cited. Okiefromokla ^questions? 16:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this conflicts with WP:BLP. One might argue that it is too critical, but someone else can always find positive material as well to balance it out. GoldDragon (talk) 03:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Considering his role as a strategist and a blogger, these controversies are not too out of the loop.GoldDragon (talk) 03:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• Just a note: an IP claiming to be Kinsella has written an explanation of his objections here. Okiefromokla ^questions? 19:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Recent reverts

Can we please have some discussion on the issue before making further reverts? The two comments below are copied from my talk page. Okiefromokla ^questions? 03:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the material for the article, I checked that section and didn't notice any consensus to remove the material. While the subject of the article (Mr. Kinsella himself) has objected to the material, there is definitely no denying if it is backed up by third party sources, and furthermore, it does meet the notability test. Furthermore, given that he is a political strategist and blogger, these controversies are not out of the world for such a person. GoldDragon (talk) 20:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the material seems to be sourced reliably. However, if there is a chance that it could be in violation of WP:BLP — in this case, for over representing criticism — we have to be cautious, which is why I wanted some discussion to be initiated before the material was reinserted, especially since Warren Kinsella himself objected to it. Okiefromokla ^questions? 20:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Page protected

Since editors here seem unwilling to discuss the problem without reverting, I've protected this page until this content dispute is resolved. Okiefromokla ^questions? 17:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Let's get something moving so this protection doesn't have to stick around indefinitely. As I said above, Warren Kinsella appears to have written to me using an IP address and explained why he claims some information in this article is false. That can be found here. This is the same material that's at the heart of this dispute, so let's clarify if this is a BLP issue and expedite the discussion so the page can go back to normal operations — without the edit warring. Okiefromokla ^questions? 00:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• I can see his points in some cases. Let's start with the Gomery section. The issue he brings up is that the Gomery commission has been discredited; that's fine, but the fact still remains that Kinsella was observably involved as noted in the article. We could probably cut it down substantially, remove some of the quotes, something along those lines, but I don't see it being something that we can remove entirely.

Warren's second concern I don't frankly understand. Why is he referring to a CBC court case, and pointing to Ernst Zundel's site? I don't see the reasoning for that comment at all. However, we could probably again consider shortening it and maybe combining it and the other two contentious sections into a "career" subhead. We've got plenty of references that are to solid media sources that can be used to shape a new combined section and move forward.

I'm not sure if these would entirely make Mr. Kinsella happy, but at least it's a starting point. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Whatever happens, Mr. Kinsella should refrain from editing his own biography. Otherwise, that might deserve mention in this article.

Is it permissable to place Mr. Kinsella's "PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL" on this talk page, so we can go over the points in detail? GoldDragon (talk) 16:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course. I've copied it below under a new heading for easier reference. Feel free to change the formatting. Okiefromokla ^questions? 16:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Kinsella's statement

• 1. The Gomery Commission has been found to be "biased" by the Federal Court of Canada, and its central findings thrown out, so an entire section on it is hardly merited: http://blog.macleans.ca/2008/06/26/death-of-a-dog-and-pony-show/

• 2. The next section is speculative and/or erroneous. The CBC are currently being sued by a former associate of the Ku Klux Klan in Canada, in a case that has not made it to court in 13 years. That is the only active case involving the undersigned. No other is before the courts. http://www.zundelsite.org/english/zgrams/zg2001/zg0104/010424.html

• 3. The next matter referred to is also erroneous. No such case against me exists. I cannot provide you with a media report, as none exists to my knowledge. My lawyer, Brian Shiller of Shillers LLP, will confirm this, however.

Note: Per this comment, I have already removed an unsourced sentence that claimed there was a pending lawsuit against Kinsella. Okiefromokla ^questions? 16:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• In summary: three entire sections in the page in question are erroneous, or wildly out-of-date, or both. They have been placed there by partisan critics, and Wikipedia refuses to do anything about it.

Yours truly,

Warren Kinsella, LL.B —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.191.220.178 (talk) 18:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• 1. We can add information about the Federal Court's findings on the Gomery Commission. It must be noted though that it overturns the original findings that stated that Chrétien and Pelletier bore responsibility, but it did not touch upon the Kinsella memo.

• 2. Besides various blogs, the Roger Rocan lawsuit is listed here [3], though the other sources also mention the settlement of the lawsuit.

• 3. Several sources came from the Globe and Mail.

Perhaps the first can be said to be out-of-date so it can up updated, but all three cannot be said to be erroneous. The language used is not POV, and they are backed by multiple sources. GoldDragon (talk) 03:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Blankings

I can't be bothered to babysit this page anymore. The subject's back at it, from the looks of what the most recent IP blanking information has done in the past; it's obvious this is going to continue to be a pain in the backside unto the end of time. I don't feel like sparring with the guy, so I'm unwatchlisting. Someone else can decide if the blankings by these IPs the last few days are warranted. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Kinsella, if he is already behind the anon IP that is blanking the page, has already been warned repeated not to edit his own wikipedia biography. GoldDragon (talk) 02:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The material has been removed again; I'm looking at a rewrite and selective trimming of the information, because I believe that some of Mr. Kinsella's claims have merit (besides that, both the sourcing and the quality of writing in the contested sections is really very poor). I should be done this by the end of the weekend. I would be very grateful if editors would refrain from restoring those sections until then, as an olive branch to the article's subject. As well, note that there is no Wikipedia policy prohibiting article subjects from editing their articles, and no Wikipedia guideline imposing an absolute restriction. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 14:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, idealist. That sounds great. I haven't even known where to start in term of a rewrite. Okiefromokla ^questions? 15:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I've inserted a rewritten version of the sponsorship scandal material. It eliminates the unsourced statements from the previous version, relies on secondary rather than primary sources, and gives enhanced weight to the federal court's findings about the Gomery inquiry. I hope this is satisfactory to all concerned; if not, I would strongly urge editors to raise grievances here rather than making unilateral edits to the material (though I obviously can't demand that). I'm going to keep working on rewrites of the other disputed sections. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

After reviewing the "Legal action" section, I've concluded that none of what was in there is appropriate for this article. The only source that meets WP:RS or WP:BLP is the Ottawa Sun article about his suit against Bourrie, and I just don't think we have sufficient sourced information to include this in here; for example, I can't find any reliable source that says how the lawsuit ended, though I've found blog posts to the effect that Bourrie posted an apology and clarification. In any event, unless we can tell the story in its complete context, I don't think we can include it here. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I've re-inserted some of the material from the Earnscliffe section. Because it dealt with the sponsorship scandal, I have included it in that section rather than giving it a section of its own. I have not re-inserted the material supported by the Globe & Mail, because the article is no longer available for free and so I haven't read it; given the problems with this material, I would rather not re-insert anything supported by a source that we can't actually verify now. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Still a Whitewash

I have no axe to grind here and haven't edited this page once before today, but wow...it almost looks Kinsella himself wrote it. (Which it seems from other comments that he might have). And the regular removal of sourced but negative information from the history...wow...Camera123456 (talk) 03:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to elaborate on your complaints in such a way as to make them actionable. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 12:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I will get onto this, but it's going to mean a lot of sorting through previous edits. Fun :) In the meantime, you reverted my reference to Paul Wells' 2001 article because (please let me know if I'm putting words in your mouth) that 1) it came from a blog and 2) it's not important enough for the article. #1 I totally understand. Paul Wells' article was originally written in the National Post and I can reference that instead, but it will be a paper reference, not a web link. However, it's all kind of irrelevant if people would still feel that it isn't relevant. I have a position that it is, because it presents some context to the implications (in this article and elsewhere) of WK's importance. Paul Wells is a respected journalist, with his own wikipedia page. Or is not important because it was 2001? I agree that any reference to it should say that it was 2001, explicitly.Camera123456 (talk) 01:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

It coming from a blog had nothing to do with it; I'm well-aware that it was originally a column (I even remember the column; I'm a pretty close follower of Wells' stuff). My first issue was that you took Wells' opinion and stated it as fact, which clearly isn't appropriate. My second concern was that Paul Wells' opinion isn't worth the weight you were giving it (close to 10% of the entire Kinsella article). My opposition to inclusion could be softened if it was limited to a single sentence tacked on to the end of the first paragraph of "Politics", which I think would be more suitable weight. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I think that's very reasonable and is exactly what I'll do.Camera123456 (talk) 22:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I've slightly modified your sentence; I'm fine with its present form. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

And I slightly modified yours :) Just to change significant to significantly.Camera123456 (talk) 03:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

99.231.137.97

Just wanted to log here 99.231.137.97's history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/99.231.137.97) which appears to be that of a SPA (only edited this page, going back to November 08) with a very specific POV, and also removing properly-sourced material that conflicts with the apparent POV. I've asked this user whether s/he has a COI s/he would like to declare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:99.231.137.97).

If things turn ugly on this page again, I thought having a record of this information would be useful.Camera123456 (talk) 20:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Various I.P.s have acknowledged being Kinsella before; I wouldn't be surprised if that's the case here as well. That said, we evaluate all contributors based on their contributions; if they're bad, we revert them (as I've done here), if they're good, we don't. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

This IP is now self-acknowledged as being Kinsella himself. (see my talk page here - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Camera123456&redirect=no). Shouldn't he have to explicitly recognize his COI? It seems that there are wikipedia policies that address this situation and that perhaps Warren can be limited to the talk page. I don't want to cause shit or have an ax to grind, but it's a bit annoying to see the same properly-sourced edits continually getting reverted just because those aren't favorable to the subject in question.Camera123456 (talk) 00:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Page protection

Due to ongoing WP:COI issues with an anonymous IP, this article has been semi-protected from anonymous editing for the time being. This is not to be construed as an endorsement of the existing version — however, as per COI policy, the anon IP may discuss his concerns with the article on this page but is not entitled to directly edit the article himself without explaining his reasoning. I've requested the input of neutral editors from WP:BLP/N and WP:COI/N, in the hopes of coming to a resolution here. Bearcat (talk) 22:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Harper communion controversy

I know LifesiteNews is not really a mainstream source, but I would like it if any extra sources could find additional information about Kinsella's alleged role in the Harper communion controversy. [4] ADM (talk) 22:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a number 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 "Pending 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, 00:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC).

Edit request on 12 October 2012

I am Warren; came by for the first time in a long time (it's Friday afternoon).

Not that you folks are preoccupied with accuracy, but I don't have a "top spin doctor" quote on my web site. It was said by the National Post, not me.

Having Paul Wells as an evaluator, by the way, is comedic. Will you let me assess him?

216.191.220.178 (talk) 20:32, 12 October 2012 (UTC)http://warrenkinsella.com/2012/02/paul-wells-girl-crazy-macrocephalic-update/

Cheers,

Warren

Partly done: Ignoring who you are and how you phrased your request, I see that someone used www.warrenkinsella.com as a reference for what was on www.warrenkinsella.com. That is not encyclopedic and, as you say, doesn't happen to be true today. I've removed the reference and claim. The rest of the sentence appears to be well-referenced and I don't see any reason to remove it. The reference you provided makes it clear that Mr. Wells might have a notable opinion about Mr. Kinsella, since Mr. Kinsella takes note of it. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 00:52, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

DoneThe sentence "Journalist Paul Wells, in a 2001 article, questioned whether his role has been significantly exaggerated" does not make sense now that the rest of the sentence has been removed. The preceding statements are sourced facts, which do not appear to have been exaggerated. If there is a general feeling that Kinsella's role as a strategist has been exaggerated, it might be relevant, but singling out one person's opinion is not a good idea in a BLP. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:11, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment from editor claiming to be subject of article

To whom it may concern:

Here we go again. Mark Bourrie is back. I write to you about several recent changes on this page.

1. This statement is inaccurate: "In December 2006, he revealed on his National Post blog[3] that his firm had been actively supporting the candidacy of new Liberal leader Stéphane Dion. Previously, he supported potential leadership candidate Allan Rock." Those two men were contestants in leadership races separate by many years.

2. These statements are false, and one is libellous: "Some Liberal MPs questioned the hiring of Kinsella, with one calling him a "human shrapnel machine." [8]In January 2009, Kinsella was revealed as the head of the Liberal Party's election war room but was fired before the election after Kinsella accused an Ottawa restaurant of selling cat meat. Kinsella posted an online video apology to Chinese-Canadians.[9] [10] [11]" No Liberal MP, to my knowledge, has ever said any such thing. The statement is unattributed. Meanwhile, I was not fired as an Ignatieff volunteer - I quit, and the matter was written about in the Globe, inter alia. I have successfully sued for the publication of this statement by others. May I have the IP information of the person(s) who posted that libel, please.

I look forward to your response, and in particular in relation to the last-noted request. In addition, I question your decision to open up the entry (as well as its existence, because I don't think I merit one) to Mark Bourrie's ongoing vandalism. He is a troubled man, and none of us should be encouraging him.

Sincerely,

Warren wkinsella@hotmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.191.220.178 (talk) 16:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Request for help, page protection

Could an admin look at the Wikipedia entries for Mr. Kinsella's IP and consider whether an autobiography tag is in order. As well, it may be a good time to completely lock down the page?Spoonkymonkey (talk) 19:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I have reported this request for page protection to admins, one should be along shortly. -- Patchy1 REF THIS BLP 20:07, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

None of the issues in WP:SEMI apply so I've changed protection to full. If suggestions for sourcing the contentious, poorly sourced sections are not forthcoming on this talk page, they will be removed per WP:BLP. Toddst1 (talk) 23:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Cat Meat and Such

The YouTube video of Kinsella's cat meat comment: www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzwpEwXi7qw A blog post on the issue: http://canadasworld.wordpress.com/2009/02/06/the-catty-humour-of-warren-kinsella/ Another artivle on the issue: http://blogs.canoe.ca/davidakin/politics/mp-demands-kinsellas-resignation/ Here's a link to his YouTube apology: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u__KKgCypLQ Spoonkymonkey (talk) 02:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

Please would a very nice person with editing rights run WP:REFLINKS on the article and also flag the primary source(s) with {{Primary-source-inline}} Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I've done the reflinks. Which sources do you think need to be tagged {{Primary-source-inline}}? Toddst1 (talk) 01:21, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

It is always possible I had brian failure. One ref when I looked yesterday seemed to me to be to Kinsella's own site. Either I mis-saw, or you removed it already as part of a purge of inappropriate items. I am not referring to the external links section. :)

The are still some bare links as references, though, which could do with your attention. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:07, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Post them here like this (as an example):

<ref name=Valentine>
{{cite news
  | last=Valentine
  | first=Daniel
  | title=Former delegate was witness to county's transformation
  | url=http://ww2.gazette.net/stories/06112009/prinnew183809_32521.shtml
  | accessdate=18 January 2013
  | newspaper=[[Prince George's Gazette]]
  | date=11 June 2009}}
</ref>

and I (or someone else) will copy them to the article. I've already done the WP:REFLINKS and there's a few that aren't getting picked up. Toddst1 (talk) 15:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

<ref>{{cite news|url=http://news.singtao.ca/toronto/2009-01-29/city1233222027d1571825.html}}</ref>

to become

<ref>{{cite news
|url=http://news.singtao.ca/toronto/2009-01-29/city1233222027d1571825.html
|title=星岛日报多伦多--自由黨高級顧問金希拉 言論涉種族歧視.袁海耀要求向華社道歉
|publisher=Sing Tao Daily
|date=29 January 2009
|language=Chinese
|accessdate=2 February 2013}}</ref>

But read the machine translation first. And good luck! It may also be that this is a citation too far. You be the judge.

BTW to force Reflinks to work you can remove the clutter around a url to create a barelink, save it and re-run Reflinks. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:06, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the tip on REFLINKS. Toddst1 (talk) 18:27, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Protected edit request to fix a typo

"Kinsella supported Sandra Pupatello in the leadership convetion tht chose a successor to McGuinty." "convetion tht" should be changed to "convention that" (both words are misspelled). Banaticus (talk) 02:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Done Yngvadottir (talk) 13:41, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Warren's blog

I think this blog post by Warren should be brought to people's attention. [5] He claims there are "libellous/factually-wrong stuff" on this page and seeing there's few citations used I don't know if he's correct or not. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 23:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Wide ranging edits

I have concerns over this range of edts since they are made by a user with few edits in other areas and are made without edit summary. I am not a content expert here, so suggest one such takes a look at the article with a view to determining if the edits bear out NPOV. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Me too. Just reverted them back to the last protected version for being unsourced, probably autobiographic and certainly white-wash. Have also asked for page protection (again). Spoonkymonkey (talk) 16:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

-- serious blanking and unsourced editing on this article. Needs lock. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 17:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

May I suggest that this editor's entire contribution record be inspected by a content expert and the status of each edit in other articles be determined? If the edits are deemed to be inappropriate the relevant warnings should be issued. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Probably best to revert it all, make the person who wants changes source and justify the changes and blanking.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 17:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

SInce they tend to add some citations I feel it needs a local content expert. Please feel free to go ahead, though. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I've turned off the {{help}} template - I'm not quite sure what kind of help you were lookig for, but if Blueskies2012's edits are problematic WP:AN/I may be a better venue than this article's talk page. Huon (talk) 17:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Mube people should read what I posted above. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 17:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Lots of people aren't happy with their Wikipedia page. If he has specific problems, he should explain them. What we're seeing here is a whitewash and blanking of sourced material that he may find embarrassing, in violation of Wikipedia policy, and most likely done by Kinsella himself.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 18:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I did not make any edits. I am, however, writing about what a joke Wikipedia is. Care to reveal your true identity, Monkey?

It is absolutely forbidden here to request any editor to reveal their identity, or to make any attempt to discover it. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:05, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

And, as a separate topic, if you do not like Wikipedia no-one is forcing you to edit here.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:07, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Ignatieff supporter

This section currently says nothing about who/what Ignatieff is, and the first sentence seem inappropiate for a BLP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:19, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the sentence about schrapnel. Out of context, it was inappropriate. However you should propose a specific edit about what Ignatieff is if you want it changed. Toddst1 (talk) 15:57, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. Here you have a guy who is a controversial hire because he shoots his mouth off -- i.e. is a "human shrapnel machine" -- who then proves the point with the Chinese food cat meat fiasco, then moves on to another campaign, where he draws attention to himself and his candidate with a sexist remark that's used by his candidate's opponents. I think we need to show he draws mixed reviews at best. Michael Ignatieff is an interesting man who may need to be explained. Many people in the UK will remember him from his BBC work. He was head of the Liberal party for a couple of years. BTW, I hope those who edit this page look at Kinsella's IP a few paragraphs above to see how much of the older version was his creation. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 23:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Because of Wikipedia:Verifiability, especially on pages of people still alive (who might otherwise be tempted to try to sue), Wikipedia generally asks that new material have a reference. Do you know of any magazines, reputable newspaper articles, etc., which discus Kinsella and Ignatieff? It looks like no other Wikipedia page currently mentions just what Ignatieff is. Banaticus (talk) 02:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

My guess is that it´s this guy: Michael Ignatieff. It´s also unclear to me what "Liberal Party's election war room" means in this context. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:43, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. It is best if you can include the exact text, with references, that you want to see in the article. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I see the page is locked again. One of his books is missing. It's called Fight the Right: A Manual for Surviving the Coming Conservative Apocalypse(Random House, Oct 2 2012). Could an admin put the book on the list? Spoonkymonkey (talk) 18:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Fight the Right

I see the page is locked again. One of his books is missing. It's called Fight the Right: A Manual for Surviving the Coming Conservative Apocalypse(Random House, Oct 2 2012). Could an admin put the book on the list? Spoonkymonkey (talk) 18:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done Toddst1 (talk) 19:14, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 21:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I did some edits today to try to give this some chronology and to add some material that will beef up the entry and dilute what some might see as emphasis of Kinsella's bad days. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 19:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)