Talk:Rachel Marsden/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Content Concerns

It was brought to my attention by Rachel Marsden that there are a few concerns she has about the content on the article. With her permission, she has requested that I post her concerns here:

1) INFOBOX: "Occupation: Columnist, political commentator, a self-published author, and a university lecturer." Why "self-published"? I have published a book, and further as an author have weekly syndicated columns published by over 100 media outlets in the USA (Orlando Sun-Sentinel, Baltimore Sun, LA Times, Detroit Free Press, Chicago Tribune...). One would think that "author" would therefore be more accurate (as well as sufficient) without the derogatory and POV (not to mention partly inaccurate) addition of "self-published". I don't see any such notation in the Infobox of any other authors.

2) Why has all the information related to my company and political consulting work been removed? Previous versions have referred to my company website and cited it (http://rachelmarsdenassociates.com/), and this has previously long been deemed acceptable by the community. Given the contractual obligation that my company has towards its clients to maintain absolute confidentiality in all of our dealings, there is (nor will there ever be) publicly available information related to the intricacies of this business. There is, however, extensive mainstream media screencapping confirming my role as a political and geopolitical consultant and businesswoman in this sector (see links below). CNN included, and last I checked they were pretty credible. That information, removed completely should be reinstated in form acceptable to the Wikipedia community and in accordance with acceptable editing standards: CNN: Rachel Marsden CNN Situation Room CNN: http://91.68.209.12/bmi/rachelmarsden.com/cnnrach6.jpg RT TV: http://91.68.209.9/bmi/rachelmarsden.com/rt11.jpg ITELE FRANCE: http://91.68.209.9/bmi/rachelmarsden.com/25706_374264179702_607039702_4905082_3389980_n.jpg LCPAN FRANCE: http://91.68.209.10/bmi/rachelmarsden.com/cap8.jpg

3) "She writes an internationally syndicated weekly column, "American Voices", for Tribune Media Services in a bundle package with Robert Reich and Joel Brinkley." This doesn't reflect the distribution of the column. It makes it sound like a group column. The column isn't a group column. It's a column by me: a sole author. The billing cycles relate to the client buyers, not to how the readers will view it. This should be reverted to its previous language, as the previous information on the column was correct.

4) "Rachel Marsden (born December 2, 1974) is a Canadian conservative political columnist, television commentator and university lecturer." This is flat out incorrect. My official title at the university is "Associate Professor". "Lecturer" is at a level above mine. My name is listed explicitly under "Professors" here, on the university's website: http://www.journalisme.sciences-po.fr/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=20&Itemid=42&lang=english. I am not on the list of lecturers (which would actually give me an undeserved raise in pay and position). I am simply an Associate Professor, as the university's link explicitly states.

5) "was the focus of media coverage for breakups with a Vancouver radio host, which resulted in criminal charges for harassment **to which she pled guilty in 2004**" Why has this material, repeated at length below, been permitted to be added in the opening introduction of the article, attributing to it such heft? But it seems unnecessary and out of proportion completely to its overall importance. Are we going to include my misdemeanor traffic tickets, as well? A minor misdemeanor charge resulting NOT in a conviction but rather in a discharge and NO RECORD WHATSOEVER has been permitted to somehow make its way to the very top of the biography as though this minor detail defines my life and career. Its inclusion and allotment of overwhelming importance (enough to include it in the opening paragraphs of the BLP) doesn't seem NPOV or encyclopedic.

6)"She graduated with a Bachelor of Science degree from Simon Fraser University with a minor in French language.[12] She then obtained a technical diploma at the British Columbia Institute of Technology in 2000." Extended French Minor. Also this wasn't a "technical diploma". No idea where that even comes from. It was a Broadcast Journalism Diploma from the Faculty of Business (which is not a technical faculty).

7) "Before the 2004 federal election in Canada, she was hired under an alias by Gurmant Grewal, a Conservative member of the Parliament of Canada, to assist his constituency office with press releases, but was forced out when her identity was revealed by the press while her criminal charges were pending." I wasn't hired under an alias. I was hired as Rachel Marsden. Gurmant Grewal himself is available to discuss and clarify the matter. Nowhere in the media anywhere does it say that I was hired under an alias. I also ran two simultaneous federal political campaigns for Members of Parliament Gurmant and Nina Grewal (husband and wife running as candidates in adjacent districts). "Assisting his office with press releases" is overly simplistic to the point of inaccuracy. Nor was I "forced out", let alone "related to pending criminal charges". This is blatantly false, unsubstantiated by the cited sources or otherwise, and a violation of NPOV and BLP unsupported by any sourcing.

8) "In 2004 Marsden appeared as a guest a couple of times on Dennis Miller Live.[26] In 2005 she appeared twice as a guest panelist on The O'Reilly Factor on the Fox News Channel.[27] Marsden appeared intermittently on the Fox News Channel from 2004.[28] to May 2007." Why has speculation related to the number of appearances on each of these shows been raised? It's not accurate in the least. I appeared many times on each of these programs. IMDB sourcing from the early 00s is not known to be a reliable record of appearances for TV correspondents. In fact, it has always relied on us (the correspondents ourselves) to keep it up to date. We don't have the time to do so. Which is why, if you were to follow it, some correspondents who are in fact on TV every day appear to never be on TV according to IMDB. Kindly revert back to previous version of information.

9) "In 2007, she moved from Toronto to New York." Untrue. I moved to NYC in 2006. The program in question was already on-air by the beginning of 2007. Nor is the accompanying source article necessary for anything other than to add/link unnecessary negative POV hit pieces by my own media competitors to this bio.

10) "Marsden has been compared to Ann Coulter in opinion, presentation and appearance, though not often favorably." What does this have to do with anything? Why is it even in this bio? I've been compared to a lot of people. I don't see what encyclopedic value this has and why is the newly-added negative POV even permitted?

11) "From 2011-2013 she appeared as a political analyst on Crosstalk, carried on Russia Today." Untrue. I STILL appear on RT. There is no source information anywhere (and I can guarantee this is the case) suggesting that my appearances on RT TV have concluded in any way.

12) "She currently teaches some classes at Sciences Po as an enseignant, or adjunct lecturer." Again, I'm an Associate Professor (official position title - see University's Professors page above). A lecturer would be a position and pay raise that I haven't earned, ergo I would prefer the proper accurate title. As, I'm sure, would my employers and colleagues.

13) "In 2004, Marsden pled guilty to criminal harassment of her boyfriend, a Vancouver radio show host, following a breakup; she was given a conditional discharge with one year of probation." I believe, in the interest of accuracy and BLP NPOV, that the fact that this was a misdemeanor charge should be clarified. Additionally, the fact that no criminal conviction occurred should be clarified, as conditional discharges do not represent a criminal conviction. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discharge_%28sentence%29#Canada. The reader is however left with the precise opposite impression of some kind of criminal conviction. This is not only inaccurate in fact, but is also an egregious NPOV BLP violation.

14) "The OPP launched a separate internal investigation into the alleged conduct of the officer, and he was cleared of any wrongdoing." This is untrue. The sources cited do not at all claim in any way that "he was cleared of any wrongdoing". In fact, Tony Backhurst (the officer in question) was in fact terminated. He currently works for the Department of Animal Control in Lee County, South Florida: http://www.leelostpets.com/Pages/MeetOurStaff.aspx

Best, Mike V • Talk 18:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Rachel Marsden says: "13) "In 2004, Marsden pled guilty to criminal harassment of her boyfriend, a Vancouver radio show host, following a breakup; she was given a conditional discharge with one year of probation." I believe, in the interest of accuracy and BLP NPOV, that the fact that this was a misdemeanor charge should be clarified. Additionally, the fact that no criminal conviction occurred should be clarified, as conditional discharges do not represent a criminal conviction. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discharge_%28sentence%29#Canada. The reader is however left with the precise opposite impression of some kind of criminal conviction. This is not only inaccurate in fact, but is also an egregious NPOV BLP violation."

There's no such thing as a misdemeanor charge in Canada. The charge was made under the Criminal Code of Canada and criminal harassment (264. (1)) can either be "(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction." The article doesn't state whether the charge was indictable or summary and cannot state this unless there is a published source. Downwoody (talk) 18:33, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLPSELFPUB problems

Her website is being used as the sole source for information that seems self-serving and of questionable encyclopedic value. [1]. Without third-party sources, it's not clear that any of this material is due mention. --Ronz (talk) 17:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Me Too

This entry, over the years, has been a spectacular example of the anti-feminism that plagues Wikipedia's overwhelmingly white, middle-class male "editors". It is a textbook case of men failing to believe a woman and using any source -- including a Fraser Institute "report" written by a conservative university professor for a right-wing Koch-financed "think tank" -- to discredit her side of the story and to humiliate her into silence. The entry, and the one on the SFU "controversy" (the go-to word for Wikipedia editors who want to through shit on someone), have been filled with "slut shaming" material through the years. The authors have tenaciously fought against this woman and her story through ArbComm cases and have worked to silence or ban those who have stood up for her and to remove anything about her that is not embarrassing to her. It had been an appalling spectacle that would likely not happen in the #metoo years, and it's something Wikipedia really needs to look at. Wikipedia culture biases have harmed the reputations of many, many people who have been victimized by full-time Wikipedia "editors" who know how to use arbitration and administrative functions to their benefit. I am not sure if there are more entries like this (which had, fortunately, been toned down somewhat since the worst versions of some ten years ago) but they need to be ferreted out. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 13:01, 8 February 2019 (UTC)