- Melissa Guille (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
Closer's notes
I know I'm closing this early, but the position is quite clear and it's best to avoid any unnecessary hassle. Clearly, based on all the comments, there is one appropriate course of action open:
- this version of the article should remain deleted.
but
- this does not prejudice the creation of a new version of the article if it is well sourced and neutral and so on.
Just to make it clear, for this and future cases: we don't need to undelete this version of the article in order to start another version of it. As long as the new version doesn't exhibit the same problem that led to the old version being deleted, it's a welcome addition.
It seems that the title is not protected anymore, so work on a new version can begin. --bainer (talk) 03:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This article was originally protected from re-creation due to a repost of a biased article containing no sources at all; the protection is now removed since decent editors seem to have decent sources to work from. Guy (Help!) 19:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like to thank you for unprotecting the page, but could I ask what you mean by decent ediors? I certainly hope you don't mean that editors who have an honest disagreement with your position are not decent. If you mean something else, then I apologize for reading too much into your statement. If i'm correct, I would ask you to apologize for this statement. I understand that these debates can heat up and emotions get the better of us, but there's no need for passive aggressive comments. AnnieHall 20:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Guille is the leader of the Canadian Heritage Alliance (the article for which was recently undeleted), and a prominent member of the Canadian radical right. The last version of this article was a sourced stub, which was deleted without an afd or speedy notice. CJCurrie 06:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The last version of this article was actually an attack, and the "sourced stub" before that was sourced from http://www.canadiancontent.ca/ - "thoughts and rants from the inside out" - more or less a blog. Nor do we need the history back, thanks all the same, as it is riddled with subtle smears. Please feel free to start afresh if you want, but the deleted version was, as far as I can tell, pretty much irredeemable. Note that the CHA article is very small due to the tiny number of sources which actually address it; I don't think there are many, if any at all, which addres Guille separately, so a redirect may be the best solution. Whatever, endorse the deletion of that which was deleted as an article whihc served primarily to disparage its subject. Guy (Help!) 06:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with CHA page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Michaelmcardle (talk • contribs) 12:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Well, if we're looking for articles on Guille, this might work, and Google is bringing up plenty of other pages which, put together, would probably support an article. No opinion on the original deletion, but it seems like we could uphold something here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Jeff, that is a single line court report. We already have that information, the charge was brought by the same guy who seems to bring most of the charges under Canada's human rights act. Thing is, though, it actually says nothing. I mean, if I were charged with driving under the influence, I'd get about that size paragraph in the local paper. We need better than that. I know more must exis, but the only sources for more that have yet been cited are not reliable. Guy (Help!) 18:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is untrue, it only appears like a single line report because the full article is only available by paying for it or by subscription (or from Factiva and Lexis Nexis). However, if you look around you can find the full text on the web here [2] and it's a far more substantive article that gives her age, details of the complaint, the fact that she moved from Kitchener to London after being "exposed by the media" and also discusses, and give credence to, Matt Lauder as an infiltrator and investigator of the white supremacist movement. Therefore, this article can also be used to justify including references to the source material, ie the articles Lauder has written on the CHA. Also, this complaint by the "same guy who seems to bring most of the charges" isn't trivial. If you read the Richard Warman article it seems most of his complaints end up being successful, In fact, I can't find a reference to any of his complaints being unsuccessful as of yet. He also isn't just any guy, he's a noted human rights lawyer and former employee of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. You can find the text of another London Free Press article on Miss Guille here http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:ajQM07VKZJMJ:www.recomnetwork.org/articles/05/03/27/0640235.shtml+%22randy+richmond%22+%22melissa+guille%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=ca
if you don't have access to Lexis/Nexis or Factiva. --Duke of Duchess Street 21:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn Lexis/Nexis and Factiva return numerous non-trivial citations that can be used which have sources such as the police describing Guille as a white supremacist and as leader of the Canadian Heritage Alliance. Also numerous articles about her case at the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Salting this page when there hadn't even been an AFD on it was a complete over-reaction. At minimum overturn and list AFD. --Duke of Duchess Street 17:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We do not undelete defamatory articles just because a better article could be written on the subject. Feel free to create a new, neutral, sourced article. Guy (Help!) 18:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't possible since the article has been protected against recreation. Also, it looks like most if not all the material you object to can be sourced if you just do a basic Lexis-Nexis search. --Duke of Duchess Street 21:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm happy to unprotecte it, especially if you can write a sourced article in user space, but the claims Guille (not I) objected to may be hard to pin down to reliable sources. Either way, as long as a new article does not contain the links to an organisation she denies any involvement with, and does not engage in original research, it should be fine. No undeletion is required for this. Guy (Help!) 22:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Deletion but no prejudice towards rewriting a better sourced article. You can't say undelete as it is because there's too much unsourced accusations (that are denied I believed). -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 02:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
overturn - Yet another white supremacist who doesn't deserve their true colours hidden. --Mista-X 02:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn First, another complete copy of the “London Free Press” article can be found at [3]. It seems to me that one of the main issues we are concerned about is the legitimacy of certain sources. There was a similar debate a few months ago concerning the Marc Lemire article. On my talk page, Jimbo Wales provided the following concerning his views of what sources may be used:
- I fully support the use of carefully quoted information directly from the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, B'nai Brith, etc. For Nizkor, the main things I object to are allegedly archived usenet posts and email correspondences... we have no good way to judge what scholarly standards they used, and anyway those things do not seem to add much. There is plenty in the reliable sources.
--Jimbo Wales 04:03, 1 January 2007
- A few points. First, Canadian Human Rights Tribunal articles stand alone as sources of information and do not need secondary media sources to back them up [4][5][6]. Second, if B'nai Brith are considered to be legitimate sources for an article [7][8][9] (note that Richard Warman wrote the section on Hate on the Internet in Canada in the 2005 analysis) [10], it makes sense that Canadian Jewish Congress articles are also legitimate sources [11]. Third, If this CJC article is a legitimate source, then should not the Canadian Content articles by Matthew Lauder also be considered legitimate? I think Guy has the wrong impression about the Canadian Content website; it archives articles and other media written by Canadians and is certainly not a blog. Finally, while Jimbo Wales said his concern about Nizkor had to do with usenet posts and email correspondences, based on this statement should we not accept archived mass media articles such as [12]? AnnieHall 03:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn Canadiancontent.ca has editorial oversight. BLP forbids using self-published blogs, but e-zines with editorial oversight are fine. The London Free Press is also a reliable source. If the most recent version was troublesome, reverting and/or stubbing the article would probably have solved any problems. Kla'quot 08:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- For crying out loud! Why on earth would we undelete a badly sourced, inaccurate, defamatory biography? What is wrong with you people? Make a new article, with sources, fine, great, dandy, but DO NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES undelete an article which leads with an unsourced statement the subject asserts is both false and defamatory! This is pretty basic stuff, guys! Rewrite fomr proper sources is the correct answer, here, not restore that which was deleted as defamatory. Guy (Help!) 16:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- First, the article didn't say she was a leader of the Heritage Front. I bleive it stated that she was a member. Second, I'm wondering if you read my input on the issue and looked at what Jimbo Wales wrote concerning the Marc Lemire article? The sources you believe are not reliable are in fact reliable. Finally, I would ask that you follow your own advice concerning being overly passionate. What is wrong with me is that I believe that you were overzealous in deleting the article and protecting the page and I'm merely trying to explain my position, as is others who are posting on this particular issue. AnnieHall 19:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Guy, you keep saying the article is full of unsourced statements, and the only backup you provide on that is canadiancontent.ca doesn't pass muster as a reliable source. I've just given you a reason that it does, and all you do is keep saying, "The article was unsourced!" I might be convinced of your premise if you undelete the history behind a screen. And even then, you can stub an article instead of deleting it. This is what Jimbo has done several times for unsourced and defamatory biographies.[13],[14],[15] Kla'quot 16:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See if you can find a reliable source, that is reliable enough that we would include it against the subject's categorical statement that it is false, to support her being a leader of the Heritage Front. When you've done that, I will undelete the article and you can add that as the source for that statement. If you can't, then go to work on a new, sourced article which does not start fomr the premise that because she was a leader of a group of which she denies ever haivng been a member then she is necessarily a white supremacist, and therefore the canadian Heritage Alliance is a white supremacist group beacsue it includes Guille, who is a white supremacist because she was a leader of the HF. OK? Because I have to tell you that I did check Factiva before I removed the article, and I could not find a source for this claim. That may be down to my Factive namespace, of course. Guy (Help!) 19:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Guy, Heritage Front and the Canadian Heritage Alliance are different organizations. Please correct your statement. Kla'quot 19:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well she's written two letters to the editor signed "Melissa Guille, Canadian Heritage Alliance" or "Melissa Guille, Member, Canadian Heritage Alliance" in which she refers to the group as "us", so if she is not the leader of this organization she has been acting as a spokesperson. A Toronto Star article described her as the designer of the group's website. Under these circumstances, referring to her as the leader is debatable but it is not defamatory. Sources:
- Waterloo supremacist group has road 'adoption' revoked ; Sign is plucked from roadside; [Ontario Edition] Liz Monteiro. Toronto Star. Toronto, Ont.: Apr 19, 2001. pg. A.04
- Free speech is chained; [Final Edition] Melissa Guille. The Record. Kitchener, Ont.: May 1, 2001. pg. A.06
- Group was maligned; [Final Edition] Melissa Guille. The Record. Kitchener, Ont.: Mar 7, 2001. pg. A.12
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Clayoquot (talk • contribs) 19:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep deleted. If someone can write an article one the subject, that is well sourced and not defamatory they can always do that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Per Guy: If anyone really wants to write a sourced, proper article, he can do so in his userpage and when it is ready, ask an administrator to unprotect the site so that it can be moved there. I see no reason why the old article should be undeleted instead. --Mbimmler 16:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse per Guy. He's right, it is basic. Js farrar 16:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, keep deleted — defamation in an article's history is still defamation ➥the Epopt 16:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BLP says that when we encounter defamation we are to remove it, not WP:OVERSIGHT it. Kla'quot 16:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And common sense says that when you have a pile of decent sources and some editors who want an article, you go right ahead and write one, without arguing the toss over a deleted history that is full of junk. Guy (Help!) 19:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- List at AfD with all the sources present. Still no comment on the original deletion, but it's obvious that there's a lot to go with here, and it should get a proper hearing. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse with no prejudice to recreation of proper article per Guy. Defamation is defamation. -- Avi 18:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse so that the article can be started all over again from scratch. FCYTravis 18:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse per Guy, FCYTravis, etc. I have no opinion on whether or not an article on this subject meets our inclusion criteria, but we don't need to be publishing this article's history if we want to start over with a properly sourced, NPOV one. Jkelly 19:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- At this point I'm less concerned with publishing the history than I am that legitimate sources are going to be denied as being legitimate: Canadian Human Rights Tribunal documents, Canadian Content articles, information from B'nai Brith annual audits, etc. If only information presented in the mass media is a legitimate source, then I would suggest that most specialized scientific articles on Wikipedia that might be found in only a handful of specialized publications read only by a few hundred researchers should be rejected as poorly sourced articles as well. AnnieHall 20:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As long as those documents are not used out of context, and can be verified, you should be on solid ground. Agreed that Mass media is not the sole source, but with stuff in the edit history, it's better to start afresh IMO. -- Avi 21:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You need to be wary of WP:NOR as well. Reporting what is found in court documents or tribunal documents is OR if conclusions are drawn from it. You need reliable sources that draw conclusions to report those conclusions. We are tertiary source editors, not investigative journalists engaged in synthesis. ++Lar: t/c 21:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse per Guy and Mbimmler. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion, per Guy, Jossi, et al. There is no need to undelete a bunch of smear stuff. Just write the article again, from good sources, if such can be done, keeping WP:BLP in mind, which clearly the first article did not. There's no need to oversight it away but there is also no need to bring the deleted revisions back. Start afresh, no need for AfD... if there are proper sources that's a waste of time... ++Lar: t/c 20:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse per Guy. And why bring a deletion here when the deletion is without prejudice to a decent recreation. Go write a good article, if you can.--Docg 20:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What statements of Guy are you endorsing? That canadiancontent.ca, which has an editorial board, is not a reliable source? That Guille denies ever being a member of the CHC, despite writing at least two letters on the CHC's behalf? Kla'quot 21:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I suspect he's endorsing Guy's actions here, not specific statements. As am I. Guy is doing difficult work here... People who delete things that are apparently poorly sourced smear jobs that push POV and skirt BLP ought to be thanked, not hindered. Go write a good article, if you can. ++Lar: t/c 21:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Editors who write properly sourced articles in good faith should not have their work thrown away and be told that they have to start over. Lar, you are saying the article was poorly sourced. What is your basis for saying that? Kla'quot 21:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My basis? First... Guy said so. His word carries a lot of weight with me, and I trust him to have done the research in this area. What is your basis for syaing that this article was well sourced and does not contain synthesis or original research? I trust Guy a lot. So you have to make the case that it is well sourced. Second... I reviewed the last version before it was stubbed (since I am an admin I could look at the deleted version) and in my considered opinion it was as I characterised. Not well sourced, full of synthesis, and a smear, not an objective, well written NPOV article. Again.. Endorse Deletion. You'd be farther ahead to have spent the time you spent ruleslawyering here on a fresh start, that article is not worth starting from as a basis, in my considered opinion. ++Lar: t/c 21:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- When an admin speedies an article, they are expected to have a reason and to explain it. We are here to review admins' explanations for speedying articles, not to pat people on the back for all the good work they've done when they weren't deleting the article. "In my opinion, it was poorly sourced" is not an explanation; "Another person says so and I trust him" is just about the weakest argument imaginable. Can you at least elaborate by saying what the new synthesized argument was, what statements were poorly sourced, or what sources were unreliable? Kla'quot 21:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you're missing the point. "pat him on the back" is quite misleading, no one is doing that. However, Guy knows what he's doing in this area, based on my experience. Therefore when he says something is poorly sourced, J Random Editor has to strongly prove him wrong before I'll agree with them. You just don't have that same credence with me, I have no prior experience of you and you're not scoring many style points now. Hence Guy's reasoning, which has been given in spades, above, is good enough for me, absent refutation. Your asking me to regurgitate that reasoning ("Can you at least elaborate") is a waste of time because it's up there, and you haven't actually refuted it in my view, your arguments seem more like arm waving to me. When you have the credence with me that he does, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but not just yet. Others may differ but my money is on Guy knowing what he is talking about. THAT said I did look at the article and in my judgement, a good article could be written but that one is so far away from a good article, and so filled with slanted POV, that it needs to stay deleted. In my judgement. Go write a good article if you can. But this is just the sort of article that OTRS gets complaints about all the time, the sort of article that BLP is designed to address. What is needed in this case is that the article writer meticulously source statements made in other sources, and keep the article completely devoid of any OR. Someone could do that, maybe. Maybe you could... or maybe you could not. But I urge you not to argue here but rather to go write the good article that some think is there. The consensus seems to be fairly clear. Go write it. If you can. ++Lar: t/c 03:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep deleted - One woman and the low traffic website she runs are notable how exactly? Every single 'source' about them seems to trace back to Richard Warman... whether it be his connections with B'Nai Brith, his status as a former member of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the fact that he has been the complainant on more than 80% of the challenges brought under the Canadian Human Rights Act (including the one against Guille), et cetera. We don't have an article on every single person Warman has hauled before the commission and there is no reason we should. He's essentially the single source for all 'news' about her - and clearly not an impartial observer in the process. Guille hasn't been 'found guilty' of anything because the charges against her and the website are still pending... though apparently the tribunal has a 100% 'conviction' rate. None of the statements listed in the complaint were actually written by her... apparently the claim is that Canadian law allows her to be guilty of 'hate speech' if she 'does not prevent' other people from posting biased comments to her site. I see no evidence of either notability or impartial sources for an article about this person... or her Canadian Heritage Alliance website for that matter. --CBD 21:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Deletion, Sited data is flawed missing factual information Rdouc 22:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like this discussion is being watched at [http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/help-melissa-guille-wikipedia-380780.html]. AnnieHall 22:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Keep article deleted. Dogmatic 23:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- overturn deletion - person is rare female leader of Cdn neonazi group that has had sustained media attention over severl years in Cda —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Whatup1 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- keep deleted - A term like "neo-nazi" is already a sign of bad things to come. When slanderous terms are thrown around like that it's a good sign that the Wikipedia community can't be self-regulated. Imstillhere 02:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
|
