This is an archive of past discussions about Mark Bourrie. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
This guy is a nobody. These so called journalism awards do not justify a bio that is longer than most really famous living people. Furthermore, it is obvious that the individual in question has been actively editing his own page. Strongly recommended for speedy deletion. -- unsigned comment from 69.159.225.191
general comments
HistoryBA should do more research before undertaking a Wikipedia entry. Simply reading my blog would have given him the material to accurately describ me and to explain the Kinsella lawsuit and put it into some context regarding Kinsella and the Canadian blogging scene.
There were several errors and unsubtantiated claims in the entry.
Among them:
that the settlement apology was a complete retraction of the blog entry
that the settlement came because of a lack of funds to fight the case. The blog shows otherwise. The correction that settled the suit was essentially the same one posted in late January. There was no reason to litigate when, essentially, Kinsella agreed to accept the same retraction that was already posted, with an added apology. Again, reading the blog would have showed this.
If details of my life are important enough to be posted on Wikipedia, then the fact that I'm a published author and have won the country's top award for magazine writing are at least as important as a month-long controversy over a slap suit.
Mark Bourrie
Update: the large percentage of the entry given over to a simple libel lawsuit threat in Canada shows how perspective is skewed when an entry is written too close to an event. As well, it is incredibly local. It was obviously written by a Canadian who doesn't realise Kinsella, and even the Liberal Party, are unknown outside the country. Readers in many copuntries would know my work through IPS and would be bewildered by the "sponsorship scandal" by the localisms. I don 't really care about the entry, but it does seem rather provincial and more of a news item than any reflection and/or description of my career as a writer. MB
I don't think there is any reason to take that tone, which seems to violate the Wikipedia spirit of goodwill.
You say there were "several errors and unsubstantiated claims", but only name two. What are the others?
As for not reading your blog, I can tell you I did. I noted the section where you talked about a lack of funds to fight the case. What conclusion was I to draw from that?
Moreover, where did I say it was a "complete retraction"? I said it was "unqualified", which is not the same thing as "complete." You yourself said that you were apologizing "without reservation." Isn't "without reservation" the same as "unqualified"? I was just trying to convey your meaning, not misrepresent you as you seem to allege.
It may well be that being an award-winning author is more important than being sued by Kinsella. All I can say is that I first heard of you when you started adding material on the lawsuit to Kinsella Wikipedia entry. I suspect many others would tell the same story. HistoryBA18:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I didn't add information on the lawsuit. I fixed the misrepresentation of what the suit was about.
I suppose people wo read Ontario might have heard of me, and my books sell better in the States than in Canada. I guess it's a matter of perspective.
Anyway, my hands are a bit tied when it comes to talking about the libel case. These were some of my considerations:
1. The part that I apologized for was, for all legal purposes, wrong. The original wording could be interpreted either way, and, in Canadian libel law, the benefit of the doubt goes to the plaintiff, the person who's been written about. I had excellent legal advice on this. And I wasn't about to go to court and argue Kinsella was involved in sponsorship kickbacks, since I know full well he wasn't. He left the department two years before the program began.
2. There were parts that I was very defensive about but were not subject to the suit or apology. Go back and read the original post and think about what the post says.
3. There are a lot of libel suits around, and things may be quite different in a couple of years. I know that's cryptic.
4. I really do believe there should be some quick and easy system for adjudicating this kind of thing. If a Press Council can handle a case in six months or a year without bankrupting everyone involved, why can't the courts?
Mark Bourrie
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you add your name to Kinsella's Wikipedia page? Didn't it refer vaguely to a "journalist" before you edited it to add your name?
Yea, I added my name. It referred to a "freelance journalist" a term I rather detest and that does not really suit me or what i do, since almost all my income these days comes from teaching, scholarships, book royalties, regular editing work and scheduled special projects in a law publication. I'm not chasing ambulances, trying to sell stories. MB
Again, I would ask you to be good enough to explain the "several errors and unsubtantiated claims" that you claim I put into this entry, or, in the spirit of goodwill, withdraw that statement. HistoryBA00:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
After Kinsella threatened a law suit,Not True: Kinsella actually filed a lawsuit Bourrie backed down and issued an unqualified apology on his site, which read as follows: "The manner in which my January 14, 2006 blog entry was worded made it seem that Mr. Kinsella had been a party to illegal conduct when this was clearly not the case. I apologize without reservation to Mr. Kinsella for that error on my part." A subsequent post, however, suggested that Bourrie had settled not because he thought he was wrong, but because he could not afford the cost of litigation. Not true: my blog had several postings in which I discussed my ability to cover the cost of a lawsuit(I have a deal to sell my Ontario trilobite collection to a museum for about $200,000). The post you've mention (and posted) shows my belief that the system is too slow and not worth the cost. Big difference.
Essentially, I found all the editorializing related to the lawsuit in your entry be speculative and inaccurate. The retraction has to be taken in the context of the entire post. Again, I don't want to tread on ground that is covered by the constraints placed on me by the settlement agreement, but I really do wish you would see the post as a whole, because the suit was threatened and launched within the context of the entire blog entry and each and all of the statements made in it.
Someone delete this entry
This person is in no way notable. Please delete this entry.
Vandalism
BTW, looks like someone is vandalizing the entry. MB
I notice that Mark Bourrie has vandalized the article himself. He will, I hope, reassure us soon that this was an honest mistake -- just a slip of the fingers. HistoryBA19:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it was. I was looking at the old version in edit mode to try to see how to make embedded links and saved it. Mark Bourrie 21:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
De-verbiage
The Kinsella lawsuit has been reduced to its essentials. If the blog post is libelous, why is it repeated here?Arthur Ellis23:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Far too much was made of this at the time; I agree that it should be reduced to essentials. I rephrased part of it, to emphasize that Bourrie didn't just retract part of the post, but apologized without reservation for the entire thing. HistoryBA23:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
No he didn't. Check his blog. He apologized for one phrase in a 400-word posting. History BA, PLEASE be more careful. Look how many errors you have made in just this one article. Arthur Ellis00:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
What I said above was incorrect. But what I said in the article was correct. He did apologize without reservation. What other errors are you talking about? HistoryBA02:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
See all the ones above on this page, plus saying he apologized for the entire post. You're not even a good guesser. I'm afraid errors creep into your posts all the time. Arthur Ellis15:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
If you are going to make an allegation like that, you should be specific. Bourrie alleged all sorts of errors, but many of them were not errors, or were questions of interpretation, not fact. Which specific errors do you believe that I have made? HistoryBA20:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
All the ones listed above by Bourrie and me. You simply will not do basic research (i.e. look at the blog archives, which I did). You just seem to guess or to make stuff up as you go along. I've looked at several of the articles you've worked on and found very basic historical errors. Arthur Ellis23:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Once again, I would ask you to be specific. I happen to believe that Bourrie's allegations were unfounded. In one case, as I pointed out above, he misquoted me. Tell me which of his alleged errors you support and I will respond. Also, which error did you list? If I'm not mistaken, you were merely responding to something I said on the talk page, not in the article itself. I would appreciate it, too, if you would tell me which basic errors you believe I have made on other pages? If you cannot substantiate these claims, they amount to little more than a personal attack, similar to the one you made on another page regarding my education. This is against the spirit of Wikipedia. As for basic research, I think my record speaks for itself, but clearly you disagree. Would you like me to list a score of occasions where I have done considerable research to improve Wikipedia articles (including creating this article)? HistoryBA23:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
You are accusing me of making errors in my edits. There's no need to repeat yourself, simply tell me which specific edits you are referring to. You have yet to do that, even once. As I pointed out above, Bourrie has misquoted me. To support his erroneous allegations is to further misquote me. Furthermore, to accuse me of making errors on other pages, without substantiating the claim in any way, is both a personal smear and an act of cowardice.
Finally, you accuse me of failing to conduct basic research. This is an error on your part. Reviewing this article's edit history will show that I have visited Bourrie's blog, quoted from it, and added a link to it in the article. Will you review my edit history on this article and withdraw that unfounded allegation? HistoryBA13:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
As I've said, the facts speak for themselves. I haven't the time to educate you. Go back through your versions of the article and this talk page and you will see quite a few of your own errors. I've corrected errors of yours on Canadian history pages -- Canadian military history comes to mind.
I just have no time for you and your sloppiness. Arthur Ellis19:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Just because he has written a book or two does not make him notable. Who cares if he has a BA or won an award in Canada? Happy Fun Toy
Needs Citation
A lot of this article would be better served if there were facts to back it up. Could. Arthur Ellis, can you please come to the rescue.Pete Peters19:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay, if citations can't be established, then that section should be deleted. I'll give it a couple of days for some citations, eitherwise that section will have to be cut. Pete Peters01:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Phew. For a second I was worried that the information posted was false. Good work Arthur, I knew I could count on you. :) Pete Peters01:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
It would be nice if you did some research, rather than just criticise the work of others and create work that you are not prepared to contribute to. Arthur Ellis01:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
My edits
I removed the uncle in-law because, well, it's his uncle in-law. It seems pretty ridiculous to include that. I've never seen such a thing before. Frankly I thought I was being polite to Mr. Bourrie in keeping the mother in-law which I think is also pretty irregular. As for the trilobites thing, I was trying to be polite but "internationally recognized" are basically so-called "weasel words". I didn't mean to suggest what Bourrie's standing is in the community, just that nothing was demonstrated by the link. The link is just a personal, albeit well-done site which has a link to Bourrie's site in the author's section "Some of My Favorite Trilobite Links". I don't think that demonstrates that he is "internationally recognized". It just demonstrates that one website author likes the Bourrie site. And considering Bourrie's site is primarily photos, I would doubt that it is a comment on his expertise. I'm not saying that Bourrie has none, it just needs to be demonstrated for inclusion. --JGGardiner15:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
But since I'm started on the talk page, I wanted to ask what is an "international property law student"? Is she just in an LL.B. program? As well, I'd note the lawsuit section is still problematic. The first line says that Bourrie posted comments about Kinsella. But where? At his blog? It doesn't say. I'm not familiar with Bourrie or the issue myself. I'd honestly never heard of the guy until a few days ago. So if someone is more familiar with the issue perhaps they could clean it up. Thanks. --JGGardiner15:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Since I'm happy to mention Bourrie's trilobite expertise, I went off to see if I could find anything on the internet. But there are only a couple of links to his site, a couple of people showing his pictures and a mention on his blog and a friend's blog. I'm not exactly sure what Bourrie does in the field. His site doesn't really say. Has he had anything published perhaps that someone could point us to? Or anything else that might be helpful. Thanks. --JGGardiner16:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
As you can see above, I had already searched for Bourrie (via google as it happens). But since I was asked, here's the breakdown. Thirteen sites mention Bourrie and trilobites. Of these, three are this article(including help and answer mirrors), three are Bourrie's own sites (plus one, bloganism.blogspot.com, which claims to be his friend and describes Bourrie as a "trilo-collector"). As well, one "web catalog" (taxonomy.com) links to his site and does call him a paleontologist.
So that leaves five paleontology and geology websites. Of those, two use his (www.fossilhut.com and gtlsys.com/FossilForum) pictures without comment. The other three provide links to Bourrie's site only.
And I should say that I understand that trilobites source used is a good site, it just doesn't call Bourrie an expert or even a paleontolgist. It just says it likes his site. So do I -- lots of nice pictures. --JGGardiner18:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
It's a way cool site, but like JGGardiner I am in favour of the removal of 'internationally-recognized' from the page. The citation does not seem to verify what is claimed. I would revert the page, but I don't want to start an edit war. Ryanfantastic05:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
#1:
Category: Society
Magazine: OTTAWA CITY MAGAZINE
Creator: Mark Bourrie
Year: 2003
Award type: HM
Title: Rush To Misjudgment
#2:
Category: Social Affairs
Magazine: OTTAWA CITY MAGAZINE
Creator: Mark Bourrie
Year: 2000
Award type: HM
Title: Killer cure
#3:
Category: Social Affairs
Magazine: OTTAWA CITY MAGAZINE
Creator: Mark Bourrie
Year: 1999
Award type: Gold
Title: The System That Killed Santa
In regards to recent edits, I would like to voice my opinion again that the claim of 'internationally-recognized' has not yet been verified. -- Ryanfantastic00:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure that Bourrie is actually a paleontologist at all, even an amateur one. It seems like he's just a collector. Only one site that I saw called him a paleontologist and that was just a link catalog (see above). It may be true but it certainly isn't verified. The claim was inserted in Ceraurus' original edits, when he was claiming to be Bourrie. --JGGardiner01:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
The anonymous editor merely needed to reinsert the reference to the awards and provide a verifiable source. A blanket reversion of JGGardiner's four edits, with the claim that they constituted vandalism, was a clear violation of the Wikipedia spirit of goodwill. HistoryBA00:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Is it being suggested that the Ottawa City Magazine link[1] was incorrect? The dates are one and two years off on the articles and "Killer Cure" isn't mentioned at all at that link. What's the deal? --JGGardiner02:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Not sure... The awards from last year were for articles written in 2004, and it looks like Bourrie was awarded a National Magazine Award in 2000 for an article he wrote in 1999. I would consider the site authoritative, so perhaps the Ottawa City Magazine site is incorrect. -- Ryanfantastic08:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I would defer to the NMA also. I can see why someone would think that OCM was correct upon seeing it. Although I wonder why Ellis added it and didn't change the text in the article to reflect what it actually said. --JGGardiner15:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi
I have no problems with the way this entry looks now. Someone I know had put in stuff about my wife's family that doesn't have much bearing on me (at this time, but I am planning a book on the adventures of the Rembrandt Project after I get my doctorate finished). The Kinsella suit stuff is more accurate now, and the paleontology/fossil collector stuff is right. I specialize in seeking out new lagerstatten (trilobite kill zones) in limestone quarries and collecting them before they get crushed. I have some papers in the works but you can see that, with school and writing, there's not a lot of time for academic writing that's not related to my thesis. Thanks for your help and for keeping vandals (no matter how well-meaning) away. But you might want to take "Wikipedia enthusiast" off the article, since I haven't posted anything on Wikipedia since my fight last May over the Marsden entry (which I still think is a cruel piece of work). Mark Bourrie64.26.147.18823:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Paleontologist?
The article still states that Bourrie an amateur paleontologist. That claim was originally insterted by Ceraurus in his original edits, claiming to be Bourrie. However, when I was looking around to see if Bourrie was "internationally-recognized" I noticed an odd thing: nobody seems to think that Bourrie is a paleontologist at all. Other than Bourrie, only one web catalog [2] even used the term. That doesn't convince me. Looking at what Bourrie has put out there, it seems his page is just a bunch of pictures of his collection of fossils. He also contributed a short piece about the closure of a quarry to collectors. In fairness, aside from Ceraurus' edits and claim to be Bourrie (which I'm not sure of) I don't think that Bourrie calls himself a paleontologist. Here's the only description I found on his website.[3] Does fossil-hunting make one a paleontologist? I've seen that on WP we tend to distinguish the two.[4][5][6] I think that a paleontologist studies fossils, a hunter just finds them and a collecter well collects them. I've seen nothing (except this article) to indicate that Bourrie does the first of those, even as an amateur. --JGGardiner16:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I would have to argue that 'amateur paleontologist' is an apt. descrition and should remain in the article. Certainly fossil-hunting does not make one a paleontologist, but it is my belief that an avid fossil-hunter could be refered to as an amateur paleontologist. I feel it is much the same as an avid star gazer being reffered to as an Amateur astronomist. -- Ryanfantastic00:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm fine with putting it back in. Although I still feel that it is a bit misleading. Just my opinion. As long as we can get back to consensus-based editing I'll be thrilled. --JGGardiner20:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I just put it back into the article while retaining the fossil activities also. I thought that they were relevant in their own right but if anyone disagrees, feel free to remove them. Thanks. --JGGardiner20:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Education
Thanks for filling that section out. Do you have a source on it all? Where did you find the mention of the focus of his Diploma studies? --JGGardiner18:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Great, thanks. By the way, I notice that we only have his birth year. Does anyone know the more specific date? I was hoping that if not somebody might look it up since some of the more hard-working editors have gone to such lengths (looking up 20 year old newspapers and such). --JGGardiner18:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I am a bit hesitant about reporting an actual birthday unless Bourrie has pubicly disclosed it himself. As it stands now, it doesn't look like it is well known, so disclosure from anyone else would not be inline with WP:BLP. Sorry if this comes across as wikilawyering -- Ryanfantastic19:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Progress
Good catch on the tornado. I thought an F5 sounded high for Canada. Although I'm not terribly familiar with such things. I am a little uneasy with the new line about his Wikipedia account. Although if it is true... Along the same lines, perhaps Bourrie should be described as WP critic, since I understand he mostly seemed concerned with articles that he thought were poorly constructed. I'm also surprised that there isn't a WP entry on his cousin. Seems like a notable enough guy to me. Thanks everyone --JGGardiner06:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
The actual citation for Bourrie's National Post story is: National Post, Apr 21, 2001. p. H.7. I did a Proquest search. I think that we have the schools backwards:
"I was accepted into the University of Western Ontario with a 66% average, but I didn't stay. Two years later, I took a run at the Ryerson journalism program and botched that, too."
Incidentally, it gives the date for his Guelph diploma as 1994. I'm not sure if you want to replace an indirect online link with the actual offline citation. I don't much care myself. Interestingly, Bourrie also wrote an article about the van de Wetering uncle in-law (that I'd previously removed from the article) although I didn't notice any mention of their relationship in the article. It's from 2003 though. I'm not sure if he was married to his niece then. --JGGardiner06:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
It's mentioned on his blog during the Kinsella dust-uo (February archives).
Saying Bourrie is banned from Wikipedia may not be such a great idea, since we have no proof that the "Mark Bourrie" of Wikipedia is this Mark Bourrie, or that someone hasn't been playing fast and loose with his name. As well, it seems like bating. Arthur Ellis22:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
As well, it looks like Bourrie moved from one university to another. Since he took journalism and worked in it, it would make sense to go from Western (which does not have an undergrad school) to Ryerson, which has the best undergrad school in the country and is extremely hard to get into. I doubt they take "drop outs". As well, he talks in a comment on his blog of carrying an A average through nine years of university and of being fully-funded and paid by the University of Ottawa to do his doctorate.
I suppose Pete Peters can do what he likes. No matter how you make him look as an undergrad, that's a pretty stellar set of degrees.Arthur Ellis22:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
We shouldn't say transferred or dropped out if we don't know. We can't make guesses, even good ones. I'd probably guess that he didn't leave Western with the greatest record and sounds like he had major problems at Ryerson. The full quote from the story above:
"So, was Lake Superior High really that bad? In my case, I was academically and psychologically unprepared for university. I was accepted into the University of Western Ontario with a 66% average, but I didn't stay. Two years later, I took a run at the Ryerson journalism program and botched that, too."
Probably the isolation of undergrads. Maybe he regretted getting a job and quitting school. Obviously getting a higher education is important to him, since he went back at it with a vengeance.Arthur Ellis23:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Disputes
Remember the best way to resolve disputes is by talking about it. There is an edit war (five reverts) about the status of user:MarkBourrie's account in the article. You guys aren't even using the edit summaries (other than one insult and a vandalism accusation). Pete, if you want that included let us know why. And Arthur, you have a chance to elaborate on your reason for exclusion if you'd like.
Personally I think that it makes me uneasy as I said above, for the reasons that Arthur elaborated. On the other hand, we've allowed a box on this page which says that the user is indeed Bourrie. Still, I don't think that I'd include it. So, if you're going to edit you have to let the community understand what's going on. If you can't resolve disputes appropriately we're just going to end up with another block. Now please, talk out your problems. Thanks. --JGGardiner02:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, if people don't like it, than give a reason. I get rather irate when someone cries vandalism over every little disagreement. That is issue. Pete Peters22:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the vandalism part and I'd like to remind everyone that a good faith edit, even a bad one, is not vandalism. But I think that Arthur already stated his concern and I've agreed with him on that. I think that you're probably aware by now that consensus and discussion are very important here when there are disputes so I'd suggest that you state your reasons. Nobody really wins with an edit war, the best thing is to resolve it here. --JGGardiner00:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
In your last edit of the arfticle, you posted: "However Bourrie pulled the same stunt the last time Kinsella sued him." That's not vandalism?
Also, it's not true.
You've posted some obvious vandalism. Be grateful you got away with it.64.26.170.6900:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Minor Edit
Please correct By Reason of Insanity (Dundurn 1997)which is not the complete title to By Reason of Insanity: The David Michael Krueger Story and link to Peter Woodcock [7]. Peter Woodcock was the real name of David Michael Kruger:
1- BA at Waterloo is in "History"
2- The name of the Master of Journalism from Carleton is spelled incorrectly (Bourry).
Thank you - kim lee
Funny, you were "Nancy Chin" on the John Arpin page.
How do you know they spelled Bourrie's name "Bourry" on the Master of Journalism (diploma?) --142.78.64.5816:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
At the Age of 33
I believe his graduation age is valid. It gives us a better understanding of him. He may not be academically gifted when achieving good grades, but neither was Einstien. It is important note, perhaps he is the next Newton of his study. Well it isn't rocket science like engineering, but it is a social science. Pete Peters22:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Maybe he was 32. You can't tell if you don't know his birthday, moron. You've already accused him of padding his resume and you've been exposed as a liar. Your POV is pathetic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.230.36.153 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Those are very harsh words, and I feel they go against the spirit of Wikipedia. Since you are anonymous and I can't locate the user. I shall issue a yellow card right here and on the spot. From now please be nice, and have a happy Wiki day. Pete Peters23:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
"Resume padding" are harsh words that you used and that turned out to be false. So are the isults re: this guy's degree.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.217.75.250 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I am not insulting his degree, it's a an arts degree. The degree that every mature student can achieve. Just because it requires a tenth amount of work compared to engineering, doesn't mean I am insulting it. Pete Peters00:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Funny you ask, I was required to take an english proficiency test. A Ph.D. is not as difficult as it used to be. My father is a science prof., and he is annoyed how easy it is to defend your Ph.D these days. It's becoming a rubber stamp process. So why is his age such an issue, that it must be deleted from Wikipedia? Pete Peters00:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
and, for what it's worth, more power to anyone who goes back and finishes a BA, then does the work to earn grad degrees. Since you don't know his birthday, you can't be sure whether he was 32 or 33 when he got his BA.206.191.33.12002:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Please everyone, mind the insults. Incidentally, I think that Bourrie doesn't quite have his PhD yet. Although I've no idea how close he is to completion. --JGGardiner03:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Pete Peters Stalking
I am not a frequent contributor to Wikpedia. I have not contributed to it since May. I have sent a letter and a libel notice to that effect to Wikipedia's legal department, along with links to all the Pete Peters and his sock puppet IP's remarks that mention my name.
I take it that it is not Wikipedia,s polixcy to harass and "out" present and former contributors. It is also an actionable offence to do the kind of crap that Peters -- Warren Kinsella -- is trying to do to me.
Mark Bourrie
--142.78.64.5818:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
You don't address the issues he raises.
It is not Wiki policy to block for legal threats, and people have the right to discuss their bios. See WP:BLP. 206.191.33.9916:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Blog as source
A couple random IP have brought up a good point. Is his blog a good enough source for some of this info? what do others think? Gee|)úß߀R(Talk)16:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
So if you're talking about the degree inclusion, I think that it fails. Incidentally, the one place where we currently use the blog, for the tornado bit, this article differs from the blog:
"The following summer, I worked at the London Free Press. I was caught outside in an F4 tornado that cut a swath through small-town southwestern Ontario. I wrote a first-person account of it which was part of a package nominated for a National Newspaper Award."
He only says a nomination of an NNA, we call it a win of a "certificate of merit" (which is nowhere mentioned at the blog). He also doesn't credit it towards the newspaper's victory as directly as we do, although it is obviously implied. I'm going to change the first part now. --JGGardiner17:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I'll take your word for it. But the blog doesn't say that the paper got either of those. It just says a "nominated for a National Newspaper Award". Does a nomination become an automatic honourable mention with those? I don't know myself but the source doesn't say so. --JGGardiner22:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Trivia
Hello all!! I have added a link to the Mark Bourrie Talk page, which then redirects you to the Cereaus user talk page. I think that this non controversial piece should stay. Pete Peters21:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Hello all Wikipedians!!! I added a link to Bourrie's user page, but my changes are always being reverted whole sale. What is wrong with the link in the see also category, that it must be reverted? Pete Peters01:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I've added a tag for now because there is a bit of an edit war going on here with information pertaining to the Kinella lawsuit currently not mentioned in the article. The iteration up right now is a bit of a fluff piece that could really use some good hard editing.--Isotope23 12:27, 20 July
2006 (UTC)
...The irony of your punctuation abuse whilst professing ignorance of the term "iteration" is not lost on me. Please read WP:CIVIL, it may come in handy if you ever manage to get unblocked.--Isotope2316:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Books
I considered removing the Cardin book as vandalism, which I suspect. But I'm going to assume good faith. Is there a claim that Bourrie participated in the book? --JGGardiner22:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I put it there. I have the book in front of me: ISBN 9804502. They sell it at the gift shop of the Canadian parliament, where I bought it. He's acknowledged on the title page206.191.56.12922:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I see. Looking at the history I suppose that I thought that the entry said Cardin was the editor. Personally I would exclude books edited. This isn't Bourrie's CV. But I'll leave it up to the consensus for now. --JGGardiner14:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Threats
The daytime threats against Bourrie come from:
IP Address : 207.35.190.72 [ 207.35.190.72 ]
ISP : Bell Canada
Organization : Pollara
Address: 101 Yorkville, Suite 301
City: Toronto
StateProv: Ontario
PostalCode: M5R 1C1
Country: CA
Michael Marzolini, head of Pollara and landlord for the building, has been informed. Daisy Consulting, Warren Kinsella's lobby firm, is at the same address.
Ottawa Watch looks like it was hacked registered by a new user or something. I am going to remove it from the external links. Geedubber04:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
At least I assume it's Mark, as the blogger seems to be posting stuff about Kinsella and Mark Bourrie as though it were Mark. This new site features all sorts of new libel threats. Do you suppose this means Kinsella (or one of his pals) took over the old Ottawawatch blog? That would be both weird and sad.
I just stumbled across this soap opera this morning, having only read bits and pieces in the past. The entire thing hurts my brain. --Nik14:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
This is most disturbing. Bourrie and I have had our moments, but whoever is doing this should stop. It is, unless I misunderstand the situation, illegal and Mr. Bourrie should phone the police. Bucketsofg✐16:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps I am naive, or missing something, but why does the Kinsella lawsuit information keep getting yanked? Is that a big part of the "edit war"? As much as Mark Bourrie is a nice guy and an award winning journalist, shouldn't the (potentially still pending) lawsuit be mentioned? After all, and no offense to Mark, it's probably the main reason people (in Canada, at least) have heard of him. I note that Mark's name and the lawsuit are still mentioned in the latest version of the Warren Kinsella entry. --Nik13:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I suppose the old lawsuit should be there, though it was just a lawyer's letter and a statement of claim that was settled with a clarification and the splitting of costs. The "second" lawsuit mentioned on Kinsella appears to have just been a threatening lawyer's letter.Arthur Ellis18:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I have re-inserted the Kinsella lawsuit information, primarily basing the text on what's written in the Warren Kinsella entry. Because I'm not entirely sure what the current status of the lawsuit(s) are, I've not included that info. I'm not entirely happy with what I've written, as I think it leaves out a lot -- but it is factual and NPOV. --Nik14:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Someone (209.217.84.167) deleted the Kinsella lawsuit information. I'm going to put it back in. If 209.217.84.167 would care to explain WHY they want it gone, I'm all ears. --Nik17:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
By my reckoning, the threat from the June 27 Kinsella libel notice posted on kinsellasux.blogspot.com has timed out without a statement of claim being filed. The time limitation is 90 days. I expect the counter-claim sent by Bourrie has also been allowed to quietly die. 69.20.225.15023:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Notability
This doesn't look too notable to me, but there have been two speedy keeps. Am I missing something? At the very least, it needs to be cut down to what's verified by third parties. SlimVirgin(talk)18:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I've taken the obviously inappropriate material out of the intro (that he's a student, that he likes fossils etc), but it leaves us with only "Mark Bourrie (born 1957) is a Canadian writer." Does anyone know what he is best known for, so we can fill out the lead with the most important points about him? SlimVirgin(talk)19:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Yea, the guy's written half a dozen books, he's in Who's Who, won a fistful of writing awards, unlike the losers like you who haunt Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.217.75.208 (talk • contribs)
Could we have a source for the sentence "His 1979 eyewitness account of an F4 tornado in Woodstock, Ontario helped earn his newspaper, the London Free Press, a National Newspaper Award nomination," because it's oddly worded and the link is dead. We also need a source for his being an "internationally recognized" amateur paleontologist. SlimVirgin(talk)07:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Lawsuit
All the Kinsella lawsuits were dropped, even after Bourrie withdrew his apology and countersued Kinsella for breaking their confidentiality agreement. See Bourrie's blog on Kinsella (www.kinsellasux.blogspot.com). Someone, probably Kinsella, puts false information in this article. 209.217.123.16319:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Looks like Bearcat is home in Sudbury for the holidays. Bourrie has posted on his Kinsella blog(www.kinsellasux.blogspot.com) that the Kinsella lawsuit agreement fell apart because Kinsella breached a confidentiality agreement, and that all the lawsuits have expired. Keeperdog01:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Keeperdog has been identified as a sockpuppet of Arthur Ellis and has been banned for a month. The ban came after he had succeeded in purging this article of properly sourced material -- an action implicitly supported by an administrator, who unilaterally decided that the Kinsella-Bourie dispute was not worthy of inclusion, despite the fact that this has long been a contentious issue and should first have been discussed on this page. 142.51.16.15519:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't matter about Keeperdog. The right thing to do is the right thing to do, even if the person who points it out is ocassionally a pain in the ass. If you have any reliable sources other than Bourrie and Kinsella's own statements and blogs I would like to know about them. At this point there is an Ottawa Sun article stating that Kinsella filed a "statement of claim." That's all. It is interesting for the Kinsella bio as the first libel suit against a Canadian blogger. However there is nothing more in the press. Bourrie and Kinsella's blogs are not reliable sources, but as long as they both agreed that a settlement had been made, it was acceptable to include that information. Now, however, Bourrie claims the terms of the settlement have been voided by Kinsella's actions. I don't care about their spat, but I do care that there are no longer any reliable sources discussing the outcome of the claim. Since anyone with $50 can get a lawyer to file a "statement of claim" and there are no reliable sources on the status of the claim, I feel the principles of BLP and NPOV#Undue weight support removing the case altogether, at least until such time as further reliable sources are available. Thatcher13120:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Keeperdog's performance is relevant. His practice (as Keeperdog, Mark Bourrie, Arthur Ellis, and his other socks) is to make a pest of himself until people give in because they are sick of fighting him. When you include the phrase "sick and tired" in your edit summary, you make it clear that his misbehaviour is being rewarded again. 142.51.16.15519:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I never really followed the lawsuit part of it because I wasn't really familiar with it. I seem to recall discussion that here that it caused a stir in the Canadian blogging community ("defining moment" as I recall). If there's a case to be made for inclusion, why don't you (142) bring it up. Until then, I'd tend to agree with Thatcher. --JGGardiner23:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
My case is the same as the one I make on the Warren Kinsella talk page. Surely if one notable writer accuses another notable writer of libel and files suit, and the second notable writer publicly apologies for having made it look like the first notable writer committed a crime -- surely that is worthy of inclusion. 142.51.16.15519:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
That's a very poor description of what happened. In one sentence of a long blog post, Bourrie used the word "he" instead of Chuck Guite. Kinsella seized on that, twisted it to argue Bourrie had, in fact, accused him of a crime, and Bourrie gave the kind of apology that saves thousands in libel fees. see www.kinsellasux.blogspot.com. Interesting that, in this calendar year, the above IP has only posted on this issue.64.26.170.21223:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
BTW, Bourrie's post did not accuse Kinsella of illegal conduct. It said "he" (Bourrie argues Guite) was a key player in the Sponsorship scandal. Arguably, so were others who were never charged with offences. I suspect if Bourrie wasn't in grad school (he recently got an academic position) and his wife wasn't a law student, and they didn't have three small kids, he might not have sluffed Kinsella with an apology. 64.26.170.21216:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
And the summary by the anonymous editor above doesn't say that Bourrie's post accused Kinsella of illegal conduct. It merely states the verifiable fact that Bourrie apologized for having done so. Do you have a verifiable source about what you suspect to be Bourrie's motivation? AverageGuy15:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
That's the second time I've seen a post which mentions that Bourrie has switched positions (and possibly earned his last degree). Do you have any information about what his new position is or the status of his PhD? It would obviously be relevant to the article. I asked the first poster who mentioned something elsewhere but didn't get a response. Thanks. --JGGardiner20:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
His PhD is just about finished and I have heard he is teaching at Concordia in fall 2007 but I don't know if that is in print anywhere. 209.217.79.23523:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I hadn't heard the Concordia part but that would obviously be relevant too if it pans out. I suspect that it will. As for the PhD, the previous editor which I referred to actually called him "Dr. Bourrie", so I had thought perhaps he had completed the degree. --JGGardiner22:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
After reading the David Irving article, I added "historian" to this entry since he has had at least one entry published by an academic press. Stompin' Tom21:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Article 7: "Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content. An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. If the assertion is controversial or there has been a previous AfD, the article should be nominated for AfD instead."
As applied to this article, this is not a speedy: the article clearly does make a claim of notability as a journalist, author. Also not "If … there has been a previous AfD, the article should be nominated for AfD instead". See the top of the talk page for the earlier deletion discussions. Bucketsofg01:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm just an ordinary Canadian, who had never heard of Mr. Bourrie until today when he was mentioned on Kinsella's blog. I came here first and was happy to find an entry on Mr. Bourrie. We can argue over who is the bad guy in the case, Kinsella or Bourrie, but the article should definitely exist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.102.56.211 (talk) 12:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC).
Kinsella
The article no longer mentions Kinsella but we still have a link to Bourrie's anti-Kinsella blog without mentioning the relationship. What should be done about this? --JGGardiner08:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
If you add it, be ready to police it. Awhile back I re-inserted that material, and it quickly disappeared. I put it back in again, and now it's gone again. Which is odd because, let's face it, the feud with Warren Kinsella is probably the most interesting aspect about Mark Bourrie. (No offence, Mark, if you're reading.) --Nik19:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I think that Thatcher took it out and with good reason. But it is a dificult thing. This feud between them is rather public if Bourrie owns that blog (a detail that I haven't verified myself). But we have this link to his site and it doesn't even mention which Kinsella we're talking about. I'm not sure if there is consensus to write it, AG but I sure don't want to myself. I prefer being in this mess up to my ankles rather than waist-deep. --JGGardiner02:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Autobiography?
I've removed the recently apended autobiography tag as it is clearly incorrect. In short, this article has evolved out of the work of dozens of contributors - over thirty in the past six months alone - and cannot in any way be considered the work of the subject alone. Victoriagirl02:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Given all the sock-puppet crap that's taken place with this article, I'd say that 30 number is a little high. ;-) --Nik14:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Concordia
I checked the university directory and he is indeed listed in the directory as a lecturer in the Journalism department. He's also listed in the class schedule. I won't post the link because it contains his address and phone number but obviously anyone could check the website like I did if there is a concern. --JGGardiner19:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, neither of these is acceptable and I have redacted your post. If you can find a reliable source criticizing Bourrie's blogging practices, you can include the criticism. However, your own criticism based on your own observations are considered original research and are not allowed. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I wrote an original section for it and it was deleted. I returned to check on the page and I found it had been deleted a second time by User:Spoonkymonkey. Comment states that "revert Falun Gong propaganda", which is just bizarre. Gaijin Ninja (talk) 06:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I took it out because the section was longer than all the rest of the material on his journalism and was worded "Xinhua Espionage Scandal" which suggested he was involved in spying. The section also contained a large amount of information about allegations against Xinhua made by people outside of Canada and seemed to me to be more of an indictment of Xinhua than an encyclopedic discussion of the subject of the article. I got rid of the nasty headline, took out the lengthy condemnation of Xinhua, and cut the material down a bit. Probably the material should be in the entry on Xinhua, not here (at least in any great length). Spoonkymonkey (talk) 15:02, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Promotional
Mr. Bourrie sounds like quite the accomplished man, but this article goes into far too much detail relative to his importance. Knoper (talk) 02:50, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to think of myself as a reasonable person, one who is only trying to trim this article down to reasonable size given the subject. Given the previous deletion requests, I'd say I'm in the middle. Please be reasonable and discuss. Knoper (talk) 04:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
For the record, I agree with Knoper and have removed the excessive details. Just to give a random example, I rather doubt a 1995 book discusses where Bourrie's interest in shipwrecks comes from. This purported source doesn't mention Bourrie at all, for all I can tell. Neither does this source, which doesn't look particularly reliable in the first place. At best we were dealing with original synthesis here, something explicitly not appropriate on Wikipedia. If anything the article should be further shortened; there are entire sections that don't cite any references. Huon (talk) 20:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
For the record as well, it is very clear that I was referring to the articles on Wikipedia (see the possessive case on "kinsella's", for example) as targets, which given the abundant history located in the talk pages and in the arbitrations/sock puppet drama of a few years back (see above infobox), is justified. However, to be on the safe side, I will remove the remark. Knoper (talk) 22:24, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Also, after looking through the sock puppet logs through the Ceraurus link above, I'm going to recuse myself from the article entirely. Life's too short to start climbing that mountain. Knoper (talk) 22:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
So what? Bourrie is allowed to discuss this entry and any others. In fact, he actually says in some posts on archived versions of this page that he wants to have input in the article. You can see his posts on this page, with his name on them. This page has been a troll-magnet for years. Knoper is agenda-pushing again. 99.246.14.66 (talk) 12:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm not saying he doesn't, it's just here for reference given above comments and previous concerns. If you'd define what "agenda" I'm "pushing", you'd make far more sense. That and getting an actual username. Knoper (talk) 04:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, it's hardly a mystery or something sinister. Scroll up near the top and see his posts. He says things like "I'm Mark Bourrie" and signs his posts with his own name. As for my getting a user name, I will when Wikipedia requires people to take responsibility by posting and editing under their own name. An IP is just as good as an avatar name, as far as I'm concerned. 99.246.14.66 (talk) 20:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
As the kids say, whatever. As I've advised, I'm done with this article. In the future I'd recommend against editing the article with "Add new award nomination. Congratulations" as an edit summary. Knoper (talk) 04:40, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Please use the {{help me}} template appropriately. The {{help me}} template is for help in using Wikipedia, not for unrelated issues. If you would like to ask such a question, replace the code {{help me-inappropriate}} on this page with {{help me}} to reactivate the help request. Alternatively, you can also ask your question at the Teahouse, the help desk, or join Wikipedia's Live Help IRC channel to get real-time assistance.
Canadaland is a blog post. Idea of using it to quote a scoldong journalism prof seems like libel. Can you just say anything you want on Wilipedia and use any source you find on the Internet? GoldLilydog (talk) 19:54, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure User:GoldLilydog how it's any more of a blog post, than that Mark Bourrie's own Fairpress website. And surely the person has far more integrity than Mark Bourrie, with Mark Bourrie's history of paid editing of Wikipedia and hmm, reading deeper just now, there seems to be evidence that Mark Bourrie is carrying out some kind of vendetta against Canadaland - perhaps we should add more information about this into the article about Mark Bourrie! Nfitz (talk) 21:37, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
I take it your edits are payback for the accurate FairPress criticisms of Brown's attacks on WE? Seems Nfitz is hiding behind page protection to make an attack page against Bourrie in response to his Canadaland writings. 2607:FEA8:C360:C3:7034:60A4:AE46:9091 (talk) 16:57, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm just trying to improve a terribly-written article as neutrally as possible. There's no references in the article to Bourrie's un-notable attacks on his own blog of Jesse Brown, nor to WE. I've simply tried to distill a lot of badly-written, redundant, and unnecessary text, into a more suitable article. You can't of course really be Mark Bourrie, as he used to edit until User:Mark Bourrie, User:Ceraurus, and User:Arthur Ellis and remains banned from Wikipedia for sock-puppetry. Are you a User:Spoonkymonkey sock-puppet? Nfitz (talk) 00:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
I am Mark Bourrie, and those accounts have nothing to do with me. I am a defamation lawyer practicing in Canada. My FairPress posts regarding Jesse Brown's Canadaland attacks on WE are accurate, and your mentioning of them suggests you have an agenda to push. You are deliberately trying to ruin my reputation to protect Jesse Brown. I will not let that happen. -- Mark Bourrie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:C360:C3:99F7:DB71:6772:B707 (talk) 13:05, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Are you saying you didn't make this edit to this page in February 2006 claiming to be Mark Bourrie? The real Mark Bourrie testified in court to having edited Mike Duffy. Which account did you use? Are these 2009 edits yours? Nfitz (talk) 15:26, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
You appear to be editing the Mark Bourrie page as some punitive exercise for something that happened eight years ago, and something you speculate happened 13 years ago. Let it go.
I testified I edited the page in summer 2010 to remove vandalism. Keep in mind that Duffy was not appointed to the Senate until January 2009 and the expense stories did not appear until 2013. Most of the issues Duffy had involved YouTube, not Wikipedia. Mainly, he did not like his picture. Anyway, this appears to be your payback, along with an attempt to minimize me and my achievements to support Jesse Brown. Hardly conforms with Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View and Biography of Living People policies. 2607:FEA8:C360:C3:99F7:DB71:6772:B707 (talk) 16:06, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
The article is very neutral. I don't see anything in it that I've added that's at all questionable. Mostly, I've improved references, removed material not supported by references, and removed a lot of irrelevant and redundant information. I'd never even heard of Mark Bourrie until a few weeks ago, until I saw a reference to him, and came across this very badly written article, and sought to improve it. Not sure what Jesse Brown has to do with any of the edits here; I was not aware of Mark Bourrie's feud with Jesse Brown until you brought it to my attention.
You just can't be here editing this talk page, after an Arbcom case, the 2006 and then the April 2019 ban for sockpuppetry. First you need to clear the name - or better yet, just apologize for everything, promise not to do it again, and move on. You also need to pay attention to WP:COI - if I was adding terrible things about you, then I could see your point. I'm not, I've been keeping the edits as neutral as possible. I've not even touched the sole paragraph about Duffy, that's attributed to Canadaland, because I knew that it might be contentious, and would need a lot of thought - though I see that User:Timtempleton has now tried to improve it.
My advice is go find your Spoonkymonkey login, apologize profusely, and get the block lifted, and avoid articles where there's a conflict of interest - like Mark Bourrie and Jesse Brown (journalist). My gosh, look at what you've accomplished in the real world - surely you've get better things to do than wage wiki wars ... and this bizarre feud with Brown, that I don't even begin to comprehend (or care about). Nfitz (talk) 17:09, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
I have every right to come on this page and talk about the smear job you're doing. You would find my alternative solution to be much less pleasant.
Your edits are obviously in retaliation, are not in good faith, and should be reverted. You have taken down everything positive about me, added nonsense from Christopher Waddell, and torqued the entry. You should take very, very careful note of what I do for a living and realize that I am, at this point, foregoing my rights to take more serious action in an attempt to settle this now. I am posting under my own name, trying to make a point with someone who hides behind anonymity. If Wikipedia was really serious, if it had adult supervision, everyone would be verified and post under their own name. That said, I have contacted Wikipedia's senior management and its arbitration department asking for help. 2607:FEA8:C360:C3:99F7:DB71:6772:B707 (talk) 18:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
1) There is no smear job. What in the article is a smear? And if it is, it's nothing that anyone had added since I've been looking at it.
2) What is your alternate solution? You have no choice really but to follow the guidelines here.
3) Retaliation for what? I didn't add the Waddell stuff - it was in the article when I first edited it, and months earlier.
This article is about me. Much of the Duffy material is inaccurate and the quote from Waddell is defamatory. Wikipedia should not be used for smearing people.
GoldLilydog Please discuss your concerns. There are guidelines that protect people from false and defamatory statements, but properly sourced info that is notable can't and shouldn't be removed. TimTempleton(talk)(cont)23:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
https://www.canadalandshow.com/canadaland-strong-armed-me-writing/
This puts the Duffy material into perspective. I was writing a book when I tried to help Duffy, who sat beside me in the press gallery for years. I had been teaching in Montreal for years (a fact removed from the entry) and was a member of the gallery to have access to the Library of Parliament so I could turn my PhD thesis into a book. Most of my published writing at that time was on historical issues and press censorship, I was not working as a reporter at the time, and Waddell, who had been approached by Canadaland for a quote, did not know what he was talking about.
Recent edits to this page have removed almost everything positive -- the success of books I'v written, the four National Magazine Award nominations (including the award I won), other awards and recognition, the prestigious newspapers and magazines I wrote for during 30 years of journalism, and framed me as a hack.
This entry is not being edited in good faith. It violates your neutral point of view and you biography of living persons policies. This page and archived versions of it are filled with defamatory content. -- Mark Bourrie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:C360:C3:99F7:DB71:6772:B707 (talk) 13:00, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
The information is sourced. There is a long history of associated individuals editing this page. You've had enough chances. I don't see anything wrong with the page. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalenciaᐐT₳LKᐬ19:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure they've do though, someone who then claimed they were Mark Bourrie has been editing it since 2 days after it was created. On the other hand, they were the only delete vote it in the first AFD. The article was speedily kept at both AFDs in 2006. I initially had the same though but since 2006 there has been other main-stream media coverage such as this, this, this, [8], this, this, this, and this - some of those would be better references in the current article. Probably no point going an AFD route. Nfitz (talk) 02:21, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
First, I would be delighted if it was deleted.
Second, Google search my name. You'll see how Nfitz has fished through Google to find negative material on me. My book Bush Runner is now the third-highest selling Canadian non-fiction book. Things like my National Magazine Award have been stripped out of this piece, along with all my academic writing and the names of the magazines I've written for. Good faith? Neutral POV? Conforming to biography of living people policy? Don't make me laugh. 2607:FEA8:C360:C3:246C:426A:63B5:209B (talk) 11:44, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
You need to stop saying things that aren't true. I spend an hour yesterday researching, referencing and putting in the National Magazine and other award, and the reward I get is to ignore that, and then make a personal attack that's not true! What have I added that's even negative? Other than an adjective here and there, all I've added are references for material that was already in the article. There's no reason that a book being in a top-10 list need be mentioned, it's all WP:ROUTINE; the book is already mentioned in the article, and referenced by the G&M review. There's certainly no reason that this couldn't go to AFD (as could any article really), I just don't think it will succeed. Would you like me to nominate it? Nfitz (talk) 13:12, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
No AfD is necessary, in my view. Hi, Mr. Bourrie. Remember me? I'm the admin from BLPN who insisted on evidence to support claims being made. I'm sorry, but I'm afraid I'm gonna have to doubly insist on that now. Kindly support the assertion (in the form of diffs) that Nfitz has added "negative material" about you, or please withdraw that. El_C13:42, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
As a show of good faith, I've put in a bit of text about book writing - I'd commented earlier I was unhappy deleting the nine existing paragraphs that said very little, but hadn't found anything to replace it with. So here's something neutral but brief. Nfitz (talk) 14:29, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Since it has come to my attention that the the subject is already indefinitely blocked, I have semiprotected this talk page, indefinitely. They may appeal that block to either the admin who imposed it, or to the Arbitration Committee. I advise them to rely on evidence rather than innuendo if and/or when they undertake this. El_C15:48, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
I should add that if the subject feels the article violates our policy on living persons, they may report those concerns via the Wikipedia email function — they are still entitled to do so, even while indefinitely blocked. El_C15:56, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
El_C, are we able to cut the quote from Waddell but keep the statement in Wikipedia's voice? 119 words for what is someone's uninvolved opinion seems unbalanced against the surrounding text. TheDragonFire (talk) 18:33, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Seems reasonable ... I tried to stay away from anything controversial (as in related to controversy) - but that quote did stick out a bit. Nfitz (talk) 14:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Gravedancing, revenge, POV
These comments look to me like "gravedancing". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Gravedancing.
Bourrie stood up for a Rachel Marsden woman who was trashed on Wikipedia after she said she was sexually assaulted by her swim coach when no one else would, and Canadian Wikipedia editors were hiding behind dubious research by the far-right Frazer Institute.. He won that case in arbitration. He stood up to Warren Kinsella when Kinsella used Wikipedia to claim he had "successfully sued" Bourrie. Maybe Bourrie has not been a good Wikipedian, but I looked at the long term Spoonkymonkey edits. Lots of good work there, not a single block in years, and now this page is edited to hype anything negative about him. I googled him. This entry is not a good representation of his life. Sportsman360 (talk) 21:41, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
This article is about Mark Bourrie, the writer. There's very little relevance (or mention) of his Wikipedia edits, and there's no need to discuss the 13-year editing history, vandalism, and sock puppetry. The article should be as neutral as possible, neither hyping the negatives, nor full of puffery. Can it be improved - sure, like thousands of other articles here. Nfitz (talk) 17:52, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
