FeetsDontFailMeNow

Denis Rancourt

I have no objection to making the page NPOV, and yes, it's is probably tilted in Rancourt's favour as it stands. However, the changes I've been reverting are outright libellous, and must be *immediately* reverted per WP:BLP. SmashTheState (talk) 19:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

A significant amount of the content is not factual, but an attempt to persuade readers of Rancourt's POV. It is very similar in that respect to his blog, which I have now checked. I think it fails the wiki standard pretty badly in its current form, as its clearly written by him and has the flavour of self-aggrandizement. I checked the reverted changes: I don't agree that they are libellous at all but I can't verify they are strictly true. I have modified a few of the most self-serving remarks now. The climate change stuff, in particular, is aggregiously misleading, but it's a bad article in general for Wikipedia. FeetsDontFailMeNow (talk) 21:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that your modifications are largely NPOV. For example, replacing every instance of "says" or "thinks" with "claims" is a classic newspaper trick for making the subject sound dishonest. Or the statement that being locked out of his lab is okay because there are "nuclear materials" there insinuates both that he is untrustworthy and that he may be dangerous. This is clearly libellous. Furthermore, this statement is completely uncited and is therefore original research. If you believe the article to be non-NPOV, the solution is not to add more non-NPOV material from the opposite point of view. I can promise you that doing so will only result in a never-ending edit war. SmashTheState (talk) 22:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Look, there are two ways forward. One is to delete the material which is ridiculously self-promotional and risk being called censorious. The second is to add factual context to Rancourt's claims, which is easy to find. You are excessively liable to call everything like that "libellous", which I am afraid falls very short of that standard and is not a reasonable accusation. I agree that it makes him look less good, but any strictly factual addition to this advertisement is likely to do that. What do you think we should do about this, then? As for your arguments about "claims" and so forth, what I am trying to do with that is to get the wiki to look more dispassionate and less like a singles ad. Again, suggest improvements rather than claiming libel based on your own private inferences. FeetsDontFailMeNow (talk) 02:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Smash: I've deleted the part of the entry that identifies two small children and publishes their picture. I am not sure why Rancourt put that material up as it is illegal, not to mention grossly invasive for that family. I'm trying to comb through this entry to eliminate self-promotional material and self-justifying material that cannot be verified. It's going to be a hard job because so much of the entry crossed way past that line. I'd appreciate your help, if you have time, to offer a second view on where I may be overzealous in the future. I don't like Wikipedia being used in the way it is by this guy but we can make the entry reach a reasonable standard without overdoing the editing if both keep an eye on it. thx, FeetsDontFailMeNow (talk) 14:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

FeetsDontFailMeNow: I don't understand your removal of the section [regarding enrolment of two young students - AF: sorry, identifying info of minors should not be published]. Please provide the Wikipedia policy upon which you based your decision to delete that section. Moreover, the picture in question was disseminated by the support committee (which included the children's mother) and was published on the front page of the Ottawa Sun newspaper as well as many other media outlets. If there is a WP policy that governs content regarding children which this section is violating, fine, and please specify. Otherwise, do not delete that section. I have reverted the text and will hold off on reverting the image deletion until you explain your editorial decision.--Alroyfonseca (talk) 06:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

FIPPA makes this illegal. It doesn't matter if their posters are up on every corner in the city. It is against the law to disseminate that information, or to identify any student by name even if everyone knows who they are already. The law is very straightforward and completely clear-cut on this issue. If the author here is using this material with permission, that MUST be stated. It's particularly tricky, because the two kids are under-age and cannot legally consent to waive their privacy rights. So, their mom might have to do it instead, but I don't know how to deal with that situation. All this material can remain so long as nothing in the post identifies the two students. That is my understanding of the threshold for illegality. Keeping the material is fine, but is has to comply with the law. Otherwise, it's certain that this is illegal. FeetsDontFailMeNow (talk) 15:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

FeetsDontFailMeNow: You need to provide me with the clause within FIPPA. It's a long document, and I don't see anything there that says that "young children" cannot be identified. I may be wrong about that, but I think you should provide the clause if you're so sure that FIPPA makes their identification illegal.--Alroyfonseca (talk) 01:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

For FIPPA, it doesn't matter that they're kids. It only matters that the University is a institution holding private information. The rules from FIPPA are simple, even though it surely a horribly long (typical) piece of legislation: no one may reveal data held about a member of the public under any circumstances. The rules are very hard line. Say I am a university student's parent and I am just checking to see if the student got to the first day of classes safely. It would be against the law for any employee to even confirm that my own child is enrolled. It's crazy strict and applies universally. I can't point you to a specific clause: I have to leave that to you. When I updated your reversion earlier, I tried to leave in all the information, just scrub out the bits that would violate FIPPA. The case can be there but identifying information cannot. I don't know if it's okay to link to the newspaper article but I'm not a lawyer and it would seem to solve the problem. Really, this issue should have been dealt with properly by the author of the article. If I was out to get him, though, I'd have just left it there and notified the Province of the violation. The author would be liable. As a parent, though, I think it's pretty gruesome to use a couple of children's pictures in this way. They are much too young to make an informed decision about whether this was in their interests. I'd err on the side of caution for children. Anyway, thanks for being reasonable. FeetsDontFailMeNow (talk) 01:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits on Denis Rancourt

Well, I've made many more sweeping changes to the article, all of which I believe improve the article. I hope I haven't offended you by making changes to the sections which you've been working on. (For example, I know you were working to remove weasal words from sentences which I've probably removed outright.) In any case, I'm glad to be working with a level-headed editor such as yourself. Cheers. Letsgoridebikes (talk) 23:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

This entry was originally of very poor quality and obviously both partisan and supported by like-minded partisans. A serious editing job on it would have eliminated nearly all of the entry, as very little of it is simply factual. To be frank, a few sentences noting the ongoing controversy with the University, ending with his impending dismissal, and the text around his physics research are justified. The rest gives the indelible impression that it is intended to persuade the reader that Rancourt is justified in his actions, a position that not even the arbitrator found tempting. When I read the actual arbitrator's position and compared it against what was written on the wiki, I was pretty surprised at the differences. The arbitrator seems to call Rancourt a liar. You're going to get flamed again for your most recent edits, but not by me. Keep up the good work. FeetsDontFailMeNow (talk) 00:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement. The arbitration section is particularly troublesome because of the huge quotes. It really ought to be summarized down to a few sentences.

I had a lot of trouble trying to get a good translation from the Rotonde article. My French is shaky, but I know he implicates three things: He says the type of actions the university engages in usually have to do with broad/largescale political questions. Then he has an incomplete sentence that implicates the military-industrial complex and the Israel lobby. I'm almost positive that he is referring to the last two as separate entities. If your French is better than mine and you know what he's actually say, then feel free to ignore me :)

Also, I keep reading about his views on the Israeli influence on the administration in many places. I think there are enough secondary sources to justify a paragraph at the end of the Suspension and Dismissal section to detail his... 'unique'... claims. What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Letsgoridebikes (talk • contribs) 01:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to have a look over La Rotonde article soon. I have some work I have to get out of the way on the weekend, so my apologies if I don't get there as fast as I'd like. I noticed that the arbitrator refers to a quote from Rancourt which I found troubling: "shitlist jews". I don't have the context for what Rancourt was talking about, but I have a hard time seeing how it could not imply anti-semitism. He refers elsewhere to a secret cabal of financiers who he argues are in control of world affairs or much of world affairs. Again, it sounds like code for a very old line from racists about how "jews" control everything, it is just dressed up a bit to avoid the inescapable anti-semitic connotation. In other places, Rancourt claims to support peace and equality for all, but his consistent remarks against Jews raises the foul prospect that he is just a common racist who disguises his bigotry with pseudo-intellectual rhetoric. I can't tell for sure, but "shitlist jews" is not exactly a tolerant phrase. So, what to do next? I don't know. This whole entry has been reminiscent of the propaganda I am seeing on U of O Watch web site, which is easy to find on the net. There are, I guess, two ways to proceed: delete all the fluff, leaving only the objective accounting of Rancourt's admitted research expertise in an area of physics, and refer obliquely to the rest to avoid the problem of low quality referencing, OR, provide context to the one-sided remarks that pepper the entry. I suspect if we remove material that fails to meet the Wikipedia sniff test, there is going to be very little left. I'll be happy to hear your views. FeetsDontFailMeNow (talk) 03:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)