...

The Rachel Marsden article is good example of this problem. The article as now constituted

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rachel_Marsden&oldid=132306894

is a product of long debate regarding such issues. There was great deal of press coverage regarding an incident early in her life, but the coverage of her current situation was rather thin. A long article about her which focused on the earlier situation was a rather nasty piece of work and did not present of fair picture of this person who had moved on long ago from the earlier troubles. I also think some editors were sticking their oar in because they did not like her politics.

There was an arbitration:

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rachel Marsden

Here is the basic principle applied: 'Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons requires that information which concerns living subjects be verifiable and that biographies "should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone."'

This seems like support for activist judges. I didn't recognize the name until I went to the article. The Fox Channel is generally not available in the Vancuver area where I live. The incident that led to her criminal conviction is certainly well-remembered even if I could not have remembered the names of the parties involved. If you want to suggest that her opponents were commenting because of her politics, you need to admit that her supporters were doing exactly the same thing.

I did not participate in the debate when it happened, and don't particularly want to get involved now. I don't see the benefit of raising this matter when it would only stir up old wounds.

Ec

There is that danger, but the point is that we have thought deeply about these matters previously and come to certain conclusions.

Fred