![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Archive 1 |
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
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:
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 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
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
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.
This person is in no way notable. Please delete this entry.
BTW, looks like someone is vandalizing the entry. MB
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)
The Kinsella lawsuit has been reduced to its essentials. If the blog post is libelous, why is it repeated here? Arthur Ellis 23:23, 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 Ellis 00:04, 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 Ellis
15:14, 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 Ellis
23:10, 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)? HistoryBA 23:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I won't keep repeating myself. The facts are on this page. Arthur Ellis 00:19, 24 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 Ellis 19:39, 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
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 Peters 19:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I think you could do the work, since you raised the issue.
Arthur Ellis
01:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Citations are there. Arthur Ellis 01:33, 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 Peters 01:42, 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 Ellis 01:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
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. -- JGGardiner 15:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Please keep in mind The Three-Revert Rule when making edits. For the record, Bourrie's Awards as mentioned on the national magazine awards website are as follows:
#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. -- Ryanfantastic 00:53, 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? -- JGGardiner 02:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
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 Bourrie 64.26.147.188 23:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
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. -- JGGardiner 16:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
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? -- JGGardiner 18:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
One of the Dundurn catalgues. I'll go back for the link. Arthur Ellis 18:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
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 -- JGGardiner 06:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
"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. -- JGGardiner 06:51, 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 Ellis 22:16, 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 Ellis 22:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
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 Ellis 23:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
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. -- JGGardiner 02:36, 10 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. 64.26.170.69 00:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
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:
justifications & ref:
1- link for book at Amazon.com : http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0888821964/104-2313536-8998324?redirect=true&v=glance&n=283155
2- Also ref found on wiki page: http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/forensics/forensic_psychology/14.html
Also please add in Education section
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?) -- 142.78.64.58 16:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
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 Peters 22:25, 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)
"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 Peters 00:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Now, a PHD is another kettle of fish. I suppose you weren't required to do an Enlgish proficiency, were you? 206.191.33.120 00:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Yea, he has a master's, a PhD, nine books and a bunch of journalism awards. What a loser.
206.191.33.120
02:02, 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.
206.191.33.120
02:06, 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. -- JGGardiner 03:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
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 -- 142.78.64.58 18:41, 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.
206.191.33.99
16:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
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)
A certificate of merit is an honourable mention in the NNAs. Marie Tessier 20:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
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 Peters 21:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Don't start your edit wars again. He -- if it was ever the same guy -- hasn't been on Wikipedia since April. Arthur Ellis 21:23, 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 Peters 01:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Because we don't know it's really him and we don't out Wikipedia editors. Arthur Ellis 02:01, 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)
"Iteration"?!? You may need some remedial; English before you edit anything, sonny!
Marie Tessier
13:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
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? -- JGGardiner 22:42, 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 page 206.191.56.129 22:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
He edited it. That's what ed. means. 64.26.147.24 12:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
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.
Today's threats come from a static Rogers IP, which is very traceable. 209.217.75.77 12:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Ottawa Watch looks like it was hacked registered by a new user or something. I am going to remove it from the external links.
Geedubber
04:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I might have been wrong removing the links -- I just read Wikipedia:Citing_sources#What_to_do_when_a_reference_link_goes_dead. We can either just date the dead-links or find new ones. I'll let others decide. However, I'm starting a list of links below we could use for referncing the Kinsella suit stuff instead. Geedubber 20:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
http://ottsun.canoe.ca/News/National/2006/02/15/1443176-sun.html
http://www.benedictionblogson.com/?p=2256
http://thestar.blogs.com/azerb/2006/01/legal_brief.html
http://jaycurrie.info-syn.com/kinsella-settles-with-bourrie/
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. Buck ets ofg✐ 16:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I have had enough:
http://kinsellasux.blogspot.com/2006/09/ottawa-watch.html
Mark Bourrie
137.122.14.20
18:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
His blog is back: http://ottawawatch.blogspot.com Pity about the lost vacation entries. -- GC 01:15, 22 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. -- Nik 13:44, 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 Ellis 18:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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. 209.217.123.163 19:49, 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. Keeperdog 01:47, 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. 142.51.16.155 19:14, 12 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. -- JGGardiner 23:14, 14 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.
64.26.170.212
23:54, 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. 64.26.170.212 16:09, 16 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.
209.217.79.235
23:56, 17 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' Tom 21:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I've removed all the text from this article that was not sourced. If you want to put it back in, you need to provide sources for it. This is support by the policy on biographies of living people, which calls for the aggressive removal of unsourced information. Grace Note 02:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
BTW, the references are a mess. Could the editors who want this kept please sort them out? Grace Note 02:18, 4 January 2007 (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."
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).
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? -- JGGardiner 08:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
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. Victoriagirl 02:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
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. -- JGGardiner 19:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
That's too funny.
I wrote:
<comment redacted by Clayoquot>
I guess it would be acceptable if I instead said:
<comment redacted by Clayoquot>
My apologies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.239.219 03:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Bourrie is no longer at Concordia. His name and bio have been removed from the university's web site. See http://journalism.concordia.ca/facultyandstaff/full-timefaculty/ and http://journalism.concordia.ca/facultyandstaff/part-timefaculty/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.129.73 ( talk) 21:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Why is there no mention of his work for Xinhua News Agency? Zipswich ( talk) 11:06, 26 August 2012 (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)
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)
"Too much detail" is a very strange complaint. 99.246.14.66 ( talk) 00:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Request page protection from Knoper, removal of all BLP-violating material from this talk page.
knoper's claim that the subject of this article "targets" other people is both libellous and shows his lack of NPOV. 184.151.246.62 ( talk) 19:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Just throwing this in here....at about 8:50, Bourrie discusses editing this talk page and others on Wikipedia. http://canadalandshow.com/podcast/duffy-fallout Knoper ( talk) 02:11, 21 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)
This person is of zero interest or note and the whole thing seems to be an ego trip. Any reason not to delete this? CraigBurley ( talk) 20:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
It looks like this article was written by Mark Bourrie himself. He has not accomplished anything worthy of a Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:56A:7398:6400:F149:E4FF:A455:A01C ( talk) 14:16, 15 June 2019 (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. |
More IP doxing/outing attempts going on. Several have been blocked already. There's a new one today (two edits) Spoonkymonkey ( talk) 19:59, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
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 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 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)
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)
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)
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.
-- Mark Bourrie— Preceding unsigned comment added by GoldLilydog ( talk • contribs) 17:09, 24 May 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)
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)
These comments look to me like "gravedancing". /info/en/?search=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 is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Archive 1 |
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
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:
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 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
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
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.
This person is in no way notable. Please delete this entry.
BTW, looks like someone is vandalizing the entry. MB
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)
The Kinsella lawsuit has been reduced to its essentials. If the blog post is libelous, why is it repeated here? Arthur Ellis 23:23, 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 Ellis 00:04, 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 Ellis
15:14, 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 Ellis
23:10, 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)? HistoryBA 23:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I won't keep repeating myself. The facts are on this page. Arthur Ellis 00:19, 24 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 Ellis 19:39, 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
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 Peters 19:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I think you could do the work, since you raised the issue.
Arthur Ellis
01:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Citations are there. Arthur Ellis 01:33, 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 Peters 01:42, 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 Ellis 01:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
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. -- JGGardiner 15:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Please keep in mind The Three-Revert Rule when making edits. For the record, Bourrie's Awards as mentioned on the national magazine awards website are as follows:
#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. -- Ryanfantastic 00:53, 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? -- JGGardiner 02:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
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 Bourrie 64.26.147.188 23:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
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. -- JGGardiner 16:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
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? -- JGGardiner 18:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
One of the Dundurn catalgues. I'll go back for the link. Arthur Ellis 18:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
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 -- JGGardiner 06:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
"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. -- JGGardiner 06:51, 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 Ellis 22:16, 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 Ellis 22:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
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 Ellis 23:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
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. -- JGGardiner 02:36, 10 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. 64.26.170.69 00:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
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:
justifications & ref:
1- link for book at Amazon.com : http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0888821964/104-2313536-8998324?redirect=true&v=glance&n=283155
2- Also ref found on wiki page: http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/forensics/forensic_psychology/14.html
Also please add in Education section
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?) -- 142.78.64.58 16:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
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 Peters 22:25, 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)
"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 Peters 00:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Now, a PHD is another kettle of fish. I suppose you weren't required to do an Enlgish proficiency, were you? 206.191.33.120 00:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Yea, he has a master's, a PhD, nine books and a bunch of journalism awards. What a loser.
206.191.33.120
02:02, 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.
206.191.33.120
02:06, 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. -- JGGardiner 03:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
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 -- 142.78.64.58 18:41, 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.
206.191.33.99
16:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
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)
A certificate of merit is an honourable mention in the NNAs. Marie Tessier 20:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
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 Peters 21:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Don't start your edit wars again. He -- if it was ever the same guy -- hasn't been on Wikipedia since April. Arthur Ellis 21:23, 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 Peters 01:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Because we don't know it's really him and we don't out Wikipedia editors. Arthur Ellis 02:01, 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)
"Iteration"?!? You may need some remedial; English before you edit anything, sonny!
Marie Tessier
13:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
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? -- JGGardiner 22:42, 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 page 206.191.56.129 22:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
He edited it. That's what ed. means. 64.26.147.24 12:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
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.
Today's threats come from a static Rogers IP, which is very traceable. 209.217.75.77 12:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Ottawa Watch looks like it was hacked registered by a new user or something. I am going to remove it from the external links.
Geedubber
04:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I might have been wrong removing the links -- I just read Wikipedia:Citing_sources#What_to_do_when_a_reference_link_goes_dead. We can either just date the dead-links or find new ones. I'll let others decide. However, I'm starting a list of links below we could use for referncing the Kinsella suit stuff instead. Geedubber 20:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
http://ottsun.canoe.ca/News/National/2006/02/15/1443176-sun.html
http://www.benedictionblogson.com/?p=2256
http://thestar.blogs.com/azerb/2006/01/legal_brief.html
http://jaycurrie.info-syn.com/kinsella-settles-with-bourrie/
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. Buck ets ofg✐ 16:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I have had enough:
http://kinsellasux.blogspot.com/2006/09/ottawa-watch.html
Mark Bourrie
137.122.14.20
18:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
His blog is back: http://ottawawatch.blogspot.com Pity about the lost vacation entries. -- GC 01:15, 22 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. -- Nik 13:44, 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 Ellis 18:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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. 209.217.123.163 19:49, 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. Keeperdog 01:47, 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. 142.51.16.155 19:14, 12 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. -- JGGardiner 23:14, 14 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.
64.26.170.212
23:54, 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. 64.26.170.212 16:09, 16 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.
209.217.79.235
23:56, 17 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' Tom 21:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I've removed all the text from this article that was not sourced. If you want to put it back in, you need to provide sources for it. This is support by the policy on biographies of living people, which calls for the aggressive removal of unsourced information. Grace Note 02:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
BTW, the references are a mess. Could the editors who want this kept please sort them out? Grace Note 02:18, 4 January 2007 (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."
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).
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? -- JGGardiner 08:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
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. Victoriagirl 02:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
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. -- JGGardiner 19:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
That's too funny.
I wrote:
<comment redacted by Clayoquot>
I guess it would be acceptable if I instead said:
<comment redacted by Clayoquot>
My apologies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.239.219 03:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Bourrie is no longer at Concordia. His name and bio have been removed from the university's web site. See http://journalism.concordia.ca/facultyandstaff/full-timefaculty/ and http://journalism.concordia.ca/facultyandstaff/part-timefaculty/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.129.73 ( talk) 21:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Why is there no mention of his work for Xinhua News Agency? Zipswich ( talk) 11:06, 26 August 2012 (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)
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)
"Too much detail" is a very strange complaint. 99.246.14.66 ( talk) 00:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Request page protection from Knoper, removal of all BLP-violating material from this talk page.
knoper's claim that the subject of this article "targets" other people is both libellous and shows his lack of NPOV. 184.151.246.62 ( talk) 19:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Just throwing this in here....at about 8:50, Bourrie discusses editing this talk page and others on Wikipedia. http://canadalandshow.com/podcast/duffy-fallout Knoper ( talk) 02:11, 21 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)
This person is of zero interest or note and the whole thing seems to be an ego trip. Any reason not to delete this? CraigBurley ( talk) 20:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
It looks like this article was written by Mark Bourrie himself. He has not accomplished anything worthy of a Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:56A:7398:6400:F149:E4FF:A455:A01C ( talk) 14:16, 15 June 2019 (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. |
More IP doxing/outing attempts going on. Several have been blocked already. There's a new one today (two edits) Spoonkymonkey ( talk) 19:59, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
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 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 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)
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)
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)
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.
-- Mark Bourrie— Preceding unsigned comment added by GoldLilydog ( talk • contribs) 17:09, 24 May 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)
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)
These comments look to me like "gravedancing". /info/en/?search=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)