This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
We should probably add that Richard Warman first gained attention with his actions against conspiracy theorist and fellow Green Party member David Icke.
Reference here: [1]
Prior to his complaints against alleged "hate" sites, Warman was involved in legal wranglings and human rights complaints with individuals who are not "white supremacists" per se. The case with Icke is at least one of these which is still ongoing. Some of the people he has launched human rights complaints against and/or sued include non-racists such as David Icke and Tom Kennedy and people in the anti-tax movement such as Fred Kyburz and Eldon Warman.
There is some lengthy debate within the Green Party regarding whether advocating the banning of books and threatening litigation against bookstores and libraries, as has been done by Warman, is conduscive to the Libertarian-type approach to freedom of expression in the Green Party.
Further info on this matter here: [2]
I don't know a lot about the Icke stuff. Feel free to write something and put it in the article. Homey 12:30, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Someone should post the youtube link to "David Icke - Secret Rulers of the World", which has coverage of Richard Warman, his actions and comments.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0ROs7n17Yg&feature=related —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.253.202 ( talk) 03:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I should inform "Imstillhere" that the three-revert rule mandates that posters not revert pages more than three times in a 24 hour period. CJCurrie 22:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Here is how the 3 Revert Rule works.
Furthermore, the information reverted was valid information with a documentation link that seemed to displease CJCurrie.
Notice the history of changes. I did not end up reverting a 3rd time, but CJCurrie did. I just posted links that are related and verifiable. And by the way, CJCurrie, some of the names in the list of Warman's cases are just in the complaint phase as well, so if you say "anyone can file a complaint" please feel free to remove the names from the list as well.
* I reverted it (2) * CJCurrie reverted it (3) <-- 3 times. Learn how to count
My point is that reverting the page a third time isn't contrary to Wikipedia policy; reverting it more times than that is. CJCurrie 22:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
And, for the record, I've noticed that listing your initial post as a revert was obviously a mistake. CJCurrie 22:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I have reverted this because the user who is insisting on adding these links is making no effort to respond to CJCurrie's concerns by, for example, providing context or explanation, or by identifying whether these complaints have been upheld, rejected, or are pending. "Whether or not the charges stuck is irrelevant." Of course it is relevant. I could accuse User:Imstillhere of being a pedophile and a rapist, and the fact that I have absolutely no evidence to support that accusation is very, very important. This does seem to be a case of drive-by character assassination. Ground Zero | t 02:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I did provide an explanation, however it was removed by CJCurie. I had the story and the links. She kept removing them. Check the revision history.
Whether or not you are an administrator, you cannot use your administrative access to censor people on the site or use your access level to make politically motivated edits to pages. Keep doing this and I will report you. Imstillhere 21:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I can remove information which I judge to be trivial (particularly when you haven't given me a reason why I shouldn't do so in this instance). CJCurrie 23:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Richard is living in hiding for fear of retalitaion from the numerous enemies he has created. Reference here: [3]
"Warman expected a strong reaction from white supremacists. His family is worried about the threats and Ottawa police have developed a security plan for him, which he will not discuss.
"You have to walk a fine line between being concerned and being paranoid."" Plasticman
To CJCurrie:
You removed what I believe were valid entries in support of the of criticism of Richard Warman.
You claim that the entries are not "encyclopedic". Please explain what you mean, provide an example, and a Wikipedia reference in support of your position. Note also that one of the references was to another article in Wikipedia.
I am going to assume for the moment that you are acting in good faith, and will not censor valid criticism. Then there should not be too much difficulty in finding criticism of which you approve, since Richard Warman's complaints before the CHRC are currently one of the most widely discussed topics on Canadian blogs. I provided just two references, whereas there are hundreds of others.
The entries you removed are:
Critics have charged that Warman abuses the intent of the Canadian Human Rights Act by personally appearing as the plaintiff in the majority of CHRA section 13 "hate speech" cases which have been brought before the Commission, a former employer of Warman. [4] - - Critics further charge that many CHRC "hate speech" complaints such as Warman's have had a chilling effect on the human right to freedom of expression. [5]
I look forward to your prompt, reasoned response. Thank you. Freedom Fan ( talk) 08:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. I have edited the criticism section accordingly. Freedom Fan ( talk) 06:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Freedom Fan ( talk) 06:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
This article is being maintained by politically motivated individuals trying to protect the information from being changed at all costs by removing any reference to well-sourced articles that don't shed good light on this individual. These same individuals and admins have engaged in slander in other articles Imstillhere 07:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
There is a lot of evident corruption at work on the Wikipedia site. Apotheosization of individuals like Warman, while vilifying individuals like Glenn Bahr. I'm wondering if a Wikipedia admin would like to volunteer a proper channel of redress for those offended by the anti-White undercurrent manifest in these instances of bias? - Bill Noble
The neutrality in this entire artile is disputed. It is clearly biased in favor of Warman. Edward Nyhouse —Preceding comment was added at 07:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
"Human Rights" lawyer isn't a real designation. And even if it was, it would be referring to when he was working with the Human Rights Commission, which he no longer is. A lawyer who files human righst complaints is not a human rights lawyer. So officially he is just a lawyer. Refer to the - Law Society of Upper Canada for more information on the certified specialist program. Imstillhere 17:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
"Mr. Warman testified that he was not Jewish. In our view, the fact that Mr. Warman was not himself Jewish does not detract in any way from the viciousness of the attacks launched against him by Mr. Kyburz. These attacks were clearly motivated, at least in part, by Mr. Kyburz' perception that Mr. Warman was Jewish. Based upon this belief, Mr. Kyburz ascribed very negative character traits, as well as criminal behaviour to Mr. Warman. Mr. Warman, quite understandably, found this conduct to be very hurtful. In our view, Mr. Warman is a victim of the discriminatory practice." [6]Richard Warman and Canadian Human Rights Tribunal and Fred Kyburz, Reasons for decision, May 9, 2003. 70.28.159.194 05:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
This article really needs more details on when Warman worked for the CHRC. Was it two years? When specifically? I was reading Warman v. Winnicki and there is an allegation quoted in the decision stating that some of Warman's complaints were made while he was working for the CHRC. Isn't that conflict of interest? -- Chris Thompson 19:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
As an administrator, you seem to be doing very little about JB15 who has been removing sourced content with no explanation. Imstillhere 15:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
The section that's been occasionally added titled "Warman's attempt to have Canada Block hate sites" has too much detail about a minor proceeding in a larger court case. Quoting the judgement at length doesn't help. The motion doesn't appear notable enough to even mention. Further, the referncing is partly from a blog, which we don't normally accept as reliable sources. I think the shorter, one sentence version that simply says he's still active is more appropriate. - Will Beback 08:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Inconsistencies: There were articles in papers Nation-wide about Warman's attempt at censorship with the CRTC but I was told that a paragraph about the issue is too much information. The paragraph that included part of the CRTC decision was removed. So I edited the existing sentence and changed "ongoing attempt to "failed attempt". I also removed the Bernie Farber quote calling it a "murder warrant" because that's not more relevant that the CRTC decision. That was edited and reverted by User:CJCurrie.
And then, a paragraph (re: death threat that on VNN forum) that from my knowledge only received mention in one small community paper, has a paragraph dedicated to it?
This isn't your wiki. If you set a standard for editing, stick by it. You idiots are trying to say that an issue that had 1 community paper article warrants a paragraph and a 10-day multi-faceted event with national coverage only needs a sentence? Your bias and motivations are blatant. 69.199.64.4 17:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Warman is certainly a prominent human rights lawyer. A simple Google search of his names yields valuable information on his contributions to conferences, seminars, and talks - which which he is regularly invited to school NGO leaders and police officials on his style of combating online hatred. Furthermore, simple Factiva or InfoMart searches provide dozens of articles in which Warman is quoted by reporters, being the first source they go to for an opinion on matters of online extremism. Prominence is not a matter of opinion. Random House Dictionary refers to prominence as being:
1. standing out so as to be seen easily; conspicuous; particularly noticeable 2. standing out beyond the adjacent surface or line; projecting. 3. leading, important, or well-known: a prominent citizen.
Based on the above-noted definitions, and the plethora of information on Warman which can be found online and offline, I am hereby reinstating my previous mention of him as a "prominent" person in his Wikipedia biography.-unsigned
The lead sentence should not say Warman is an "award-winning" such and such. Almost all people who have Wikipedia articles written about them have won at least one or two awards during their lifetimes, but I've never seen a lead sentence in those articles describing them as "award-winning", especially when — like in the case of Warman — the article only mentions them winning one award. Phrases like "award-winning" are suitable for press releases, book covers or other promotional materials, not neutral encyclopedic articles. As Will Beback mentioned above, see Wikipedia:peacock terms for Wikipedia's guidelines on matters such as this. Spylab ( talk) 14:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
"Who has availed themselves of the "human rights" protected by Section XIII? In its entire history, over half of all cases have been brought by a sole "complainant," one Richard Warman. Indeed, Mr. Warman has been a plaintiff on every single Section XIII case before the federal "human rights" star chamber since 2002 — and he's won every one. That would suggest that no man in any free society anywhere on the planet has been so comprehensively deprived of his human rights."
83.61.2.236 (
talk) 12:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I've decided to remove a series of recent anonymous edits via the provisions of WP:BLP. As I mentioned in my edit, (i) the information seems dubious in some cases, and (ii) the presentation is unquestionably slanted. I could add that Ezra Levant's editorials tend not to be worthy of citation at times. CJCurrie ( talk) 04:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
So when you run out of excuses to suppress information that's bad about warman, what's next? The article is valid and so is the link. If there is an issue with the wording of the segment, edit it, don't remove the information. A serial complainer posting racist messages on the websites he complains about is very notable. Imstillhere ( talk) 12:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I was asked to comment about the removal of the material sourced to Mark Steyn. [8] Frank Pais, could you say what you feel is wrong with it, in terms of our content policies? SlimVirgin talk| edits 08:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree in principle with FrankPais regarding the appropriateness of including Steyn's commentary. One writer's personal opinion of a subject really doesn't belong here. The other paragraph (from the Gillis article) merits consideration though and I don't think should be lumped in with the Steyn quote. 007blur007 ( talk) 16:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Slim Virgin. I disagree that criticism from Mark Steyn, a prominent media personality, political pundit, and CHRC victim, somehow violates some unspecified Wiki policy, but I have restored only the Gillis criticism as a compromise. The Gillis article also includes quotes from Keith Martin, a member of Canadian Parliament. If this criticism is removed by an administrator, I will expect that administrator to assist me in removing similar criticism from all other Wiki bio articles for consistency. However, if the criticism once again is removed by someone other than an administrator, I will simply revert it as vandalism. Thank you. Freedom Fan ( talk) 05:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Frank. Please stop adding your opinion of Ezra Levant into the Warman article. The adjective "controversial" is subjective and does not add to the article in any way. Please discuss here or on your talk page before doing another revert. 007blur007 ( talk) 18:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm wondering if we should mention http://richardwarman.com specifically to warn readers that it is written by Warman's opponents, not by Warman. I see that Googling for "Richard Warman" gets this article then that page as the first two hits. What do other editors think? Also, can anyone come up with a good way to describe this web site accurately without giving it undue prominence?
While I'm here: am I the only one who hates using nationalvanguard.org as a source, especially in this article? In fact, Wikipedia policy is to prefer secondary sources, so I for one would be grateful if someone found a better source for that claim. CWC 15:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I've just removed the following text, which was recently added by user 67.167.58.79 ( talk · contribs):
I agree with the anon that this incident should be covered in our article, but I played it safe for some rather technical reasons:
That is, I think we revise and expand the text shown above, but there's no need to hurry. Does anyone have additional information, suggestions, comments etc? Should we put the deleted text back until we construct a better version? CWC 16:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
The CHRT criticized Warman in March 2009 for having posted pseudonymously — using the names Axetogrind and Pogue Mahone — to neo-Nazi sites such as Stormfront and Vanguard News Network, as if in agreement with racist and antisemitic messages posted there. In one post, in response to a comment in January 2005 about American neo-Nazi leader Jeff Schoep, Warman wrote, "Keep up the good work Commander Schoep!". The CHRT ruled that Warman's posts, which he initially denied were his, could have precipitated further hate messages from forum members, and that he had undermined his credibility. In his defence, Warman said his posts had helped him identify members of the neo-Nazi movement, and that at the time there was no "road map" for such investigations. "With hindsight, he said, "things might have been done differently today." [1] [2]
An account with one edit changed the lead from saying Warman had initiated complaints against a wide range of people, including white supremacists, to "best known for initiating complaints against white supremacists and neo-Nazis for Canadian Human Rights Act violations ..." [10]
Has Warman initiated complaints regarding human rights violations against anyone other than white supremacists and neo-Nazis? SlimVirgin 19:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I've just reverted a large edit by Veryloan1 ( talk · contribs) while tweaking the lede for reasons explained above.
Here's my list of the changes in that edit, with my comments in italics:
I've numbered these points for convenience in discussion. Any comments? Cheers, CWC 22:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I found the layout of the 'advocacy' section to be difficult to follow. So I've gone through and added new headings, and re-organized to put information under the correct headings. I didn't remove any information, and only added a brief linking sentance.
Suggestions on other ways to improve the structure of this article are welcome.
Turquoise swan ( talk) 19:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
This guy is cool - insite a comment then sue you for it, wow a genius. A person with a little money could sue him and tie him up for decades - return the favor so to speak. He seems to have the knack - or he purposely hunts them out - to find the easiest targets too. Is he on exclusive retainer?I could use him occasionally.
159.105.80.122 (
talk) 18:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
In an international context this sentence is insidious: "He [Richard Warman] is best known for having initiated complaints against people such as white supremacists and neo-Nazis for Canadian Human Rights Act violations related to Internet content". It indirectly insinuating that Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn is white supremacists or neo-Nazis. Why? To an international audience, Richard Warman is best known for having sued Ezra Levant and for his involvement in the notorious Canadian "Human Rights Commission" that runs the politically correct "courts" that among other things charged Mark Steyn with "flagrant Islamophobia". And now Richard Warman is even suing blogger Blazing Cat Fur for linking to the web site of "Far Right" Mark Steyn! The English Wikipedia should not be a participant in this Canadian type of leftist social exorcist political correctness gone mad! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.108.21.61 ( talk) 03:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Cameron Highlanders of Ottawa?
---I believe I saw him there personally in May of 2010. [ [11]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by M555333555M555333555M ( talk • contribs) 01:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Richard Warman. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Richard Warman/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Posing as a human rights activist, fighting fascists but apears to open minded folk as a bigoted, witch hunter hell bent on working against free speech. Who does he really work for? This guy's activities are often as Fascist as those he seeks to silence.This needs to be set straight on Wikepedia if you still want people to take your sites info seriously. |
Last edited at 13:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 04:24, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Richard Warman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:59, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
We should probably add that Richard Warman first gained attention with his actions against conspiracy theorist and fellow Green Party member David Icke.
Reference here: [1]
Prior to his complaints against alleged "hate" sites, Warman was involved in legal wranglings and human rights complaints with individuals who are not "white supremacists" per se. The case with Icke is at least one of these which is still ongoing. Some of the people he has launched human rights complaints against and/or sued include non-racists such as David Icke and Tom Kennedy and people in the anti-tax movement such as Fred Kyburz and Eldon Warman.
There is some lengthy debate within the Green Party regarding whether advocating the banning of books and threatening litigation against bookstores and libraries, as has been done by Warman, is conduscive to the Libertarian-type approach to freedom of expression in the Green Party.
Further info on this matter here: [2]
I don't know a lot about the Icke stuff. Feel free to write something and put it in the article. Homey 12:30, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Someone should post the youtube link to "David Icke - Secret Rulers of the World", which has coverage of Richard Warman, his actions and comments.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0ROs7n17Yg&feature=related —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.253.202 ( talk) 03:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I should inform "Imstillhere" that the three-revert rule mandates that posters not revert pages more than three times in a 24 hour period. CJCurrie 22:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Here is how the 3 Revert Rule works.
Furthermore, the information reverted was valid information with a documentation link that seemed to displease CJCurrie.
Notice the history of changes. I did not end up reverting a 3rd time, but CJCurrie did. I just posted links that are related and verifiable. And by the way, CJCurrie, some of the names in the list of Warman's cases are just in the complaint phase as well, so if you say "anyone can file a complaint" please feel free to remove the names from the list as well.
* I reverted it (2) * CJCurrie reverted it (3) <-- 3 times. Learn how to count
My point is that reverting the page a third time isn't contrary to Wikipedia policy; reverting it more times than that is. CJCurrie 22:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
And, for the record, I've noticed that listing your initial post as a revert was obviously a mistake. CJCurrie 22:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I have reverted this because the user who is insisting on adding these links is making no effort to respond to CJCurrie's concerns by, for example, providing context or explanation, or by identifying whether these complaints have been upheld, rejected, or are pending. "Whether or not the charges stuck is irrelevant." Of course it is relevant. I could accuse User:Imstillhere of being a pedophile and a rapist, and the fact that I have absolutely no evidence to support that accusation is very, very important. This does seem to be a case of drive-by character assassination. Ground Zero | t 02:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I did provide an explanation, however it was removed by CJCurie. I had the story and the links. She kept removing them. Check the revision history.
Whether or not you are an administrator, you cannot use your administrative access to censor people on the site or use your access level to make politically motivated edits to pages. Keep doing this and I will report you. Imstillhere 21:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I can remove information which I judge to be trivial (particularly when you haven't given me a reason why I shouldn't do so in this instance). CJCurrie 23:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Richard is living in hiding for fear of retalitaion from the numerous enemies he has created. Reference here: [3]
"Warman expected a strong reaction from white supremacists. His family is worried about the threats and Ottawa police have developed a security plan for him, which he will not discuss.
"You have to walk a fine line between being concerned and being paranoid."" Plasticman
To CJCurrie:
You removed what I believe were valid entries in support of the of criticism of Richard Warman.
You claim that the entries are not "encyclopedic". Please explain what you mean, provide an example, and a Wikipedia reference in support of your position. Note also that one of the references was to another article in Wikipedia.
I am going to assume for the moment that you are acting in good faith, and will not censor valid criticism. Then there should not be too much difficulty in finding criticism of which you approve, since Richard Warman's complaints before the CHRC are currently one of the most widely discussed topics on Canadian blogs. I provided just two references, whereas there are hundreds of others.
The entries you removed are:
Critics have charged that Warman abuses the intent of the Canadian Human Rights Act by personally appearing as the plaintiff in the majority of CHRA section 13 "hate speech" cases which have been brought before the Commission, a former employer of Warman. [4] - - Critics further charge that many CHRC "hate speech" complaints such as Warman's have had a chilling effect on the human right to freedom of expression. [5]
I look forward to your prompt, reasoned response. Thank you. Freedom Fan ( talk) 08:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. I have edited the criticism section accordingly. Freedom Fan ( talk) 06:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Freedom Fan ( talk) 06:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
This article is being maintained by politically motivated individuals trying to protect the information from being changed at all costs by removing any reference to well-sourced articles that don't shed good light on this individual. These same individuals and admins have engaged in slander in other articles Imstillhere 07:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
There is a lot of evident corruption at work on the Wikipedia site. Apotheosization of individuals like Warman, while vilifying individuals like Glenn Bahr. I'm wondering if a Wikipedia admin would like to volunteer a proper channel of redress for those offended by the anti-White undercurrent manifest in these instances of bias? - Bill Noble
The neutrality in this entire artile is disputed. It is clearly biased in favor of Warman. Edward Nyhouse —Preceding comment was added at 07:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
"Human Rights" lawyer isn't a real designation. And even if it was, it would be referring to when he was working with the Human Rights Commission, which he no longer is. A lawyer who files human righst complaints is not a human rights lawyer. So officially he is just a lawyer. Refer to the - Law Society of Upper Canada for more information on the certified specialist program. Imstillhere 17:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
"Mr. Warman testified that he was not Jewish. In our view, the fact that Mr. Warman was not himself Jewish does not detract in any way from the viciousness of the attacks launched against him by Mr. Kyburz. These attacks were clearly motivated, at least in part, by Mr. Kyburz' perception that Mr. Warman was Jewish. Based upon this belief, Mr. Kyburz ascribed very negative character traits, as well as criminal behaviour to Mr. Warman. Mr. Warman, quite understandably, found this conduct to be very hurtful. In our view, Mr. Warman is a victim of the discriminatory practice." [6]Richard Warman and Canadian Human Rights Tribunal and Fred Kyburz, Reasons for decision, May 9, 2003. 70.28.159.194 05:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
This article really needs more details on when Warman worked for the CHRC. Was it two years? When specifically? I was reading Warman v. Winnicki and there is an allegation quoted in the decision stating that some of Warman's complaints were made while he was working for the CHRC. Isn't that conflict of interest? -- Chris Thompson 19:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
As an administrator, you seem to be doing very little about JB15 who has been removing sourced content with no explanation. Imstillhere 15:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
The section that's been occasionally added titled "Warman's attempt to have Canada Block hate sites" has too much detail about a minor proceeding in a larger court case. Quoting the judgement at length doesn't help. The motion doesn't appear notable enough to even mention. Further, the referncing is partly from a blog, which we don't normally accept as reliable sources. I think the shorter, one sentence version that simply says he's still active is more appropriate. - Will Beback 08:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Inconsistencies: There were articles in papers Nation-wide about Warman's attempt at censorship with the CRTC but I was told that a paragraph about the issue is too much information. The paragraph that included part of the CRTC decision was removed. So I edited the existing sentence and changed "ongoing attempt to "failed attempt". I also removed the Bernie Farber quote calling it a "murder warrant" because that's not more relevant that the CRTC decision. That was edited and reverted by User:CJCurrie.
And then, a paragraph (re: death threat that on VNN forum) that from my knowledge only received mention in one small community paper, has a paragraph dedicated to it?
This isn't your wiki. If you set a standard for editing, stick by it. You idiots are trying to say that an issue that had 1 community paper article warrants a paragraph and a 10-day multi-faceted event with national coverage only needs a sentence? Your bias and motivations are blatant. 69.199.64.4 17:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Warman is certainly a prominent human rights lawyer. A simple Google search of his names yields valuable information on his contributions to conferences, seminars, and talks - which which he is regularly invited to school NGO leaders and police officials on his style of combating online hatred. Furthermore, simple Factiva or InfoMart searches provide dozens of articles in which Warman is quoted by reporters, being the first source they go to for an opinion on matters of online extremism. Prominence is not a matter of opinion. Random House Dictionary refers to prominence as being:
1. standing out so as to be seen easily; conspicuous; particularly noticeable 2. standing out beyond the adjacent surface or line; projecting. 3. leading, important, or well-known: a prominent citizen.
Based on the above-noted definitions, and the plethora of information on Warman which can be found online and offline, I am hereby reinstating my previous mention of him as a "prominent" person in his Wikipedia biography.-unsigned
The lead sentence should not say Warman is an "award-winning" such and such. Almost all people who have Wikipedia articles written about them have won at least one or two awards during their lifetimes, but I've never seen a lead sentence in those articles describing them as "award-winning", especially when — like in the case of Warman — the article only mentions them winning one award. Phrases like "award-winning" are suitable for press releases, book covers or other promotional materials, not neutral encyclopedic articles. As Will Beback mentioned above, see Wikipedia:peacock terms for Wikipedia's guidelines on matters such as this. Spylab ( talk) 14:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
"Who has availed themselves of the "human rights" protected by Section XIII? In its entire history, over half of all cases have been brought by a sole "complainant," one Richard Warman. Indeed, Mr. Warman has been a plaintiff on every single Section XIII case before the federal "human rights" star chamber since 2002 — and he's won every one. That would suggest that no man in any free society anywhere on the planet has been so comprehensively deprived of his human rights."
83.61.2.236 (
talk) 12:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I've decided to remove a series of recent anonymous edits via the provisions of WP:BLP. As I mentioned in my edit, (i) the information seems dubious in some cases, and (ii) the presentation is unquestionably slanted. I could add that Ezra Levant's editorials tend not to be worthy of citation at times. CJCurrie ( talk) 04:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
So when you run out of excuses to suppress information that's bad about warman, what's next? The article is valid and so is the link. If there is an issue with the wording of the segment, edit it, don't remove the information. A serial complainer posting racist messages on the websites he complains about is very notable. Imstillhere ( talk) 12:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I was asked to comment about the removal of the material sourced to Mark Steyn. [8] Frank Pais, could you say what you feel is wrong with it, in terms of our content policies? SlimVirgin talk| edits 08:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree in principle with FrankPais regarding the appropriateness of including Steyn's commentary. One writer's personal opinion of a subject really doesn't belong here. The other paragraph (from the Gillis article) merits consideration though and I don't think should be lumped in with the Steyn quote. 007blur007 ( talk) 16:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Slim Virgin. I disagree that criticism from Mark Steyn, a prominent media personality, political pundit, and CHRC victim, somehow violates some unspecified Wiki policy, but I have restored only the Gillis criticism as a compromise. The Gillis article also includes quotes from Keith Martin, a member of Canadian Parliament. If this criticism is removed by an administrator, I will expect that administrator to assist me in removing similar criticism from all other Wiki bio articles for consistency. However, if the criticism once again is removed by someone other than an administrator, I will simply revert it as vandalism. Thank you. Freedom Fan ( talk) 05:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Frank. Please stop adding your opinion of Ezra Levant into the Warman article. The adjective "controversial" is subjective and does not add to the article in any way. Please discuss here or on your talk page before doing another revert. 007blur007 ( talk) 18:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm wondering if we should mention http://richardwarman.com specifically to warn readers that it is written by Warman's opponents, not by Warman. I see that Googling for "Richard Warman" gets this article then that page as the first two hits. What do other editors think? Also, can anyone come up with a good way to describe this web site accurately without giving it undue prominence?
While I'm here: am I the only one who hates using nationalvanguard.org as a source, especially in this article? In fact, Wikipedia policy is to prefer secondary sources, so I for one would be grateful if someone found a better source for that claim. CWC 15:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I've just removed the following text, which was recently added by user 67.167.58.79 ( talk · contribs):
I agree with the anon that this incident should be covered in our article, but I played it safe for some rather technical reasons:
That is, I think we revise and expand the text shown above, but there's no need to hurry. Does anyone have additional information, suggestions, comments etc? Should we put the deleted text back until we construct a better version? CWC 16:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
The CHRT criticized Warman in March 2009 for having posted pseudonymously — using the names Axetogrind and Pogue Mahone — to neo-Nazi sites such as Stormfront and Vanguard News Network, as if in agreement with racist and antisemitic messages posted there. In one post, in response to a comment in January 2005 about American neo-Nazi leader Jeff Schoep, Warman wrote, "Keep up the good work Commander Schoep!". The CHRT ruled that Warman's posts, which he initially denied were his, could have precipitated further hate messages from forum members, and that he had undermined his credibility. In his defence, Warman said his posts had helped him identify members of the neo-Nazi movement, and that at the time there was no "road map" for such investigations. "With hindsight, he said, "things might have been done differently today." [1] [2]
An account with one edit changed the lead from saying Warman had initiated complaints against a wide range of people, including white supremacists, to "best known for initiating complaints against white supremacists and neo-Nazis for Canadian Human Rights Act violations ..." [10]
Has Warman initiated complaints regarding human rights violations against anyone other than white supremacists and neo-Nazis? SlimVirgin 19:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I've just reverted a large edit by Veryloan1 ( talk · contribs) while tweaking the lede for reasons explained above.
Here's my list of the changes in that edit, with my comments in italics:
I've numbered these points for convenience in discussion. Any comments? Cheers, CWC 22:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I found the layout of the 'advocacy' section to be difficult to follow. So I've gone through and added new headings, and re-organized to put information under the correct headings. I didn't remove any information, and only added a brief linking sentance.
Suggestions on other ways to improve the structure of this article are welcome.
Turquoise swan ( talk) 19:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
This guy is cool - insite a comment then sue you for it, wow a genius. A person with a little money could sue him and tie him up for decades - return the favor so to speak. He seems to have the knack - or he purposely hunts them out - to find the easiest targets too. Is he on exclusive retainer?I could use him occasionally.
159.105.80.122 (
talk) 18:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
In an international context this sentence is insidious: "He [Richard Warman] is best known for having initiated complaints against people such as white supremacists and neo-Nazis for Canadian Human Rights Act violations related to Internet content". It indirectly insinuating that Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn is white supremacists or neo-Nazis. Why? To an international audience, Richard Warman is best known for having sued Ezra Levant and for his involvement in the notorious Canadian "Human Rights Commission" that runs the politically correct "courts" that among other things charged Mark Steyn with "flagrant Islamophobia". And now Richard Warman is even suing blogger Blazing Cat Fur for linking to the web site of "Far Right" Mark Steyn! The English Wikipedia should not be a participant in this Canadian type of leftist social exorcist political correctness gone mad! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.108.21.61 ( talk) 03:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Cameron Highlanders of Ottawa?
---I believe I saw him there personally in May of 2010. [ [11]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by M555333555M555333555M ( talk • contribs) 01:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Richard Warman. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Richard Warman/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Posing as a human rights activist, fighting fascists but apears to open minded folk as a bigoted, witch hunter hell bent on working against free speech. Who does he really work for? This guy's activities are often as Fascist as those he seeks to silence.This needs to be set straight on Wikepedia if you still want people to take your sites info seriously. |
Last edited at 13:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 04:24, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Richard Warman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:59, 2 July 2016 (UTC)