Talk:Marc Lemire

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk:Marc Lemire/Archive 1

Matthew Lauder[edit]

I would like to draw the attention of readers to Eric Volmers' article "Down into the darkness; Matt Lauder's inside look at Canada's racist groups wasn't pretty", which was printed on the front page of the Guelph Mercury on 19 March 2005.

Most contributors to this discussion will already know that Matthew Lauder is an anti-racist activist who once infiltrated the Canadian far-right for research purposes. What I did not realize until reading Volmers' article is that his findings have been used by police services across the country:

Anti-racism advocates and police say the information Lauder gathered has been helpful in studying how the far right operates, offering a glimpse into recruiting techniques, numbers of people involved and connections to racist organizations in the U.S. More importantly, the research -- released as a report in 2002 in conjunction with the Guelph and District Multicultural Centre and Canadian Heritage -- showed that the movement was much more organized than previously thought. "It's been very helpful," said Det. Terry Wilson, who belonged the London, Ont. police force's hate-crime unit for 15 years. "It gave us a view of how the far-right works -- of who's who in the zoo so to speak, and who's pulling the strings. The biggest thing the police are interested in is a group's propensity for violence. With Matt in there, he became a good source."

Given that Lauder is an adviser to the Canadian police on hate issues, I don't think there should be any doubt concerning his status as a Reliable Source for this article.

Accordingly, it should be appropriate to incorporate information from these articles into Lemire's Wikipedia entry:

One section of Volmers' article relates directly to Lauder's relationship with Paul Fromm and Marc Lemire:

Lauder said he was able to infiltrate a group that included people like Paul Fromm -- a former teacher who was fired in the mid-1990s for his alleged involvement with neo-Nazi groups -- and his high-profile supporter Marc Lemire. Since Lauder revealed his true leanings, both Lemire and Fromm have targeted him on various websites. In a essay credited to Lemire on the white supremacist website Stormfront.org, Lauder is accused of suffering from "Dissociative Identity Disorder." Fromm accused Lauder of "snagging tens of thousands of dollars to fund his spying and reporting" on the same site before suggesting he was "prematurely bald" but never considered a skinhead. Both downplay his impact on the movement, saying those involved never truly trusted him. In an interview from his Mississauga home, Fromm said Lauder has been little more than a nuisance in far-right circles. He said it's not a murky underworld that needs to be infiltrated, but a group of people who are open about their political views. "He used to hang around in Toronto," Fromm said. "He would come to meetings and say he was doing a thesis. A lot of us were suspicious of him. It didn't seem very credible." If that was the case, it seems strange that Fromm and Lemire allowed Lauder to "tag along" for a trip to Arlington, Va. in March of 2000, where Fromm was scheduled to speak at a conference that featured ex-Klu Klux Klan leader David Duke as its star presenter. According to Lauder, he was introduced to Duke as an "up-and-coming writer" for the movement and a picture was taken of the pair. The trip was important because it linked Canada's far-right movement -- which was straining to present a more moderate and respectable image to the public -- with some of America's most frightening hate-mongers, Lauder said. Fromm disagrees. "It was never something I was ashamed of, he suggests it was a secret meeting," he said. "I spoke at the meeting. I have done that before and done that since. Representative Duke is a great American." Still, he bristles when asked if the picture taken of Lauder and Duke is an embarrassment for him and others who introduced the pair. "He was a paid spy working in some degree for the Canadian government," Fromm said angrily. ". . . he sold himself as some sort of supporter." Det. Terry Wilson, who transferred to the police force in New Westminster. B.C. two years ago, laughs when told that Fromm and others claim Lauder did not infiltrate Canada's far-right. "Usually when people are truly fooled, after the fact they will totally go into denial," he said. "I believe Paul Fromm and Marc Lemire were truly fooled. It's difficult for them to admit, but they were whizzed in a big way."

The Guelph Mercury is a credible, mainstream newspaper in Guelph, Ontario, where Lauder currently resides. Volmers is a staff writer. Unless someone can give a compelling reason otherwise, I believe this material should also be integrated into the article. CJCurrie 05:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"See comments..."[edit]

An editor made some revisions, using the edit summary:

  • See comments by Jimbo Wales - Owner of Wikipedia.[1][2]

Which comments are those and where can we see them? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting message[edit]

A few days ago, I removed the phrase "neo-Nazi" from this article's lede, because the alleged source is not strong enough for such an extreme allegation. (The Nazi slur is hurled at lots of people, but genuine neo-Nazis are quite rare; even White Supremacists are rarely neo-Nazi.)

Now Mark Lemire (or someone claiming to be him) has left an comment at Ezra Levant's blog in which he strongly denies the allegations about neo-Nazism. As blog comments are not Reliable Sources we cannot mention this in the article. If he repeats the claim or links to it on one of his own websites, we should mention it.

(BTW, I'm the "Chris Chittleborough" who made two comments on that post.) Cheers, CWC 13:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lemire's denial[edit]

Lemire has just posted this to one of his blogs, strongly denying that he is a neo-Nazi or even a White Supremacist. In fact, he claims that no-one has ever produced any evidence for these claims. Furthermore, he describes two of the claims in Joe Brean's National Post article, which we cite, as "outright lies"; we arguably should note that in the cite.

I've done a minimalistic edit to reflect his denial. The resulting wording is clunky, so improvements are even more welcome than usual.

Note: many observers, including almost all non-specialist journalists, fail to recognise the differences between neo-Nazis, White Supremacy and White Nationalism/White Separatism. These differences may not seem all that significant to you or me, but people in these movements regard them as very important, so good encyclopedia articles have to reflect these distinctions. (Sigh.) Are there any good sources describing Lemire as a White Nationalist or Separatist? As anti-semitic? Has he ever denied those charges? (He does say in that blog post that he runs "a website critical of immigration", so it would be quite safe to describe him as an "anti-immigration activist".) If we can uncontroversially describe him as a White Nationalist or Separatist or antisemite in the lede, we could move the "some say he's a WS but he denies it" bit out of the lede, which would improve the article IMO. Cheers, CWC 12:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV[edit]

Just to satisfy the bureaucracy: the article contains multiple usages of biased language as definitive statements, with poor sourcing. Sceptre (talk) 00:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK, which statements need better sourcing? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You're looking at the wrong end. If you want to know, the whole lead section could do with heavily pruning. Possibly the only part of that section that passes BLP would be that HF lasted from '01 to '05. Sceptre (talk) 00:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Lead[edit]

Text[edit]

Marc Lemire is a figure in the violently racist and extremist[1] Canadian white supremacist movement, who works closely with neo-Nazi leader Paul Fromm, and is the webmaster of the Toronto-based Freedom-Site (which he began in 1996).[2][3][4] He is alleged to be a neo-Nazi himself, and has been called a "bigot" by the national media in Canada.[5] Formerly of Toronto and now living in Hamilton, Lemire is the last known president of the often violent Heritage Front organization from January 1 2001 until the organization folded around 2005.[6][7]

References[edit]

  1. ^ February 24, 2005 judgment of Blais J. in Zündel (Re) [2005] F.C.J. No. 314.
  2. ^ "The new face of hate" CANOE
  3. ^ "From Marches to Modems". The Canadian Jewish Conference. Retrieved 2007-01-03.
  4. ^ "Annual Reports > Country > Canada". Stephen Roth Institute: Antisemitism And Racism. Retrieved 2007-01-01.
  5. ^ http://www.nationalpost.com/related/links/story.html?id=397652
  6. ^ Joseph Brean (March 22, 2008). "Scrutinizing the human rights machine". National Post. Retrieved 2008-03-22.
  7. ^ "The New Generation of Organized Racialism in Canada". Canadian Content. Retrieved 2007-01-03.

Discussion[edit]

The first sentence asserts that the subject is a "figure" in the white supremacist movement, is an associate of Fromm, and is a webmaster. Would folks prefer if we make it more neutral by saying he is a figure in right-wing Canadaian politics? If we have better sources for that than for the other assertion that'd make sense. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, remove anything pertaining to Nazism (poor Mike, crying himself to sleep because of people who use terms like this), racism, or violence. That's the meat of the problem. It might be better to say he is active in right-wing politics than saying he is supremacist, because that term has connotations which may not reflect the subject. Sceptre (talk) 01:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Crying himself to sleep"? I'm not sure I follow. Anyway, I moved the "allegations" out of the lead. We can't remove them out of the article entirely unless there is a problem with sourcing, etc. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Godwin, our legal counsel, is famous for the use of Godwin's Law. I normally use the example of him crying himself to sleep to highlight the use of the word "Nazi" being thrown around gratituously. Sceptre (talk) 12:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes the term is accurate, Sceptre. Just because the term is overused doesn't mean there aren't real neo-nazis in the world and the Heritage Front was nothing if it wasn't a violent neo-nazi organization. You know what they say, "if the jackboot fits..." "Right wing politics" in insufficient and simply calling Lemire a right-winger slanders mainstream conservatives. You wouldn't call Nick Griffin a Tory. CRakovsky (talk) 15:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to read this. Calling him a white Xist may be acceptable, but 'racist' is never. Sceptre (talk) 15:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sceptre, this is what a federal court judge wrote in regards to neo-nazi Ernst Zundel and Marc Lemire (emphasis added)[[3] ]:

...The Ministers have provided considerable evidence, that cannot be disclosed for reasons of national security, that Mr. Zündel has extensive contacts within the violent racist and extremist movement. Mr. Zündel stated in his testimony that he knew the following people slightly, or had professional contacts with them, or had interviewed them as a reporter. Information showed, rather, that he had dealt with them a great deal more, in some cases had funded their activities, and generally had maintained much closer ties than what he had admitted to in his examination or cross-examination. These contacts include Tom Metzger, Richard Butler, Dennis Mahon and William Pierce in the United States, Christian Worch, Ewald Althans, Gottfied Kuessel and Oliver Bode in Germany, Siegfried Verbeke in Belgium, Terry Long, Christopher Newhook, Tony McAleer, Bernard Klatt, Wolfgang Droege and Marc Lemire in Canada, Nick Griffin in Great Britain and members of South Africa's Afrikaner Resistance Movement. (Re Zündel, 2004 FC 86 (CanLII), 2004 FC 86, [2004] F.C.J. No. 60, at paragraph 27)
[114] Although not all of the 1.2 million monthly visitors, as mentioned by Mr. Zündel, to the Zundelsite are members of the White Supremacist Movement, that volume, on only one website, is an indication of the potential influence this means of communication holds. Many of those actively involved in maintaining this network, individuals such as Mr. Klatt, Mr. Rami, Mr. Lemire, Mr. McAleer and particularly his spouse, Mrs. Rimland, are close associates of Mr. Zündel.

Sceptre, if a federal court judge identifies Lemire as a contact "within the violent racist and extremist movement" and as a figure in maintaining the network that is the "White Supremacist Movement" how can you claim that using such language to describe Lemire in this article is biased? Mr. Godwin can sleep soundly. CRakovsky (talk) 15:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Judges aren't the bastion of neutrality. Rather recently, the US Supreme Court held that gun control laws are unconstitutional, but that was a 5-4 split, with the justices having specific marked opinions. There are plenty of cases where High Court judges in the UK have denonunced murderers (one such I can specifically remember is Ian Huntley), but we don't include those opinions here. Sceptre (talk) 16:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As multiple sources use the term "neo-Nazi" in relation to the subject, do you have any countering sources? So far, it seems your position is we just can't ever mention any awful facts about a person in the lead. --Rob (talk) 16:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I've just said on Talk:Osama Bin Laden, lack of sources to the opposite does not give us license to use such biased language. Sceptre (talk) 16:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of bin Laden, there's some variation in use of the term "terrorist" in reliable sources, with some intentionally not using it. In this case, there's really no dispute of the use of the term "neo-Nazi". So, far, there's been no claim that this article misrepresents reliable sources. Rather, you just don't like what those reliable sources say. Hence, there's no real POV dispute. --Rob (talk) 18:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A good test to see if a term is, at least, not negative is to consider whether a reasonable person would apply it to themselves. "Actor", "Singer", "Laywer", and even some political affilitions such as "capitalist" or "communist" or types of crime like "killer" and "robber" would be applied to oneself. As our Wikipedia article states, neo-nazis rarely apply the term to themselves, and it's normally applied by (often partisan) outsiders looking in. The same applies to violence and racism. Sceptre (talk) 18:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPOV means writing a bio that reflects reliable sources, which don't always reflect a person's opinion of himself. Adolf Hitler (properly) states in the lead he committed genocide, but few people will describe their own actions as genocidal. It seems you've decided that you're opposed to any description that a reasonable person wouldn't want used to describe themself, regardless of what reliable sources say. What you call a "good test" is not the test policy requires. --Rob (talk) 23:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sceptre is right, to an extent. It's better to say that the subject is a webmaster of white supremacist websites than to say he's a white supremacist webmaster. His job is webmaster (and former research assistant, though that's not important enough for the lead). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the use of negative (or indeed positive) language when dealing with definitive statements is discouraged by NPOV. NPOV means the content and the language must be neutral, not just the content. So we don't call the KKK racist (negative language, though neutral content), we say that they advocate white supremacy and opression of minorities (neutral language, neutral content). Sceptre (talk) 00:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"White supremacist" is neither positive nor negative any more than "liberal" or "conservative" are (though some individuals may see them as derogatory). It's a descriptive term that refers to a set of political and racial beliefs. IMO, folks who hold those views tend to self-identify as "White nationalists" rather than "White supremacists", but I haven't seen any evidence that the two terms refer to different things. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know that "white supremacist" isn't really negative (though I do get squeamish when it's used), I'm saying that "racist" is negative. I think that, in the context of this article, WS would be accurate. I'm arguing against the use of other negative words. Sceptre (talk) 00:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing that is called "racist" is the Canadian White supremacist movement, and that POV is attributed (though we can improve it). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(deindent) Would the fact that the movement is racist be even relevant to the article about the guy? I've seen this kind of behaviour used to push a negative POV on intelligent design BLPs (notably, Rosalind Picard). Tends to get into coatracking territory, you see. Sceptre (talk) 00:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sceptre, could you please poiint out which sentences contain "weasel words", in your opinion? Then we can clean those up if necessary. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The politics section is terrible for weasel words, e.g.: "Lemire has ben [sic] described", "which has been called", "He is alleged to be", "by the national media in Canada." Sceptre (talk) 18:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The disagreements on the lead should be worked out here before any major changes are made to the lead itself. After all, the information contained within it at present is entirely gathered from very reliable sources. Frank Pais (talk) 02:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, that last edit you reverted was the result of cleaning up after a returning vandal who was reverting all of my edits to revenge being blocked. It had nothing to do with this discussion, just mischief. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lauder again[edit]

It appears that the Lauder article has been removed from its original host on Lauder's request, as per: [4]

Should we take this as an authorial retraction of the article, and reconsider our usage of it? Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how that withdrawl affects us, since it was due to "security issues" rather than accuracy. The article is still available in the Wayback machine.[5] Furthermore, Lauder's exposé was covered in a number of newspaper articles, which report on his findings. Those could be used as sources even if the original article is not available. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some more overview might be good here then. Can the impact of this expose be spelled out somewhat? Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Marc Lemire. 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:57, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Marc Lemire. 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:04, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Marc Lemire. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:43, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Marc_Lemire&oldid=1199375570"