Talk:Conrad Black: Difference between revisions
→Nickle Resolution: new section |
|||
(137 intermediate revisions by 50 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{talkheader}} |
{{talkheader}} |
||
{{Controversial}} |
|||
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|collapsed=yes|blp=yes|1= |
|||
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|blp=yes|class=B|vital=yes|living=y|listas=Black, Conrad|1= |
|||
{{WP UK Politics|class=B|auto=inherit|importance=}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Biography|peerage-work-group=yes|peerage-priority=Mid|politician-work-group=yes|politician-priority=Mid}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom|importance=Low|auto=inherit}} |
|||
{{WPBiography|living=yes|class=B|politician-work-group=yes|politician-priority=Midc|peerage-work-group=yes|peerage-priority=Midc|needs-photo=yes|listas=Black, Conrad}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Canada |
{{WikiProject Canada|on=yes|toronto=yes|toronto-importance=high|importance=mid}} |
||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject Media|importance=Low}} |
||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject Journalism|importance=Low}} |
||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|importance=Low}} |
||
{{ |
{{WikiProject United Kingdom |importance=Low}} |
||
}} |
}} |
||
{{Annual readership}} |
|||
==Conrad Black as Historian== |
|||
Having a Masters thesis hardly quantifies one as a Historian, if you consider that an MA in Econ does not make one an Economist. Usually that title is reserved for PhD holders -- learned Professors. Thoughts? --[[Special:Contributions/99.243.68.63|99.243.68.63]] ([[User talk:99.243.68.63|talk]]) 13:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:He's written three books of historical biography that are each considered authoritative on their subjects (Duplessis, Roosevelt and Nixon), and each are well over a thousand carefully cited pages. If that doesn't make someone a historian, a PhD based on a single unpublished 200-page dissertation isn't going to do the job either. [[User:Geoff NoNick|Geoff NoNick]] ([[User talk:Geoff NoNick|talk]]) 20:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:Generally someone is considered a professional member of their field if they have completed accredited professional training (i.e. a graduate degree) and have produced original scholarship in that field. Black meets both these criteria. To speak to your example, the economics field is actually rather unique in that, until recently, most economics programs haven't even offered a Master's level degree. The econ field has always been driven by the Ph.D. [[User:TomPointTwo|TomPointTwo]] ([[User talk:TomPointTwo|talk]]) 22:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC) |
|||
==Canadian?== |
|||
Should Conrad Black be included in a Category:Canadian People when he has formally renounced his citizenship? I know he was forced by Jean Chretien's strict interpretation of the Nickle act, but forced to choose he preferred the honour of a British peerage to that of a plain Canadian citizenship. [[User:Vfp15|Vincent]] 08:53, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC) |
|||
: Whatever his citizenship or his loyalties now, he was a Canadian citizen once, and is still a major figure in Canada. So I think he should be included. --[[User:Saforrest|Saforrest]] 04:35, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC) |
|||
:Born in Canada, he was. . .definitely a topic for inclusion in "citizenship", d'ya think?[[User:Freiherrin|Freiherrin]] 22:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
BCameron54 01:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:His family was originally American--as was much of Canada's original social elite. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/67.183.157.148|67.183.157.148]] ([[User talk:67.183.157.148|talk]]) 08:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
Cretien didn't force him - Black made a choice. He's not a Canadian. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/142.161.183.184|142.161.183.184]] ([[User talk:142.161.183.184|talk]]) 03:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:Black was born two years before the [[Canadian Citizenship Act 1946]] removed the status of also being a [[British subject]] so he was always technically also 'British' from birth. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/95.149.173.43|95.149.173.43]] ([[User talk:95.149.173.43|talk]]) 16:46, 5 August 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
==Postnominals?== |
|||
Should a British citizen really have the postnominal letters of a papal order appended to their name? I think this is probably wrong. [[User:Ulpian|Ulpian]] 19:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Any more "wrong" from a Catholic perspective than a divorced man who marries a thrice-divorced woman in a CATHOLIC ceremony? |
|||
methinks not [[User:Ken Burch|Ken Burch]] 02:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Conrad and Barbara were married in a civil service at the registry office in London, England. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/99.232.125.46|99.232.125.46]] ([[User talk:99.232.125.46|talk]]) 23:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
== Baron? == |
|||
I'm only seen him referred to as Lord, not Baron. Are you certain he's a Baron, or was this a confusion with "media baron"? |
|||
(peerage styles) |
|||
He is a life Baron. Barons are addressed as Lord ''surname'' of ''title''. Their wives are Lady ''husband's surname'' of ''title''. Women who are Baronesses in their own right (not by being married to a Baron) are Baroness ''surname'' of ''title''. |
|||
:They're called "Lord Title", not "Lord Surname of Title". Black's title is "Baron Black of Crossharbour", so he's called Lord Black of Crossharbour. There are some people whose title is the same as their surname (like [[Margaret Thatcher|Lady Thatcher]]) and some whose surname isn't in their title at all (like [[Edward Short, Baron Glenamara|Lord Glenamara]]). [[User:Proteus|Proteus]] [[User_talk:Proteus|(Talk)]] 12:00, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) |
|||
How does one edit the upper right hand corner, which is INCORRECT? |
|||
Black is NOT a RIGHT HONOURABLE. He is a Baron, and thus only entitled to HONOURABLE. [[User:Freiherrin|Freiherrin]] 20:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:English barons use Rt Hon. [[User:Computerjoe|Computerjoe]][[User talk:Computerjoe|<span style="color:red">'s talk</span>]] 20:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== Serious work needed == |
|||
There's little here about Black's resignation of CEO of Hollinger International, the suit brought by Hollinger International against him, the SEC investigation, the non-compete payments, and the numerous lawsuits brought against Black (and the numerous lawsuits Black has filed). It's not that I think Black should be villified, just that there is no discussion of this at all. I'll attempt to rewrite this, although it will take time to construct it in a [[Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View|NPOV]] way. [[User:Revived|Revived]] 04:00, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|||
I have reorganized some of the early business/personal items and expanded on Norcen, Dominion Stores, and his newspaper acquisitions. |
|||
Re the possibility of his children using Hon. (NOT Rt. Hon - that is onf NO importance)[[User:Freiherrin|Freiherrin]] 21:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC) 19/7/07 |
|||
==Jerusalem Post== |
|||
Doesn't Ravelston own the Jerusalem Post? Just wondering.[[User:Vfp15|Vincent]] 04:27, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|||
not any longer. [[User:Freiherrin|Freiherrin]] 21:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)19/7/07 |
|||
==Telegraph takeover antics== |
|||
I wonder whether matters concerning his takeover at the [[Daily Telegraph]] should be covered in more detail either here or in the Telegraph's article. The Berry brothers (the 2nd and future 3rd [[Viscount Camrose]], the latter of course best known as Lord Hartwell) were looking for someone to inject capital so they could expand, not end their family control that had endured since they bought out the then [[Baron Burnham]] in the [[1920s]]. But Black kept buying,and installed [[Andrew Stephen Bower Knight|Andrew Knight]] as chief executive, shutting the Berrys out of management. And the Telegraph obituary for the just-deceased 6th Baron Burnham, who like his father had been general manager after his father's uncle had sold the paper in the '20s, says |
|||
:it was his resemblance to the stereotypical view of an old-fashioned English gentleman that convinced Black that he was not plausible as a senior executive." When Andrew Knight arrived Lawson was shocked to be summarily dismissed. |
|||
This after Burnham (then known as Hugh Lawson before his brother the 5th Baron died) had been the one to go to Canada on behalf of Lord Hartwell to woo Black to invest in the paper. A rather odd reason to fire a manager of a conservative English newspaper, and I wonder if the obituary would have been so frank if Black had still controlled it. Hartwell gave up his titular chairmanship and his brother the deputy chairmanship in 1987, after Black's regime had marginalized them.--L.E./le@put.com/[[User:12.144.5.2|12.144.5.2]] 03:53, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC) |
|||
== Slight POV? == |
|||
"Black, who is considered to be fairly right-wing (especially by Canadian standards)," |
|||
That seems a bit POV to me. Perhaps it could be reworded? |
|||
Canada '''does''' tend to be more left-wing than many countries, so it isn't completely inaccurate, but it does seem to imply (to me) that Canada is a far left country. It also could imply that neighbours such as the US are right-wing countries, or that the entire world is, on average, more right-wing than Canada. |
|||
I'm a far socialist/left-libertarian (I hate the one-dimensional scale (See [[Political Compass]])) Canadian, so I personally don't find it offensive or anything. It just doesn't strike quite NPOV with me. |
|||
Anyone else notice this/have thoughts on it? I don't want to edit it, since I may be a little to NPOV-obsessed or something... :o) |
|||
--[[User:Devari|Devari]] 06:39, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
POV??? Conrad Black's motivating force has been greed and the acquisition of personal wealth at the expense of others (ref. Dominion Stores pension plan, for example) and has consistently sought to undermine the shared values of Canadian society. [[User:Freiherrin|Freiherrin]] 21:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Or, to put it in a less POV way, sought to change the values of the society. Not, inherently, a bad thing. [[Special:Contributions/65.89.68.24|65.89.68.24]] ([[User talk:65.89.68.24|talk]]) 15:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::One of the main problems which would prevent this article from moving up the ladder of quality is the persistent focus on Black's negatives, rarely revealing anything positive. This shows a bias. There is no way a guy can make a '''lot''' of money without producing such animosity that nearly everyone is out to stop him if he '''only''' has faults. Emphasizing them and overlooking qualities is detrimental to readers who are pursuing the truth. In nearly every paragraph, the reader is left to wonder why he wasn't exposed at birth or conveniently struck in a parking lot early on in his career! As a result, the serious researcher (whom we are trying to attract) will look elsewhere for his/her info. [[User:Student7|Student7]] ([[User talk:Student7|talk]]) 22:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== RE: Telegraph take over antics == |
|||
The earlier post "Telegraph take over antics" is incorrect in its details. It was [[Andrew Stephen Bower Knight|Andrew Knight]] who masterminded the takeover, and instigated and agreed the buying of shares from Lord Hartwell. He was at that point the Editor of the Economist, and as such had no personal wealth with which to back the take over, and so approached Conrad Black, who agreed to invest immediately. |
|||
Far from Conrad Black "installing" Andrew Knight as CEO and Editor-in-Chief, it was Knight who "installed" Conrad Black as financier. |
|||
Conrad Black was, in the inital and crucial days of the Telegraph take-over and re-structuring, a silent partner, still based in Canada. It was Andrew Knight who oversaw and ran the entire company. Only once the company became the grand success it did, brought back to life by Knight, did Black move to London and take greater interest. |
|||
All of this is made very clear in numerous books, most notably [[Max Hastings]]'s "Editor". |
|||
:"Editor" is a very good book. It also makes clear the inability of the old management to address the financial and management issues that were dragging the Telegraph down, not to mention their naive business deal with Black. Why on earth did they agree to give Black the first call on any further sale of shares to raise the money they needed for the overhaul of the Telegraph and the new printworks that they so desperately needed? Perhaps we should insert this point - it is a matter of public record. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 11:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Honourable or Right Honourable? == |
|||
I was going to change it, but then I realised that Canadian privy councillors are styled '''The Honourable''' (and with the British spelling too [http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/cpsc-ccsp/pe/address2_e.cfm]). But British peers are styled '''The Right Honourable''', and as this is usually considered to be the "higher" style, shouldn't this be the one used for the article? --[[User:JRawle|JRawle]] 17:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:Yes, it should be "Right Honourable." If you look at the edit history, you will see that someone is intent on making it "Honourable," despite the explanation from several others that he is "Right Honourable" by virtue of being a British peer. [[User:HistoryBA|HistoryBA]] 17:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC) |
|||
Wouldn't the Right Honourable Conrad Black be a member of the British Privy Council then? According to the Members of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, Mr. Black's name is found, as The Honourable Conrad Black as of July 1, 1992. However, seeing that he is not a Canadian anymore, shouldn't he be off the list? I'm confused. [[user:ctjj.stevenson|ctjj.stevenson]] 1319 hours, 6 December 2005 |
|||
:"The Right Honourable Conrad Black" would be, but that's not what he is. He's "The Right Honourable The Lord Black of Crossharbour" (his legal name is "The Right Honourable Conrad Moffat, Baron Black of Crossharbour"). [[User:Proteus|Proteus]] [[User_talk:Proteus|(Talk)]] 18:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:Exactly. "Right Honourable" is a title given to various individuals in the UK, not merely members of the Privy Council. For a full explanation, you need only click on the link [[Right Honourable]]. [[User:HistoryBA|HistoryBA]] 19:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC) |
|||
If convicted,does he losae his peerage, or become"Lord Black of CrossLedgers? |
|||
Robber Baron Black? Black Baron of Crosstaxhavens? Sub lord of the Cinqueports murky harbours" Can he vote by internet in the House of Lords from leavenworth?" [[User:Hmmm|Hmmm]] 17:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
At present, even if convicted, Lord Black would not lose his peerage titles. He may be stripped of his honours in the Order of Canada and The Order of St. Gregory; recipients of such honours have previously been stripped of these in the event of conviction. In the future, he may lose his title if the law changes; but as the law stands, he can't be stripped of a peerage. [[User:Peter symonds|Peter symonds]], 15:31 15 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Indeed. The ony thing stopping him from voting in the Lords is being physically detained. (There's no "remote voting" in the UK Parliament. I'm sceptical as to whether his title would be stripped - there is a lot of resistance to the idea of legislating for retroactive punishments. What would be more likely would be a procedure whereby a member of the Lords could be expelled - perhaps a mandatory permanent leave of absence? [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] 14:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Even if convicted, he will remain a Member of the House of Lords, and subsequently, after release, he will be able to return. A peerage is for life, unless formally withdrawn by the Queen herself (on advice etc). He may be "conveniently absent", or may be formally ''requested'' to stay away from the Lords, but unless the law changes, he won't be given anything official in that regard. [[User:PeterSymonds|PeterSymonds]] 19:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Okay, if he doesn't dodge jail, the lede '''HAS''' to say, '''The Right Honourable Conrad Moffat, Baron Black of Crossharbour, Prisoner Number 0338479215'''. That would just be '''awesome'''. [[User:Eleland|Eleland]] 15:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::Hmmm, interesting suggestion! However, such things aren't appropriate in the [[News style|lede]]. See the article on [[Jeffrey Archer|Lord Archer]], who was convicted and imprisoned a while ago. [[User:PeterSymonds|PeterSymonds]] 17:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::I was being the slightest bit facetious. Actually, what prompted it was the insanity of referring to Conrad Black as "honourable", but that's neither here nor there. [[User:Eleland|Eleland]] 19:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Yes that is an irony in the British honours system! Personally I think that any peerage should be removed from a convicted criminal, because anyone who is doesn't deserve the style "honourable" that comes with it. [[User:PeterSymonds|PeterSymonds]] 17:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Hon. vs Rt. Hon. |
|||
Baron Black (incidentally, much to his dismay, 'baron' is the lowest order of the peerage) may be referred to a Rt Hon (perhaps not much longer) but his children may use the courtesy title 'HON. child Black'. |
|||
Notice it goes with the last name, not the title. |
|||
Barbara Black, on the other hand, may be referred to as Lady Black, but <i>not</i> Lady Barbara, as she has the right to the style only as wife of a peer.[[User:Freiherrin|Freiherrin]] 21:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
I was crosseyed above. To clarify the confusion over the honorific: He is only a baron. He is only "Hon." Conrad Black, Baron of the subway station at Canary Wharf.[[User:Freiherrin|Freiherrin]] 05:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:LOL! On a slightly serious note [[Crossharbour DLR station|the station in question]] (it's not a "subway station" but rather a light railway station) has only just reverted to its original name. "Baron Black of Crossharbour & London Arena" would reflect the name when he got the title. |
|||
:Indeed other than the DLR station (and what appears to be a new development on the London Arena site that's taking its name from the DLR station), is there anything actually called "Crossharbour"? Google searches just bring up DLR (and a lot of stations have made-up names - e.g. [[Westferry DLR station|Westferry]]), a new development that wasn't around when Black was being enobled, and the not very noble Lord himself. [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] 23:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Black == |
|||
Black was born to a Toronto family in Montreal, interesting... What do you figure from this? |
|||
Conrad Black was born to a WINNIPEG family in Montreal. His father was working in Montreal at the time of his birth. What is so confusing about that? |
|||
Not that we don't trust and love you, but, can we get a citation on that?--[[User:Anna Frodesiak|Anna Frodesiak]] ([[User talk:Anna Frodesiak|talk]]) 15:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Citation: "A Life In Progress" - author: The man himself!! <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/99.232.125.46|99.232.125.46]] ([[User talk:99.232.125.46|talk]]) 23:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
== Confusing Introduction == |
|||
The opening part of this article is confusing. It references Black's legal troubles as if that had already been discussed or should be known by the reader - neither of which is the case. I don't know enough about Black to supply the missing content or reorganize the existing material in a more coherent fashion. As a reader, however, I can tell this article's introductory paragraphs are confusing and need to be reworked. This is a call to those who can make these corrections. [[User:Emeriste|Emeriste]] 22:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Please try reading it again; I've reordered & expanded material.[[User:Freiherrin|Freiherrin]] 21:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Perhaps it would be more appropriate to ascribe any finding of guilt (implicitly to the courts) rather than to state guilt unreservedly as courts can make incorrect findings. Hence, possibly (if true - I do not personally vouch for its veracity): |
|||
"Black was '''''found''''' guilty of diverting funds for personal benefit from money due Hollinger International when the company sold certain publishing assets and he '''''was found to have''''' obstructed justice by taking possession of documents to which he was not entitled." --[[User:TransitoryEd|TransitoryEd]] ([[User talk:TransitoryEd|talk]]) 03:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:In North American and British style justice, courts determine facts. Thus, a person charged with a crime is innocent until the courts convict. At that time, the person is deemed guilty. In Black's trial, the jury determined facts. After the trial, he was guilty of certain charges and innocent of other charges. There is no equivocation. He's not sort of guilty or sort of innocent on particular charges.--[[User:Interactbiz|Norm, Vancouver, Canada]] ([[User talk:Interactbiz|talk]]) 03:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== Non-Citizen Felons == |
|||
"Black might be unable to permanently return to his native |
|||
Canada, since Canada rarely allows entry to non-citizen felons." |
|||
Ya think? |
|||
Is there an article anywhere about the non-citizen felons that Canada *has* allowed entry ? |
|||
For one thing, the concept of "felony" is foreign to Canadian criminal law. |
|||
* * * |
|||
They may not be 'felons', but some convicts (do you like that better?) are permitted temporary entry to Canada from time to time - depending on circumstances. |
|||
Unless Black is pardoned, acquitted on appeal, or given back Canadian citizenship (bets, anyone?) he probably will not be back in Canada. Let us not forget, also, that even naturalized Canadians have been stripped of their citizenship and deported (war criminals). Black played into Chretien's hands. Now he wants what he always wants: everything, on his terms.[[User:Freiherrin|Freiherrin]] 21:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Re his living in Canada (before the judge restricted him to Illinois-Florida) he was living in Canada under a Temporary Resident Permit that expires on Nov. 27according to his lawyer Edward Greenspan. He has been told the permit will be extended. (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070719.wblackbail0720/BNStory/ConradBlack/home)[[User:Freiherrin|Freiherrin]] 04:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Conrad Black has so many adulators in Canadian media circles that returning to Canada is not likely to be a problem. If the US authorities return him to Canada to serve prison time, he'll be on parole within 24 hours. [[User:Interactbiz|Interactbiz]] ([[User talk:Interactbiz|talk]]) 03:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Not a Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire == |
|||
Had Conrad Black been knighted recently, first it would have been bad timing, second we would have heard about it in Canada. I did a search on the London Gazette online for it with no luck, and the person who put in the category has not responded to my question, therefore I am removing it from the article as vandalism. [[User:Dowew|Dowew]] 20:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:: IThe person must have confused the KCBE with the KCSG (Knight Commander of the Order of St. Gregory the Great, awarded by the Vatican) [[User:Bwithh|Bwithh]] 21:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::: I saw that he was in the ''Category'' but didn't have the post-nomial initials, so I added them thinking it was a mistake. Now that I think about it, it was stupid to do so because I know damn well he isn't called "Sir". Oops. [[User:Kevlar67|Kevlar67]] 02:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Black the author == |
|||
He's written several books, I think they deserve a mention. I could only track down 2 for this post, but they are: |
|||
Franklin Delano Roosevelt: Champion of Freedom, and |
|||
Render Unto Caesar : The Life And Legacy Of Maurice Duplessis |
|||
Note that the Maurice Duplessis wiki entry mentions the biography. |
|||
Black also wrote an autobiography, entitled A Life in Progress published in 1993 by Key Porter Books |
|||
Black said in an interview in early March 2007 that he has recently written a book on Richard Nixon. [[User:Grantsky|Grantsky]] 04:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
I took care ot this. [[User:Stevecudmore|Stevecudmore]] 02:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
How many of you have READ the complete book about Roosevelt by Black? I just did ; it is a monumental work of information, detail and insight. I have lived through most of the period decribed although in Europe and occupied by the Nazis. I cannot judge Black's wheelings and dealings but this book is of the highest academic standards. Read it. (ewicherts@yahoo.ca) <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/68.144.72.83|68.144.72.83]] ([[User talk:68.144.72.83|talk]]) 03:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
==Black the financial appropriator? == |
|||
Did Black really remove $62 million from the Dominion supermarket pension fund? Citation, please? Did he also attempt to remove money from the Massey Ferguson pension fund, but get thwarted by the courts? Comments or citations, anyone? [[User:Grantsky|Grantsky]] 04:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
FYI, the CBC's web site is identifying Black's (first?) wife as Shirley Gail Walters, whom he married on July 14, 1978. |
|||
Note: Shirley Gail Hishon, dau. Leonard Hishon, never went by her middle name of Gail; their children are |
|||
Jonathan David Conrad Black b. 18 Nov 1977 |
|||
Alana Whitney Elizabeth Black b. 28 Jun 1982 |
|||
James Patrick Leonard Black b. 13 Feb 1986 [[User:Freiherrin|Freiherrin]] 05:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Black not only removed the money from Dominion's pension fund, he fought unsuccessfully in court to retain it. It now is mentioned on a union website as an example of employee recourse to 'proprietors' ' misadventures: http://www.adjustment.ca/example.shtml?x=96 |
|||
Massey Ferguson? no. He merely let that great Canadian company go to hell in a handbasket. |
|||
For the first ten or so years of his business life, Black was regarded as a sort of 'whiz kid' for his seeming ability to squeeze money out of companies. He constantly reorganized companies into such a Byzantine structure that nobody could discern who reported to whom, who owned what, etc. The only sure thing was that, at the end of the day, he walked away with money aplenty.[[User:Freiherrin|Freiherrin]] 21:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==Nickle Resolution== |
|||
"Lord Black was born in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, but renounced Canadian citizenship in 2001 in order to become a life peer in the British House of Lords. Prime Minister Jean Cretien had previously denied Mr. Black's application for Peerage based on Canadian Law stipulating that a citizen of Canada cannot accept such honours." |
|||
Technically, the Nickle Resolution isn't a law, (let alone a Law), it's just resolution of the House of Commons (which the governmnent may or may not chose to observe). I have changed this to read "based on Canadian policy". [[User:Stevecudmore|Stevecudmore]] 01:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==Canadian Judicial System== |
|||
''The Canadian judicial system, so scorned by Mr. Black, would commute his sentence over a much shorter period of time under living conditions much more amenable to his luxurious lifestyle.'' |
|||
This sounds like POV re. both Black and the Canadian judicial system. Besides, how can anyone say what Canada would do if he were convicted? Predictions aren't encyclopedic. Thoughts? [[User:Blotto adrift|Blotto adrift]] 18:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
I agree! I think it should be removed. --[[User:Niloc|Niloc]] 01:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Done. [[User:Blotto adrift|Blotto adrift]] 20:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Instead of removing it, you could have said: "could commute". It has been done before, you know.[[User:Freiherrin|Freiherrin]] 21:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==References out of whack == |
|||
The order and formatting of the references need serious work!! The footnotes no longer link to the relevant material.[[User:Canuckle|Canuckle]] 20:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== "Occupation" box == |
|||
"Occupation: convicted felon..." |
|||
Yes, he has been convicted (and rightly so, but that's my POV and I promise not to put it in the article!) but is his *occupation* a convicted felon? I think this ought to be removed, but I'm afraid I've been dragged in to too many arguments on WP to do it myself. [[User:86.144.207.26|86.144.207.26]] 16:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
: Agreed. I removed the term from the occupation box as well as the sentence in the lead describing his career. --[[User:Spike_Wilbury|<b><font color="#6666FF">Spike Wilbury</font></b>]] <b><font color="#000000">♫</font></b> <small><font color="#6666FF">[[User talk:Spike_Wilbury|talk]]</font></small> 16:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:: I definitely agree. It's not an occupation, it's his ''reputation''. [[User:Bluefox|Bluefox]] 16:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Someone added "prison inmate" to the Occupation box, which I removed because "prison inmate" is not an occupation, but a residence status. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/68.179.116.157|68.179.116.157]] ([[User talk:68.179.116.157|talk]]) 17:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
==Other controversies surrounding Black section needs citations== |
|||
Every statement made in this section needs a citation under [[WP:BLP]]. [[User:68.146.8.46|68.146.8.46]] 16:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
: I removed the section per [[WP:BLP]]. --[[User:Spike_Wilbury|<b><font color="#6666FF">Spike Wilbury</font></b>]] <b><font color="#000000">♫</font></b> <small><font color="#6666FF">[[User talk:Spike_Wilbury|talk]]</font></small> 17:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==Becoming a press baron== |
|||
You can't 'gradually' become a peer. This section should read 'eventually'. |
|||
== intro sentence == |
|||
Shouldn't the intro say "Lord '''Conrad Moffat Black''', Baron of Crossharbour (b. ..." ? [[User:70.55.86.126|70.55.86.126]] 06:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Yes, it should, and I've added this in (though it should read "...Black, Baron Black of Crossharbour"). It was also missing his honours for the Privy Council of Canada, Order of Canada and Order of St. Gregory. [[User:Peter symonds|Peter symonds]] 13:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Felon? == |
|||
:''the British government proposed in a recent White Paper that convicted felons be stripped of their peerages'' |
|||
How, considering that the US concept of felonies and misdemeanours has not existed in English law for decades? I'm not even sure it exists in Canadian law. [[User:81.158.2.224|81.158.2.224]] 14:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::"Felon" in this context refers to "person convicted of an indictable offense and not pardoned". It's not strictly correct but it's not coming out of left field either. [[User:Eleland|Eleland]] 19:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Would you prefer "convict"? [[User:Type 40|Type 40]] 20:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==My compliments== |
|||
Just wanted to say that I find the meat of this article to be refreshingly well written, especially for a subject with significant current events. Y'all are doing some good work here :) [[User:Maralia|Maralia]] 23:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==Christopher Hitchens== |
|||
Apparently, there was a bit of a dispute between His Lordship and Christopher Hitchens. [http://www.slate.com/id/2170474/ Link] --[[User:78.16.1.237|78.16.1.237]] 13:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==Canadian Jews?== |
|||
His wife may be at least of Jewish heritage, but there's nothing in the body of the article (and nothing else I'm aware of) to justify the category "Canadian Jews." So I'm taking him out. [[User:142.104.197.74|142.104.197.74]] 19:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==Article Focus== |
|||
I'm not sure what the wikipedia term for this is, but the article puts too much focus on recent events in the introduction, despite the fact that it's supposed to be a biographical article <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:74.100.162.185|74.100.162.185]] ([[User talk:74.100.162.185|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/74.100.162.185|contribs]]){{#if:01:25, 19 July 2007| 01:25, 19 July 2007}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> |
|||
:That would be [[Wikipedia:recentism|recentism]]. [[User:Heqs|heqs]] [[User talk:Heqs|·:.]] 14:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
I have added a fair bit of early history which - incidentally - shows that he has always had the same stripes. |
|||
[[User:Freiherrin|Freiherrin]] 21:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Same stripes are irrelevant, unless you are writing an opinion column. The man was an entrepreneur and built one of the largest newspaper companies in the world. He was a prominent member of Commonwealth society, respected in business and political circles, which - incidentally - entitles his show trial to be relegated to the end of the chronology and not made to seem like the most prominent aspect of his life. [[Special:Contributions/24.162.131.206|24.162.131.206]] ([[User talk:24.162.131.206|talk]]) 02:53, 2 July 2011 (UTC)SLW |
|||
==Lavish lifestyle== |
|||
Somewhere we should put in that he's been noted and criticized for his lavish lifestyle. [[User:Canuckle|Canuckle]] 19:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*Great to see so many quality edits and additions being made lately. We could use more on the governance issues (stocking Hollinger with [[Henry Kissinger]] and other celebrities), the shareholder concerns that resulted in charges, what the non-compete payments were and why they formed the basis of charges, his loss of positions, Radler's testimony, Bora Bora and Amiel's party, his choice not to testify or to call [[Donald Trump]] to testify, and newspaper editorials how this verdict signified a need to clean up Cdn corporate crime. There's enough for a whole standalone article. [[User:Canuckle|Canuckle]] 22:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Here's something to keep in mind: Black is a notorious litigator (I have added a section). Much of the material about his lavish lifestyle is covered by Bowker in Dancing on the Edge. Black is suing Bowker. Black's mindset is such that he would see wiki references to his excesses as coming directly from Bowker (tho that would not be so) and thus anyone adding material in this section would have to phrase it carefully, or wiki could find itself on the receiving end of another suit. (I know, it sounds like something from Ripley's, doesn't it. But that is the way he is.)[[User:Freiherrin|Freiherrin]] 22:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Added some info on court hunt for his assets, as well as ref. to Babs's $2.6m diamond ring and the $600,000 pearl and diamond brooch which she told Vogue was so enormous she actually couldn't wear it! Don't have the mag. at hand or it would add more colour[[User:Freiherrin|Freiherrin]] 04:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*Good spade work. Sources for all that litigation would be good. Be careful with the present tense or current events language - as in "said in recent days." It gets dated fast. [[User:Canuckle|Canuckle]] 05:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Let's see - people were asking for more detail on his lavish lifestyle, the publicity over which definitely played a factor in investigations that culminated in the trial. So why would someone remove references to these two items of jewelry that highlight the perverse grotesqueness of their expenditures? Make it good.[[User:Freiherrin|Freiherrin]] 20:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
THE BROOCH! ----------http://www.timesonline.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00188/Black25jpg_188154a.jpg it is a bit out of focus - as much as $600,000 of antique cut diamonds can be - but take a look.[[User:Freiherrin|Freiherrin]] 19:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Keeping references after edits == |
|||
Several times now I have added information, complete with references, which is edited, but the references of which are then dropped. There follow such notes as 'This section does not cite any references or sources' or . |
|||
If you are going to edit a section, ''keep the references!''. |
|||
Moreover, several comments have been made concerning the 'need' to add details on the lavish lifestyle that played such a central part in this saga. Then why have they been removed? |
|||
Lastly, for the umpteenth time, BARON Black is on the lowest rung of the ladder and entitled '' only'' to be called HONOURABLE. And he is not 'Rt. Hon.' as a Privy Councillor.[[User:Freiherrin|Freiherrin]] 21:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:The only section of the article with a reference tag is the one in which eight apparent cases involving Black are listed, yet with not a single source for verification. There never have been sources for this information. |
|||
:Speaking of references, it would be nice if other editors could insert them using the proper format. |
|||
:What comments about lavish lifestyle were removed? |
|||
:The article [[Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council]] states: "Privy Counsellors are entitled to the style "The Right Honourable." --[[User:G2bambino|G2bambino]] 21:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
G2bambino: |
|||
Let's take your comments one by one. |
|||
1) I originally added the entire section on litigation, including references. The section has been broken up and rearranged several times and the references have been dropped. Moreover, the section on the children's - and Amiel's - partial ownership of the Palm Beach estate was also added by me, with references. It was also rearranged and the reference was dropped, leaving '[citation needed]'. |
|||
2) Re the lavish lifestyle, read the comments under subhead "Lavish lifestyle". It will be obvious that items that were added (concerning specifically the diamond ring and enormous diamond/pearl brooch, which are also up for repossession) were deleted. Questions as to their exclusion haven't been answered. |
|||
3) To quote Wikipedia on the Privy Council: "Privy Councillors are entitled to the style The Honourable" |
|||
Black has never been Governor General or Prime Minister, thus he doesn't qualify on that count. As to his being Rt Hon by virtue of his being eminent, let me quote the Wiktionary definition thereof: "distinguished, important, noteworthy" |
|||
Hmmmm . . . distinguished - "A title of note or ''honor''"; important - "Having relevant and crucial value"; noteworthy - "Deserving attention; notable; worthy of notice". . . |
|||
no, don't think so. To keep referring to him as a Rt Hon is to insult the other members who ''are'' distinguished, important, noteworthy.[[User:Freiherrin|Freiherrin]] 22:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Okay on styles firstly G2bambino linked to the ''British'' Privy Council. Black is a member of the [[Queen's Privy Council for Canada]], which says: "Privy Councillors are entitled to the style The Honourable (or if a serving or former Governor General, Prime Minister or Chief Justice of Canada, The Right Honourable as are certain other eminent individuals)." So Black is entitled to the style "The Honourable" by virtue of his PC membership. |
|||
:''However'' according to [[The Right Honourable#Entitlement]]: "People entitled to the prefix in a personal capacity are: ... '''Barons'''," so either the Wikipedia article is wrong or Black ''is'' entitled to "the Right Honourable". |
|||
:There may be a clash between the British and Canadian rules of style here - [[The Honourable#British usage]] says "Where a person is entitled to the prefix The Right Honourable, he will use this higher style instead of The Honourable." However the section on [[The Honourable#Canadian usage]] doesn't cover this. [[The Right Honourable]] is laid out differently and doesn't say that the entitlement of peers is a UK only thing. [[Talk:The Right Honourable]] has an informed contribution from the Information Service of the Library of [the Canadian] Parliament which says "There is a very restricted group of individuals who carry the title of Right Honourable in Canada." [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] 22:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::* Litgation and references: I see now that the cases were inserted [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conrad_Black&diff=145774551&oldid=145772009 here], though it appears you inserted the text word for word, which is, of course, plagiarism and against WP policy. I'll re-add the ref in the section, though could you please make sure there's no direct copying and pasting of text from copyrighted material? |
|||
::* Mansion and references: The link you gave as a reference for the information on the children's and Amiel's part ownership of the mansion is dead. Another source needs to be found. |
|||
::* Lavish lifestyle: Simply adding disjointed sentences about specific jewelry owned not by Black but by Amiel doesn't necessarily illustrate a lavish lifestyle on the part of Lord Black; they didn't seem relevant to the article. There needs to be more info inserted in a better composed manner. |
|||
::* Honourable/Rt. Honourable: I'm aware that Black is a member of the Canadian Privy Council, but was under the impression he was also a part of the British Privy Council, and hence entitled to the style "the Right Honourable." However, regardless of councils, Timrollpickering has discovered that by virtue of being a Baron, Black should be styled "Right Honourable." The superior title takes precedence. --[[User:G2bambino|G2bambino]] 15:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==Conman== |
|||
I've taken the nickname out of the first paragraph name. If this is a commonly known name it should be sourced but in any event it doesn't belong so early in the article. [[User:Britmax|Britmax]] 16:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==POV== |
|||
There were several POV terms in here which I removed. These were restored by another editor without an edit summary. Wikipedia is not "National Inquirer" or a tabloid. We are not trying to "create readership" through post hoc analysis. Fine to have actual quotes, but if anyone comes up with nice quotes, they have to stay too! Remember, he may have said some nice things in his life! The purpose of this article is not to make us appear or feel that we are "better than" Conrad Black but to report the facts on him. This is not a daytime talk show. There are other venues for those who would like to report material that is outside Wikipedia's interest. I'm sure those sites would welcome you. [[User:Student7|Student7]] ([[User talk:Student7|talk]]) 13:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:It actually isn't POV. He is variably an evil man. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/67.193.45.183|67.193.45.183]] ([[User talk:67.193.45.183|talk]]) 20:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
"Evil man"??? Technically, he should be referred to as a "criminal" and a "convicted felon". And he is NOT a "media magnate", he is a FORMER media magnate. He is also a former Canadian citizen. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/86.129.139.97|86.129.139.97]] ([[User talk:86.129.139.97|talk]]) 14:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
==As a current event== |
|||
Editors should reflect on what this will look like a few years from now when nobody can remember who Conrad Black was and will wonder what the heck people were thinking about when they put all this stuff in here. This is overlong IMO. Maybe a President of the US or the Queen is worth this long an article. Wikipedia does not do well on current events. Editors pile on stuff leaving future editors to try to sort throught the muck to determine what, if anything, should be kept. If articles are more closely written in the first place, without trying to load in POV with such glee to make Black "look bad", this would look more like an encyclopedia and less like a tabloid. [[User:Student7|Student7]] ([[User talk:Student7|talk]]) 17:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
==Rightwatch== |
|||
While there is nothing wrong with using a smear reference with an agenda like Rightwatch, it shouldn't be used '''directly'''. Find the corresponding reference from a reliable journal without an agenda. [[User:Student7|Student7]] ([[User talk:Student7|talk]]) 15:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC) |
|||
==Books== |
|||
Great new material on books. I edited it to remove data that seemed to promote the seller (amazon) or the reviewer (NY Times) or the publisher, rather than Black. I apologize for not making these changes plain in the edit summary but the line just wasn't long enough! [[User:Student7|Student7]] ([[User talk:Student7|talk]]) 19:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Your edits were an improvement IMO. [[User:Interactbiz|Interactbiz]] ([[User talk:Interactbiz|talk]]) 04:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
==Other litigation== |
|||
Throughout his adult life, Black has been litigious. I'm not sure it adds quality to the record to try and detail each case. Perhaps a single paragraph could relate the number and type of legal actions without excessive detail. Comments? [[User:Interactbiz|Interactbiz]] ([[User talk:Interactbiz|talk]]) 04:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Prominent people always have litigation going, no matter how much they are liked (or disliked). Also, for newbies, they need to distinguish between Black and his organizations. If the organization does it, it is '''not''' Black even though he was heading the company. It is corporate, not personal. The purists would say that every time he went to court and it was in the papers, it should be in here. My thought is that exceptional litigation would be, say, several suits a year. A suit every several years would be normal IMO depending on its contents (money seems reasonable). A '''lot''' of losing suits, say several a year, might be notable. [[User:Student7|Student7]] ([[User talk:Student7|talk]]) 12:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Some wealthy plaintiffs use lawsuits as a way of discouraging enemies from talking about them. Toronto Star business columnist David Olive, writing on TheStar.com (Dec 7/07), accused Black of dropping "countless libel writs" to silence critics. Olive blames libel chill for causing the business press to withhold reporting of Hollinger hijinks and thereby enabling questionable behaviour to continue. That might be an important topic to include. [[User:Interactbiz|Interactbiz]] ([[User talk:Interactbiz|talk]]) 06:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:There proabably are differences between the libel laws of Canada and the virtually non-existent ones in the US allowing all sorts of accusations. The editor would need to point us to an article which indicates those differences. The threat of libel in the US would provoke a big yawn from most publishers. [[User:Student7|Student7]] ([[User talk:Student7|talk]]) 12:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
At one point, Black's companies published half or more of the daily press in Canada. That by itself minimized publication in Canada of negative commentary about business practices of the Hollinger/Ravelston/Black empire. After Hollinger International, Inc. was incorported in USA and listed on the NYSE, Black, Radler et al had an entirely new set of overseers. |
|||
They probably miscalculated the importance of commentaries critical of their corporate conduct. Those difficulties had always been handled in Canada with a few phone calls and an occasional writ. They carried on as if they were managing private companies. In the USA, without protection from press colleagues and social contacts, such as they enjoyed in their home country, these men were caught up in a regulatory firestorm. I think within this thesis lies the explanation of why a group of powerful, wealthy, intelligent people began to commit unconscionable acts of greed that led to huge losses for many. |
|||
The lesson to be learned is that a strong, unhindered press (I include Wikipedia within this description) should hold business and political leaders to account by critical examination of their lifeworks. In the Conrad Black article, editors should not shy away from covering all of the factors that contributed to where he is today. The first step to reducing malfeasance is to understand its roots. [[User:Interactbiz|Interactbiz]] ([[User talk:Interactbiz|talk]]) 06:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
==Verdict and imprisonment== |
|||
An editor has tried to clean up this section with some success. I think it needs more work. |
|||
One of the facts that Black haters are going to have to come to grips with is that it is over. Over. He is in jail. That is the end for quite a while. One of the reasons that I try to get editors to back off on gushing daily reports from the press is that the article quickly becomes passe unless it gets constantly revised. We are not a newspaper. We don't depend on daily sales. |
|||
The name of the judge is irrelevant to this article. Probably what she said is irrelevant. All felons are lectured, some for a long time. BTW some of the lectured felons are actually innocent, as they have later discovered. Anyway, the details of his bail are probably no longer interesting. He showed up. A better title for the subsection is simply "Imprisonment" which was the result of the trial. Or maybe coupled with the trial.[[User:Student7|Student7]] ([[User talk:Student7|talk]]) 12:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
==Former magnate== |
|||
I think the word "former" is fairly useless as an adjective in a bio. Everyone is "former" eventually. Books would be jammeed with the word. George Washington, former president. Babe Ruth, former baseball player. Cripes! Black's entry into various jobs have been dated. I don't think there is any ambiguity here. |
|||
"Magnate" tends to be such and overblown job description as to be a deliberate insult (which is why it is used in newspaper articles. A good bellwether). Kind of [[WP:POV]] in Wikipedia though IMO. We have higher standards! [[User:Student7|Student7]] ([[User talk:Student7|talk]]) 22:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Actually, in this particular case, I think "former" media magnate is appropriate - because of the way he was thrown out. George Washington and Babe Ruth did not leave their professions in ignominy, in shame. Black did. He's like a lawyer that has been disbarred. He was a businessman and his own board turned on him and threw him out and then later had criminal charges brought against him. Black is surely a "former" businessman, a "former" media magnate, and also a "former" Canadian citizen, I might add. This guy will never be any one of those again. When you go to prison, like he has, you become a "former" whatever. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/86.129.139.97|86.129.139.97]] ([[User talk:86.129.139.97|talk]]) 14:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:So in the case of Jewish people convicted by Nazis, we would now refer to them as "former" factory owners, etc.? And don't tell me that the Nazis held Kangaroo courts so that invalidates the charge. It was made under the laws of Germany. "Former" is a useless word in an encyclopedia. Michaelangelo, "former" scultor? Jimminy! Let's give up shaming Black and just report the facts. He was a business owner from date1-date2. And BTW he probably runs '''some''' businesses from inside the brig. That hasn't stopped necessarily.[[User:Student7|Student7]] ([[User talk:Student7|talk]]) 17:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
==Libel suits== |
|||
The article is much improved with the removal of most pov adjectives and terms. May I suggest footnotes/references on the libel suits? Also what was the outcome? A link to Canadiam law on libel may be necessary. The standards for libel in Canada may be different. [[User:Student7|Student7]] ([[User talk:Student7|talk]]) 12:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:See my discussion above regarding litigation. I mentioned in earlier commentary that we should not go into great detail about individual suits but I do think the section adds value to the overall article because it reveals a very particular style of behaviour. The outcome of any one case is not signficant but a habit of using the civil courts to punish or intimidate is very significant. [[User:Interactbiz|Interactbiz]] ([[User talk:Interactbiz|talk]])00:10 13 March 2008 |
|||
::You have done a great job with this article. My point on the libel suits may be moot since some (all?) were deleted. But if he won those suits, it would seem to support his statements which indicated the media was out to get him. If he lost most, it would look like he was using them for intimidation. Lying (making up stuff) is very common in the US media. Libel is really not an option due to the preminence of "free speech" over the truth. [[User:Student7|Student7]] ([[User talk:Student7|talk]]) 13:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::Found references for libel suits, one of which needs replacement cause it's a blog. Fairly believable but not really acceptable. Sorry. [[User:Student7|Student7]] ([[User talk:Student7|talk]]) 19:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
===Nature of mail fraud=== |
|||
I probably missed this and will go back. But exactly '''what''' did Black do to merit his "mail fraud?" If it's not there, it might be interesting. Some felonies are real easy to understand. This one isn't obvious. [[User:Student7|Student7]] ([[User talk:Student7|talk]]) 13:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Well it mentions non-competes that were sold and not put back in the company (I guess). A little hard to understand the specifics. I suppose he mailed them thus resulting in mail fraud? A federal offense. Otherwise some state would have had to prosecute. Politics here. [[User:Student7|Student7]] ([[User talk:Student7|talk]]) 13:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
==Question== |
|||
I have a question... Lord Black is here in Canada on a Ministerial Permit to sue several Canadian newspapers for their possibly slanderous coverage of his US trials and incarceration. Does that permit allow him to legally work/earn an income here working in the media ie Zoomer Magazine and Zoomer TV ie his recent interview with Toronto Mayor Rob Ford? I'd be very surprised if he is, and if not why is he taking a job away from several other qualified CANADIAN candidates? Opinions? [[User:Springbreaker2|Springbreaker2]] ([[User talk:Springbreaker2|talk]]) 23:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC) |
|||
The changes of March 14 were again a great improvement. Have a question: |
|||
Is Hollinger International related to Hollinger Mines? If they are essentially the identical, can the same term be used? I think they should either be explained or differentiated as necessary. |
|||
Note that the term "[[magnate]]" has been "superceded". It is apparently obsolescent at best according to the Wikipedia article. [[User:Student7|Student7]] ([[User talk:Student7|talk]]) 19:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Student7, you are correct in noting that use of the Hollinger name requires improvement. Hollinger Mines, founded early in the 20th century had been controlled by Argus Corporation. After the deaths of E.P. Taylor and Bud McDougald, Conrad Black acquired control of Argus from the widows of the former controlling shareholders. Argus became Hollinger-Argus and eventually merged with other corporations and became Hollinger Inc., controlled by Ravelston. Hollinger International Inc. was incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in Chicago. H.I. was the public company traded on NYSE and was controlled by Hollinger Inc. which was controlled by Ravelston, which was controlled by Black. Organization of the various companies was complex and probably of little interest to a casual Wikipedia reader. |
|||
:However, we should aim to add a section, early in the article, that describes the pyramid and assigns abbreviations to use. For example refer to the public U.S. company, Hollinger International, Inc., simply as H.I. |
|||
:I'd like to hear your comments about other improvements we could make to improve the quality rating of the article. |
|||
interactbiz, |
|||
::I have really appreciated the fine tuning you have given this article. I've not only approved nearly all the changes you have made, but wished I'd thought of them myself! It can't be too far from a request for a rating (and comments). The footnotes are more voluminous than the average article which is good. Probably need more since there is so much substance there. Original editors were slow with footnotes as often happens with new articles. |
|||
::The article started off as a pov against Black. I think you have corrected a lot of this but residuals still remain. As I mention below, I don't care for the Lifestyle section. While I have changed the libel section, it probably needs a bit more explantion/intro and one set of footnotes is a blog. A "good" blog, but a blog nonetheless. Someone will sure as heck catch that eventually! A libel or two is unfootnoted. |
|||
::Not too long ago this article consisted of pretty shoddy stuff which looked more like [[National Enquirer]] than an encyclopedia. No longer, thanks to you! [[User:Student7|Student7]] ([[User talk:Student7|talk]]) 01:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
==Lifestyle== |
|||
"luxurious," "lavish tastes," "opulence," "extravagant." These are the words of envy not of objective reporting. We know from the Devil wears Prada (if nothing else!) that there is a market for expensive items. '''Someone''' must buy them. If not the Blacks who thought they were worth hundreds of millions, then who? Bill Gates and who else? This particular section seems [[WP:POV]] to me. Undue weight and all that. It seems out of line. And the source does as well. I'm not questioning that it was made, just our reason for including it in this article in the same pov fashion. Why shouldn't a $1/2 billionaire have $1,000 running shoes or purse? I shouldn't but why can't Black and his wife? Some of the words imply that they were less than sensible ("extravagant"). How was their lifestyle extravagant for their income. It is an illogical, envious observation. I suggest the paragraph be deleted or reworded without the pov terms. But I don't think it's important. I would assume that Bill Gates wife doesn't often shop at Wal-Mart. Is that reportable? I wouldn't think so. [[User:Student7|Student7]] ([[User talk:Student7|talk]]) 20:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:The article should be neutral but must discuss important issues. If opulent living and lavish tastes were funded by plundering a public company, that certainly would be important to report or to least mention as a commonly held view. The Blacks have been called "millionaires who wanted to live like billionaires" directly and by implication in various legitimate commentaries. Here is an example by a biographer who has known Black well since early days: |
|||
:"''While the carnival lasted, the Lord and his Lady, the former Barbara Amiel, lived on a scale that defies description. They commuted in the company's private Challenger jet among their sprawling villa in the most expensive oceanside section of Palm Beach, Fla., a luxurious Park Avenue apartment in New York, their Toronto mansion with its 18th-century cardinal's throne, and the four-storey, 11-bedroom London mansion Black purchased from the renegade Australian financier Alan Bond for $7 million. "I have an extravagance that knows no bounds," Lady Black admitted last year in an interview with Vogue. The couple became society dahlings on two continents, bestowing their exalted presence in the manner of latter-day royalty. Wherever Conrad and Babs went, a cook and a butler preceded them to assure their every comfort."'' Excerpted from "Conrad Black's Fall" by Peter C. Newman, MacLeans Dec 1 2003 |
|||
:The Gates couple have not flaunted wealth nor been convicted - or even accused - of misusing corporate funds. Therefore, the need to examine their habits as private consumers does not exist. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Interactbiz|Interactbiz]] ([[User talk:Interactbiz|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Interactbiz|contribs]]) 04:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
::I kind of like your quote rather than the ones that are there - more obvious that they were using corporate wealth and not their own. Not sure that the owner/president can't do this though - has to be against corporate policy. I'm not sure that simply being a public corporation prevents the officers or board (or even employees!) from using company jet for private business even in the US. While they "got" Black on a charge of fraud, they didn't necessarily get all of their money nor even the majority of it in that manner. And they had $500 million or so. So if even $400 million of it was earned by legitimate means, Gucci purses/shoes are not clearly outside of a routine budget for them. |
|||
::I like the quote on "extravagance knows no bounds." That is a quote from the source and not someone's envious opinion. [[User:Student7|Student7]] ([[User talk:Student7|talk]]) 18:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Choosing to include lifestyle information is legitimate only insofar as it reflects the public controversy about this matter. Lord Black's personal tastes and market choices have absolutely no bearing on the company he built, the policies he enacted, and the crimes he may or may not have committed. The fact that this section is included clearly indicates POV. The public conversation and commentary about his lifestyle may have been relevant to his jury trial, as the prosecution used his opulence as a tactic. This information should be conveyed in that light, in THAT section. |
|||
[[Special:Contributions/24.162.131.206|24.162.131.206]] ([[User talk:24.162.131.206|talk]]) 02:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)SLW |
|||
==Assets held or sold, valuations unsourced== |
|||
An editor has added comments about property values but shown no reliable sources for the values. There is also a discussion of his automobile fleet. This information too is unsourced. Should these remain or be romoved? |
|||
==Author's credit== |
|||
I undid grantsky's declaration that Black used Roosevelt documents owned by H.I. and worked with a team of researchers to write the biography. Non-fiction writers routinely employ researchers, factcheckers, editors and others to assist in preparation of a book. The publisher gave sole author's credit to Black; it is not appropriate for an editor here to speculate that credit should be shared with others. I can locate no independent source that details the resources that Black used for the book. |
|||
==Preview== |
|||
May I suggest previewing edits prior to saving them? This save the rest of us from having to follow bad edits through a long series on our watchlist. Sometime this doesn't work for references. There may be other cases. And I'm quite content with following you through a number of sections/subsections. MUCH easier to have a lower level header even when there are a lot of changes. (Here's hoping I'm not the first to violate this! :) [[User:Student7|Student7]] ([[User talk:Student7|talk]]) 00:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
=="The great man fled"== |
|||
The intro to the papers description is pov. Yes it was published but it doesn't sound scholarly. Unfortunately this puts the rest of Black's quote into question. If the reporter thought he had to embellish the article, what might s/he have done to the quote?[[User:Student7|Student7]] ([[User talk:Student7|talk]]) 14:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
*Eric Reguly is a regularly published columnist in Canada's most respected newspaper. This WP paragraph is aimed at showing opposing points of view on the citizenship question. Do you also want to exclude Eddie Greenspan's statement about citizenship being stolen from Black? In total, the paragraph is informative and balanced.--[[User:Interactbiz|NRF - North Vancouver Canada]] ([[User talk:Interactbiz|talk]]) 06:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Peerage == |
|||
I don't understand why my edit was reverted. Straight rather than curly quotes are correct per [[WP:MOS#Quotation_marks]]. The word "thwarted" has unnecessarilly triumphalist connotations inappropriate to an encyclopedia. The opening sentence was poorly constructed and ugly and my edit had no impact on its meaning. There were several indefinite and definite articles missing. I'm sure anyone can infer that from this sentence "the Court of Appeal for Ontario stated that the Prime Minister had constitutional right to advise the Queen on exercise of [[Royal Prerogative]]." --[[User:Lo2u|Lo2u]] <sup>([[User talk:Lo2u|T]] • [[Special:Contributions/Lo2u|C]])</sup> 21:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
*A peerage is not offered by the PM. “The fount of honour (Latin: fons honorum) refers to a nation's head of state, who, by virtue of his or her official position, has the exclusive right of conferring legitimate titles of nobility and orders of chivalry to other persons.” |
|||
**From Royal Insight (http://www.royal.gov.uk/OutPut/Page3367.asp) |
|||
***The Queen, as the 'fountain of honour' in the United Kingdom, has the sole right of conferring all titles of honour, Aincluding life peerages, knighthoods, gallantry awards and decorations within the other Orders of Chivalry. |
|||
*Thwarted may strike you as "triumphalist" and therefor POV. However the meaning you attach is not supported by references. It is appropriate because the Canadian PM acted with the definite aim of preventing Black from attaining the Queen's honour. |
|||
**American Heritage Dictionary: |
|||
1. To prevent the occurrence, realization, or attainment of: They thwarted her plans. |
|||
2. To oppose and defeat the efforts, plans, or ambitions of. |
|||
**Cambridge Dictionary of American English: |
|||
to stop (something) from happening or (someone) from doing something |
|||
**Oxford Compact English Dictionary: |
|||
verb - prevent from succeeding in or accomplishing something |
|||
*The use of definite and indefinite articles is technically optional in many circumstances but, in the interests of word economy, they should be eliminated when unnecessary. [[User:Interactbiz|NRF - North Vancouver Canada]] ([[User talk:Interactbiz|talk]]) 06:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::1. The monarch certainly bestows a peerage but the royal prerogative is exercised by the PM on behalf of the Queen. |
|||
::2. Thwarted strikes me as triumphalist in this context; it is also rather colloquial. It is best to try to agree an alternative wording. |
|||
::3. The use of articles is a matter of good grammar. They should not be omitted for the sake of word economy; they should be omitted where not needed and included where required by normal English idiom, as in this case.--[[User:Lo2u|Lo2u]] <sup>([[User talk:Lo2u|T]] • [[Special:Contributions/Lo2u|C]])</sup> 18:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::To take account of the first objection, I have changed "by" to "on the advice of". My version is now materially identical to the previous version. I'm rather cautious about "on the advice of" because, in fact, the peerage was offered by the Prime Minister, or at least the Goverment, on the advice of the leader of the opposition, Iain Duncan Smith. I can see no reason to keep "thwart" and I repeat, "the Prime Minister had constitutional right to advise the Queen on exercise of [[Royal Prerogative]]" is just bad English. --[[User:Lo2u|Lo2u]] <sup>([[User talk:Lo2u|T]] • [[Special:Contributions/Lo2u|C]])</sup> 18:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::Straighten me out here. The queen may not offer anybody a peerage based on her own desires. If she wished to do this herself, it would be seen as a "political statement." While royalty has small latitude for policy statements (Phillip on architecture I think) a peerage is going too far. Someone must recommend it first, right? It seems apparent from the narrative that the recommendation is '''essential''' to becoming a peer and anything but pro forma. It forced Black to change his citzenship. If this has nothing to do with your discussion, please ignore it. Thanks. [[User:Student7|Student7]] ([[User talk:Student7|talk]]) 19:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Yes, the queen has no power to appoint a peer except on the recommendation of the Prime Minister. This is not merely a convention either; it is a legal part of the constitution. Along with most royal prerogatives the Queen can act only on the advice of the government. The leaders of a the various parties themselves make recommendations to the Prime Minister, who will normally accept them. The nominees are then approached informally before being named as recipients. --[[User:Lo2u|Lo2u]] <sup>([[User talk:Lo2u|T]] • [[Special:Contributions/Lo2u|C]])</sup> 20:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::He didn't invent anything (except fraud schemes) and fraud was his most definitely his occupation. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/64.201.207.116|64.201.207.116]] ([[User talk:64.201.207.116|talk]]) 06:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
== Quotations and points of view == |
|||
This section ought to be removed as it tells us nothing and its content does not belong in an encyclopaedia. In its place, mention should be made of CB's conservative political views and activities.[[Special:Contributions/209.29.85.187|209.29.85.187]] ([[User talk:209.29.85.187|talk]]) <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|comment]] was added at 12:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
==Appeals== |
|||
Unless you are ready to have the article hijacked by appeals, I would suggest that lengthy records of appeals be left to successful ones. He has enough money that one assumes that the appeals process will go on "forever" as they always do for all convictions in the US. |
|||
The editor that inserted the most recent record of appeals had erased the defamation suits which were mostly finalized. I wasn't too wild about the suits anyway, but I'm missing the logical connection. [[User:Student7|Student7]] ([[User talk:Student7|talk]]) 12:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC) |
|||
1) I didn't remove the defamation suits, that must have been another editor. |
|||
2) The only appeal from the circuit court is to the US Supreme Court and they only accept 2% of appeal applications so this is probably the final appeal. [[Special:Contributions/99.231.128.251|99.231.128.251]] ([[User talk:99.231.128.251|talk]]) 13:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:I am the editor that originally inserted the section about libel suits. I did research this week with the aim of updating WP. Some very complex actions are pending (or not) between Black, his associates, their corporations and other companies they no longer control (e.g. Sun-Times Media, formerly Hollinger International) and individuals such as Richard Breeden. There are huge claims and counter-claims but they seem stalled or abandoned. Accurate information with acceptable citations is hard to find. Black sued various parties involved in his deposition, seeking more than a billion dollars. He and associates were being counter-sued. Apparently, both sides agreed to postpone some actions until resolution of other actions in Delaware courts. The Delaware case was decided 4 years ago and the appeals period has expired since then. However, no move has been made to advance or dismiss the postponed civil suits. Are they abandoned or might they resurface if the Court of Appeals throws out all criminal convictions. Or, perhaps they were just an imaging ploy anyway. Since verifiable information about the cases is sketchy, I thought it better to remove the section completely. Better to have nothing on the subject than to have inaccurate information. --[[User:Interactbiz|Interactbiz (Norm, Vancouver Canada)]] ([[User talk:Interactbiz|talk]]) 04:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Reducing detail of criminal convictions == |
|||
We now commit more than 1,000 words to the criminal charges, considerably more IMO, than necessary for this biography. Editors cannot examine all arguments of the two sides so it is questionable to include some and not all. I propose that we focus on that which the courts have written about as fact. Information concerning bail and its conditions are no longer important. Unsustained arguments made by the losing side of an appeal or someone's perception of an appeal judge's skepticism are not valid either. |
|||
Any comments from other editors about pruning this section? --[[User:Interactbiz|Interactbiz (Norm, Vancouver Canada)]] ([[User talk:Interactbiz|talk]]) 23:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Second article? == |
|||
It's been suggested that there is too much material on the criminal fraud trial. Rather than simply remove material from the encyclopedia I think it would make more sense, and be more in keeping with wikipedia practice, to create a second article with a name like [[Conrad Black criminal fraud case]]. [[User:Reginald Perrin|Reggie Perrin]] ([[User talk:Reginald Perrin|talk]]) 07:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Conrad Black quote == |
|||
I removed the following quote: "the ultimate colonial gesture by throwing away his citizenship in order to join an arcane, powerless British institution". This is a piece of rhetoric and it doesn't seem to provide any factual detail. This is someone's opinion and I can only think it has been included because someone felt the need to insult Lord Black. What it claims isn't especially true - calling the highest court and higher chamber of the British legislature "powerless" (a chamber that has frequently thrown out government legislation) is a little odd, don't you think? --[[User:Lo2u|Lo2u]] <sup>([[User talk:Lo2u|T]] • [[Special:Contributions/Lo2u|C]])</sup> 11:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
==Peerage again== |
|||
Can we have some detail on Black's peerage before going straight into the Nickle Resolution controversy? How was this odious man ever recommended for a peerage in the first place? The article currently says Tony Blair recommended him, but common sense and comments on this talk page suggest that Blair's involvement was simply to follow constitutional convention and pass on to the sovereign recommendations from other parties, who are entitled to their share of new peers. If Black renounced his Canadian citizenship in 2001 was he recommended for a peerage by Hague or Duncan Smith? What were they thinking? One of their names surely needs to be included in the article as the instigator of the whole affair. [[User:Rovaniemi-5|Rovaniemi-5]] ([[User talk:Rovaniemi-5|talk]]) 22:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:This isn't a witch-hunt and I'm not sure how relevant your personal opinion of "this odious man" is. What were they thinking? Well, Conrad Black was a prominent supporter of the Conservative Party who was thought suitable for a peerage. He hadn't been found guilty of fraud at the time so I really don't see that we should be alleging some sort of wrongdoing on the part of the leader of the party, unless of course you can find evidence that someone else has done so (I'm guessing not if you're unsure who the leader was). Anyway the article should read like a record of events and not an indictment. He received a peerage in October 2001, so it would have been [[Iain Duncan Smith]] who nominated him, Tony Blair who used his constitutional power to recommend the peerage and the Queen who bestowed it. --[[User:Lo2u|Lo2u]] <sup>([[User talk:Lo2u|T]] • [[Special:Contributions/Lo2u|C]])</sup> 22:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::It was actually [[William Hague]] who nominated Black in the first place but the controversy and legal arguments meant that by the time the peerage was conferred Duncan Smith was now party leader. [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] ([[User talk:Timrollpickering|talk]]) 22:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Criminal infobox == |
|||
I suggest swapping the current Officeholder infobox for a Criminal infobox so his penitentiary can be included. The Criminal infobox is appropriate (see [[Jeffrey Skilling]] and all others in the same class).--[[User:Anna Frodesiak|Anna Frodesiak]] ([[User talk:Anna Frodesiak|talk]]) 12:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:I don't think that's a good idea. Jeffrey Skilling's criminality is the reason for his notability: if he were not a fraudster, he would not qualify for an article. In the case of Conrad Black, this is just one aspect of his public life and the criminal template would be a serious breach of POV. After all, why not do the same for [[Ted Kennedy]], [[Wesley Snipes]] or [[Martha Stewart]]? Why not examine the CVs of every subject on Wikipedia? --[[User:Lo2u|Lo2u]] <sup>([[User talk:Lo2u|T]] • [[Special:Contributions/Lo2u|C]])</sup> 22:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== Removal of "analysis" == |
|||
I already explained the removal in my edit summary, but it was re-added and I was asked to explain further. There are multiple problems with the analysis ... |
|||
#[[WP:BLP|Biographical material about a living person]] must adhere strictly to all of our content policies, especially [[WP:NPOV|neutral point of view]], [[WP:V|verifiability]], and [[WP:NOR|no original research]]. |
|||
#Wikipedia does not publish [[WP:NOR|original research or original thought]]. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. |
|||
#Wikipedia is [[WP:NOTCRYSTAL|not a collection of unverifiable speculation]]. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. |
|||
If a [[WP:RS|reliable source]] can be found that provides a legal analysis of the situation, then the above issues would be resolved. Otherwise, it must be removed per Wikipedia policies and guidelines. --- [[User:Barek|Barek]] <small>([[User talk:Barek|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Barek|contribs]])</small> - 17:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::Fair enough. For some reason, I am unable to see the edit summary. [[User:Marktunstill|Marktunstill]] ([[User talk:Marktunstill|talk]]) 18:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== PC(Can)? == |
|||
Is Lord Black a member of the British Privy Council or the Canadian One. If Canadian, can we use PC(Can) to remove this confusion? [[User:Computerjoe|Computerjoe]][[User talk:Computerjoe|<span style="color:red">'s talk</span>]] 20:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC) |
|||
==Nixon biography== |
|||
Is there any difference between Black's "Richard Milhous Nixon: A Life in Full" and "Richard Milhous Nixon:The Invincible Quest"? |
|||
I own the latter - a 1,152 page biography of Nixon. The tone of the book does seem to attempt to rehabilitate Nixon. Is it the same book?[[Special:Contributions/213.121.151.174|213.121.151.174]] ([[User talk:213.121.151.174|talk]]) 19:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== Infobox Criminal == |
|||
I suggest removing the {{tl|Infobox Criminal}}. An info box like this is useful in the the standard location (top/right for quick reference). By its current location, it's just a useless restatement of a few facts in box. It doesn't really aid the reader in the middle of the article. Black didn't become famous for being a criminal convict, so the criminal info box doesn't really belong in the article at all. Black could qualify for three infoboxes ({{tl|Infobox Writer}}, {{tl|Infobox Officeholder}}, {{tl|Infobox Criminal}}), but I think one is sufficient. |
|||
:I think it's a bit of a grey area. I objected when someone suggested replacing the officeholder template with the criminal one, which would be a serious breach of POV in the case of someone who is famous for a number of reasons and whose criminality would barely have been reported were he not. However, I tend to think it does no harm there. Strictly speaking though it should be removed because an infobox should only be placed at the [[WP:LEAD|beginning of an article]]: "Infoboxes contain summary information or an overview relating to the subject of the article, and therefore should be put before any text (though in actuality they will generally appear to the side of the text of the lede)." --[[User:Lo2u|Lo2u]] <sup>([[User talk:Lo2u|T]] • [[Special:Contributions/Lo2u|C]])</sup> 00:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::It's not useless since the actual charges have been removed from the article and are now in a sub-article (if there, I didn't look). The current position under the other box seems a better placement, keeping all the basics about Black together. I do think he became famous -- in the US, anyway -- as a result of his trial and conviction. That made his name a household word, whereas before nobody outside the news industry had heard of him. [[Special:Contributions/75.56.50.45|75.56.50.45]] ([[User talk:75.56.50.45|talk]]) 06:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== This Article IS Pure Garbage == |
|||
It is clear that this article has been composed by Black's detractors. It is full a derogative quotations from left-wing pundits who, no doubt, the authors of this article admire. It is juvenile, the number of quotations used to degrade Black, and not a one of support. |
|||
Your hatred of Conrad Black is even clearer here, on the Wiki Talk Page, where clearly you 'name call' him. It is because of crap like this that Wikipedia will never, and should never, be taken seriously. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/209.29.89.176|209.29.89.176]] ([[User talk:209.29.89.176|talk]]) 03:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
: Do you have some citations? [[User:Jok2000|Jok2000]] ([[User talk:Jok2000|talk]]) 17:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::Could you give examples of the sort of quotations you're talking about? I removed a couple of the more egregious quotations myself but I do take what you say seriously. If you explain your objections you will probably find people take notice. --[[User:Lo2u|Lo2u]] <sup>([[User talk:Lo2u|T]] • [[Special:Contributions/Lo2u|C]])</sup> 02:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC) |
|||
It's exactly the opposite, particularly the heavy quoting from the article that erroneously absolves Black for his CONVICTED behavior and improperly suggests prosecutorial and judicial misconduct with zero evidence. There is PLENTY of documented evidence from the trial that Black was self-dealing. That is a fraud. This whole article is a PUFF PIECE probably written by Black. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/72.177.34.104|72.177.34.104]] ([[User talk:72.177.34.104|talk]]) 15:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
== Daily life in jail? == |
|||
Maybe a few recent updates on his living conditions, relations with other prisoners, etc.? [[Special:Contributions/86.155.209.111|86.155.209.111]] ([[User talk:86.155.209.111|talk]]) 16:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Yeah, I wanna know if the prison guards and prisoners refer to him as Lord Black. |
|||
==Bot vandalism== |
|||
The reversion using bot HG removed current, correctly cited, useful information, so I have put it back. I don't think these bot edits should be labeled "m." Yes, often an IP address adding links is vandalism, but sometimes they're not and labelling their removal minor makes it less likely the bot's work will eyeballed by a human. [[User:Fijagdh|Fijagdh]] ([[User talk:Fijagdh|talk]]) 02:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC) |
|||
==Pretty Popular Guy== |
|||
This guy is more notable than Wayne Gretzky. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/74.205.220.232|74.205.220.232]] ([[User talk:74.205.220.232|talk]]) 04:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
Uhm, in which universe? Lord Black's fantasy universe or the one we're in right now? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/142.161.183.184|142.161.183.184]] ([[User talk:142.161.183.184|talk]]) 03:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:Uhm, you're here commenting. You must be part of that fantasy universe of Lord Black that admire him deeply. Greetings! <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/98.143.107.69|98.143.107.69]] ([[User talk:98.143.107.69|talk]]) 23:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
==Legal Status: The Dude is Innocent== |
|||
Innocent until proven guilty. The courts have failed to prove guilt of any crime against Black with the exception of the rather trivial offense of obstruction of justice. Obstruction of justice can be serious and is an offense that can stand on its own but not in this case. What crime has taken place, now that Black has been cleared of all other charges, that makes obstruction of justice a pertinent matter? It was in fact the prosecution and lower appeals courts that obstructed justice by applying an unconstitutional law against Black with wanton vigor. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/98.143.107.69|98.143.107.69]] ([[User talk:98.143.107.69|talk]]) 23:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
Why is this law unconstitutional? References? |
|||
This leads to another question... |
|||
==What Did He DO, Exactly??== |
|||
The article is very unclear. Someone with a knowledge of the relevant laws needs to do a major re-write of that part of the article. [[Special:Contributions/69.181.249.69|69.181.249.69]] ([[User talk:69.181.249.69|talk]]) 06:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::This seems to be an entirely reasonable question. 18 charges were tossed on appeal, leaving one charge of something to the tune of $600,000, plus removing cardboard boxes of files that had already been examined by the court. This after a multi-billion dollar enterprise was run into the ground by other actors. Can someone explain the nature these heinous crimes that were pinned on Black? There's a lot of energy going into attacking Black for these two items, but it's not clear (in spite of the venom of Black's critics) exactly what he was finally dinged for. For example, why was Black convicted of moving the cardboard boxes if the court was finished with them? [[User:Santamoly|Santamoly]] ([[User talk:Santamoly|talk]]) 06:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
Just as you can't get a "little bit" pregnant, fraud and self-dealing are still fraud and self-dealing no matter the scale. Further, until the Supreme Court made new law and did away with honest services fraud (Wall Street thanks you, your check is in the mail "Justices"), he was clearly guilty of the other counts. These charges were NOT overturned because he was "innocent" they were overturned because the Supreme Court changed the rules after-the-fact to allow rich and powerful executives to get away with pillaging public companies for their own benefit. Surprise, surprise that much of public that is too busy or ignorant to look into the FACTS and now think that allowing wealthy people like Black to manipulate the rules is just fine. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/72.177.34.104|72.177.34.104]] ([[User talk:72.177.34.104|talk]]) 15:41, 8 October 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:So describe to me again the act he committed that was decreed to be fraudulent. Or describe it to me for the first time. I find no mention of it in the article. [[User:Rwflammang|Rwflammang]] ([[User talk:Rwflammang|talk]]) 17:39, 4 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::"Black was found guilty of diverting funds for personal benefit from money due (to) Hollinger International, and of other irregularities." I admit that the other irregularities is vague, but the defalcation is pretty clear. —'''[[User:C.Fred|C.Fred]]''' ([[User_talk:C.Fred|talk]]) 00:59, 5 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
It should be made clear that monies were improperly diverted, and that he is actualy guilty of something. Some charges were dropped because, though he did them, the Supreme Court decided the applicable laws were too vaguely worded to stand. This should also be made clear, with appropriate citations - and without, of course, the wild assignation of malign motives to the Court in a post above. |
|||
In any case, I doubt he is wealthy now. And if, when he was, he had enough pull to influence the Supreme Court, quashing a little thing like this should have been easy. Wikipedia needs guarding against such tinfoil-hattery. [[Special:Contributions/5.81.40.253|5.81.40.253]] ([[User talk:5.81.40.253|talk]]) 13:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC) |
|||
Yes, that statement about the Supreme Court is indefensible. If 'they' we're going to crook the Court, 'they' could arrange to have Bkack cleared as well? |
|||
What seems to have happened, was that Black was guilty of several acts of fraud, but only one or two could be proven beyond a doubt. So he got the limit on that. Failure to convict is not an exoneration, but a protection of the public against the power of the state. The article should make this clear; also explain the technicalities on which each charge was thrown out. [[Special:Contributions/86.148.53.121|86.148.53.121]] ([[User talk:86.148.53.121|talk]]) 11:25, 21 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
==Bilderberg Connection== |
|||
Why is there no mention of his connections to the Bilderberg Group? He was in or still is in the inner core of the Bilderberg Group. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/64.229.30.159|64.229.30.159]] ([[User talk:64.229.30.159|talk]]) 11:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
It is part of a long-standing conspiracy against you, personally. [[Special:Contributions/5.81.40.253|5.81.40.253]] ([[User talk:5.81.40.253|talk]]) 13:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC) |
|||
== This article in the press == |
|||
[http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/mystery-of-the-wikifixer-who-is-the-secret-imagecleansing-agent-2295497.html "Mystery of the Wikifixer: who is the secret image-cleansing agent?"], ''The Telegraph'', 10 June 2011. Someone is astroturfing a series of Wikipedia articles on high profile wealthy Brits. --[[User:Green Cardamom|Green Cardamom]] ([[User talk:Green Cardamom|talk]]) 04:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:Interesting, but it is a different Lord Black from this Wikipedia article that is mentioned in the press article. Brentwood vs. Crossharbour. [[User:Darrell Greenwood|Darrell_Greenwood]] ([[User talk:Darrell Greenwood|talk]]) 04:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== House of Lords == |
|||
Can someone shed light on how he became Member of the House of Lords? Can a convicted criminals vote, say, on judicial matters? - [[User:BorisG|BorisG]] ([[User talk:BorisG|talk]]) 16:27, 18 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:What was he convicted of? Do you have any idea? Amongst other things, he appears to have been convicted of moving some cardboard boxes. Is there anything more of any significance? [[User:Santamoly|Santamoly]] ([[User talk:Santamoly|talk]]) 05:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Lifestyle == |
|||
The lifestyle section is a farce. There was public and editorial commentary ABOUT his lifestyle, but to report on his lifestyle as if it is relevant biographical information reveals POV. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.162.131.206|24.162.131.206]] ([[User talk:24.162.131.206|talk]]) 02:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
== Criminal trial perspective == |
|||
Can someone please include the drastic difference between what Black was accused of doing and what he was convicted of doing, as well as information about the multiple theories of the crime, the more plausible of which was ruled invalid by SCOTUS? As Black's friend the writer Mark Steyn points out: |
|||
"The US$400 million he was accused by Breeden of looting from Hollinger was down to US$60 million by the time the trial began in Chicago. He was found guilty of stealing US$2.9 million, which is less than one per cent of what Breeden accused him of, and indeed about 1.5 per cent of the US$200 million Breeden’s “investigation” had cost the post-Black regime at Hollinger by the start of the trial. Of the 19 original counts against him, Conrad was convicted of just four. The government lost on all the eye-catching tabloid fodder: Barbara’s birthday party, taking the corporate jet to Tahiti. The government won on three counts of “mail fraud.” But winning 80 per cent of the case isn’t enough. No matter how remorselessly it shrivelled from US$400 million to US$79 million to US$60 million to US$2.9 million, what was left was still enough to send Black to jail." |
|||
http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/07/08/oo-late-for-him/ |
|||
[[Special:Contributions/24.162.131.206|24.162.131.206]] ([[User talk:24.162.131.206|talk]]) 03:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)SLW |
|||
:Mark Steyn is hus friend, and has his POV. But from NPOV, there is nothing unusual for the courts to focus on a very select counts rather than try to judge on all of them. Stealing $400 million or $4,000 is still a theft, and thus Black is a convicted felon. - [[User:BorisG|BorisG]] ([[User talk:BorisG|talk]]) 16:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== 3RR Reversion of Conrad Black == |
|||
The 3 times reversion of 18,000 bytes in this article by Vale of Glamorgan was extreme in all senses. |
|||
Vale wrote "- |
|||
Main article: United States v. Conrad Black |
|||
{{Infobox criminal |
|||
- | image_name = |
|||
- | name = Conrad Moffat Black |
|||
- | charge = mail fraud, obstruction of justice |
|||
- | conviction_penalty = Sentenced to 6½ years imprisonment. Reduced to 42 months following appeal and resentencing. |
|||
- | conviction_status = Served 29 months before being granted bail pending a Supreme Court ordered review of his case.[17] Reported to the Federal Correctional Institution, Miami on September 6, 2011[18] to serve an additional 13 months as a result of re-sentencing.[19] |
|||
- | prison = Coleman Federal Correctional Complex |
|||
- | surrender date = 3 March 2008 11:52 am |
|||
- | inmate number = 18330-424 |
|||
- }} |
|||
- Black was convicted in U.S. District Court in Chicago on July 13, 2007 for 3 counts of mail fraud and one count of obstruction of justice. He was acquitted of 9 counts. Lord Black was sentenced to serve 78 months in federal prison, pay Hollinger $6.1 million, in addition to a fine of $125,000." |
|||
POV pushing/unsupported by citation "The affidavits attempted to refute an outpouring of letters from Mr. Black's fellow inmates extolling Mr. Black's devotion to his tutoring and his many personal acts of kindness to fellow Coleman inmates. These affidavits were demonstrated to be false in submissions of June 8, 2011 and June 16, 2011 by Mr. Black's legal team. they were specifically found by Judge Amy St. Eve not to have been credible. Nevertheless, because of the publicity surrounding these false affidavits, the Bureau of Prisons elected not to send Mr. Black back to Coleman. " |
|||
I find these changes highly questionable and ask that you at least discuss them in Talk:Conrad Black first. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 00:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)" |
|||
and |
|||
" |
|||
Darrell, you are reinserting several questionable passages: |
|||
Unsourced/POV pushing "The result of this action was that Mr. Black was unable to finance his first choice for his attorney, Brendan Sullivan of the prominent Washington D.C. firm of Williams and Connolly The actions of the United States Attorneys Office in seizing this money were later revealed to have been improper as following his trial, the jury acquitted him of any misconduct related to the sale of the New York apartment." |
|||
POV pushing/advocational tone "Mr. Black was never charged much less convicted of any of these alleged corporate expenditures and anyone who knows Lady Black would have no doubt that she does not wear "jogging attire" and if she did it would not be the $140 Marks and Spencer variety." |
|||
POV pushing/advocational "In connection with the one surviving mail fraud count, Lord Black received precisely $285,000 of the $600,000 that went to Mr. Black and the other defendants. He was convicted of that Count on the false testimony of David Radler who had orchestrated the non-compete payment idea in connection with the American Newspaper Division of Hollinger -- one that Radler oversaw and ran with little if any involvement by Lord Black. That is all that remains of the now demonstrably false and libelous contention that Lord Black presided over a $500,000 million corporate kleptocracy. Lord Black, by the time of his resentencing had paid Hollinger over $30 million in connection with the allegations against him."' |
|||
My reply is that the questionable passages comprise 10% of the material you deleted. Let's discuss why you removed the rest totally ignoring [[wp:preserve]]. [[User:Darrell Greenwood|Darrell_Greenwood]] ([[User talk:Darrell Greenwood|talk]]) 00:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC) |
|||
Darrell, your reversion is also removing a large section of the article: |
|||
Darrell, you are reinserting several questionable passages: |
|||
*'''Unsourced/POV pushing''' "The result of this action was that Mr. Black was unable to finance his first choice for his attorney, Brendan Sullivan of the prominent Washington D.C. firm of Williams and Connolly The actions of the United States Attorneys Office in seizing this money were later revealed to have been improper as following his trial, the jury acquitted him of any misconduct related to the sale of the New York apartment." |
|||
*'''POV pushing/advocational tone''' "Mr. Black was never charged much less convicted of any of these alleged corporate expenditures and anyone who knows Lady Black would have no doubt that she does not wear "jogging attire" and if she did it would not be the $140 Marks and Spencer variety." |
|||
*'''POV pushing/advocational''' "In connection with the one surviving mail fraud count, Lord Black received precisely $285,000 of the $600,000 that went to Mr. Black and the other defendants. He was convicted of that Count on the false testimony of David Radler who had orchestrated the non-compete payment idea in connection with the American Newspaper Division of Hollinger -- one that Radler oversaw and ran with little if any involvement by Lord Black. That is all that remains of the now demonstrably false and libelous contention that Lord Black presided over a $500,000 million corporate kleptocracy. Lord Black, by the time of his resentencing had paid Hollinger over $30 million in connection with the allegations against him." |
|||
*'''Removal of sourced material without explanation''' " |
|||
Lifestyle |
|||
Born to a rich family, Black acquired the family home and {{Convert|7|acre|m2}} of land in Toronto's exclusive [[Bridle Path, Toronto|Bridle Path]] neighbourhood after his father's death in 1976. Black and first wife Joanna Hishon maintained homes in Palm Beach, Toronto and London. After he married Barbara Amiel, he acquired a Park Avenue apartment in New York which he and Lady Black painstakingly renovated at their own expense despite a promise from Hollinger that it would supply a portion of the costs of the renovation. When sold in 2005, based on allegations of fraud in connection with the sale of the apartment which were later to be rejected by the jury, the U.S. Department of Justice seized net proceeds of $8.5 million, pending resolution of court actions.<ref>U.S.D.O.J. [http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/pr/chicago/2005/pr1215_01.pdf "Press Release" ] December 15, 2005</ref> Before Mr. Black returned to prison in September 2011, the United States Attorney's Office for the Northern District Of Illinois was obligated to return $6 million to Lord Black which was money the government was holding but to which they ultimately agreed they were not entitled to given the ultimate results of the case. His London [[townhouse]] in the [[Kensington]] district sold in 2005 for about US$25 million.<ref>Timmons, Heather: [http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-108930129.html "Conrad Black sells London townhouse"] ''International Herald Tribune'', May 20, 2005</ref> Black's [[Palm Beach, Florida|Palm Beach]] mansion was listed for sale in 2004 at $36 million. In late April of 2011 this Florida property was also sold by Black for approximately $30 million (USD).<ref>CBC News: [http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2005/11/17/black-051117.html "Conrad Black charged . . . "] cbcnews.ca November 17, 2005</ref> |
|||
According to biographer [[Tom Bower]], "They flaunted their wealth."<ref name=bower>Bower, Tom: ''Conrad & Lady Black – Dancing on the Edge'' (London: HarperPress, 2006),</ref> Black's critics, including former ''[[The Daily Telegraph|Daily Telegraph]]'' editor [[Charles Moore (journalist)|Charles Moore]], suggested it was Black's second wife, Amiel, who pushed him towards a life of opulence, citing extravagant expenditures such as items billed to Hollinger expenses that included [[United States dollar|$]]2,463 ([[Pound sterling|£]]1,272) on handbags, $2,785 in opera tickets, and $140 for Amiel's "jogging attire."Mr. Black was never charged much less convicted of any of these alleged corporate expenditures and anyone who knows Lady Black would have no doubt that she does not wear "jogging attire" and if she did it would not be the $140 Marks and Spencer variety. [6]<ref name="Guard">Clark, Andrew: [http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,,2035283,00.html "At some level, he's still asking the same question as he was when he was seven or eight – who am I?"] ''The Guardian'', March 16, 2007</ref> |
|||
Black was ranked 238th wealthiest in Britain by the [[Sunday Times Rich List]] 2003,<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/richlist/resultSearch/0,,2003-1-0-BLACK--,00.html |title=The Sunday Times Rich List 2003 |publisher=Timesonline.co.uk |date= |accessdate=2010-06-18 | location=London}}</ref> with an estimated wealth of £136m. He was dropped from the 2004 list.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/richlist/fullSearch/0,,2004-1-0,00.html |title=The Sunday Times Rich List 2004 |publisher=Timesonline.co.uk |date= |accessdate=2010-06-18 | location=London}}</ref> |
|||
Conrad Black is a former Steering Committee member of the [[Bilderberg Group]].<ref>http://www.bilderbergmeetings.org/former-steering-committee-members.html</ref> |
|||
Criminal fraud conviction and Supreme Court review== |
|||
{{Main|United States v. Conrad Black}}{{Infobox criminal |
|||
- |
|||
| image_name = |
|||
- |
|||
| name = Conrad Moffat Black |
|||
- |
|||
| charge = [[mail fraud]], [[obstruction of justice]] |
|||
- |
|||
| conviction_penalty = Sentenced to 6½ years imprisonment. Reduced to 42 months following appeal and resentencing. |
|||
- |
|||
| conviction_status = Served 29 months before being granted bail pending a Supreme Court ordered review of his case.<ref>http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20100719/conrad-black-bail-100719/</ref> Reported to the [[Federal Correctional Institution, Miami]] on September 6, 2011<ref name=sept/> to serve an additional 13 months as a result of re-sentencing.<ref name=resent/> |
|||
- |
|||
| prison = Coleman Federal Correctional Complex |
|||
- |
|||
| surrender date = 3 March 2008 11:52 am |
|||
- |
|||
| inmate number = 18330-424 |
|||
- |
|||
}} |
|||
- |
|||
Black was convicted in [[United States district court|U.S. District Court]] in Chicago on July 13, 2007 for 3 counts of mail fraud and one count of obstruction of justice. He was acquitted of 9 counts. Lord Black was sentenced to serve 78 months in federal prison, pay Hollinger $6.1 million, in addition to a fine of $125,000." |
|||
*'''POV pushing/unsupported by citation''' "The affidavits attempted to refute an outpouring of letters from Mr. Black's fellow inmates extolling Mr. Black's devotion to his tutoring and his many personal acts of kindness to fellow Coleman inmates. These affidavits were demonstrated to be false in submissions of June 8, 2011 and June 16, 2011 by Mr. Black's legal team. they were specifically found by Judge Amy St. Eve not to have been credible. Nevertheless, because of the publicity surrounding these false affidavits, the Bureau of Prisons elected not to send Mr. Black back to Coleman. " |
|||
I find these changes highly questionable and ask that you at least discuss them in [[Talk:Conrad Black]] first. [[User:Vale of Glamorgan|Vale of Glamorgan]] ([[User talk:Vale of Glamorgan|talk]]) 00:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== 3RR cont'd == |
|||
Hi to the Vale of Glamorgan |
|||
1. You reverted the contributions of a newbie editor reducing the article from 59,504 bytes to 40,602 bytes with an inadequate edit summary. |
|||
2. You reverted the article 3 times in 24 hours ignoring [[wp:3RR]] |
|||
3. You disregarded [[wp:preserve]] |
|||
4. My point is the majority of the material you deleted is verifiable, sourceable, and worthy of inclusion. OK some of it needs fixing (which I was doing when you reverted), so let us do that. Would you please restore the material so it can be fixed? Thank you. [[User:Darrell Greenwood|Darrell_Greenwood]] ([[User talk:Darrell Greenwood|talk]]) 01:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC) |
|||
What about the specific insertions and deletions I pointed out in the previous section? Let's do it one by one then. How do you justify the insertion of the following unsourced paragraph which is not only POV but unsourced POV: |
|||
:"The result of this action was that Mr. Black was unable to finance his first choice for his attorney, Brendan Sullivan of the prominent Washington D.C. firm of Williams and Connolly The actions of the United States Attorneys Office in seizing this money were later revealed to have been improper as following his trial, the jury acquitted him of any misconduct related to the sale of the New York apartment." |
|||
[[User:Vale of Glamorgan|Vale of Glamorgan]] ([[User talk:Vale of Glamorgan|talk]]) 03:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:http://www.nationalpost.com/Unjustly+incarcerated/348425/story.html |
|||
:"Just before most of the charges were laid in this case, in October, 2005, these prosecutors seized the proceeds of the sale of our co-operative unit in New York, on the basis of an affidavit from an FBI agent, who signed that he was fully aware of the laws against perjury. The affidavit omitted any reference to the facts that the company had been obligated to pay for the renovation and decoration of the unit, and that I had done so, at a personal cost of more than $4.6-million. |
|||
:The seizure was conducted ex parte, with no notice and no due process, under the Civil Assets Forfeiture Reform Act. |
|||
:The jurors determined that that affidavit was mistaken (i.e. false). When we pointed out its deficiencies in our legal motion, the prosecutors laid the charges in this case, stayed other proceedings and froze almost $10-million owed to me. The action achieved its objective: Brendan V. Sullivan of Williams & Connally, one of America's most respected trial lawyers, who was my chief counsel, was unable to take this case, because I was unable to provide him, for a time, after the New York seizure, with the retainer he required." |
|||
== Black x Jeffrey Epstein == |
|||
:Would you please note that two editors feel your deletions are inappropriate. The author and me. You have carefully manipulated the situation, by breaking the 3RR rule, so the material you dislike is deleted, and are sitting in sole judgement enforcing your POV. This is the reason new editors are driven away. Would you please restore the material so it can be fixed? Thank you. |
|||
Are we just going to overlook his connections to Jeffrey Epstein? |
|||
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/07/jeffrey-epstein-high-society-contacts.html |
|||
== That Black wrote a hagiography of Trump is pertinent == |
|||
:[[User:Darrell Greenwood|Darrell_Greenwood]] ([[User talk:Darrell Greenwood|talk]]) 06:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC) |
|||
Every single RS that covers the Black pardon notes that Black basically wrote a hagiography of the man: |
|||
::First of all, one of the editors is a [[WP:SPA|Single Purpose Account]] that only edits this article. Secondly, the paragraph did not have a source as it existed in the article. The source needs to be given and second this seems to be Black's personal opinion so it should be stated as such and not as a neutral fact. [[User:Vale of Glamorgan|Vale of Glamorgan]] ([[User talk:Vale of Glamorgan|talk]]) 13:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC) |
|||
* "glowing" book[https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-pardons-billionaire-friend-conrad-black-who-wrote-book-about-him/2019/05/15/b494b208-7771-11e9-bd25-c989555e7766_story.html?utm_term=.b40956526b70][https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/may/15/conrad-black-trump-pardons-ex-media-mogul][https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/05/16/donald-trumps-pardon-conrad-black-shows-didnt-forget-old-friend/][https://www.kpbs.org/news/2019/may/16/trump-pardons-his-friend-conrad-black-who-wrote/][https://theweek.com/speedreads/841747/trump-pardons-conrad-black-exbusiness-partner-trump-hagiographer-claims-elton-johns-backing][https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-conrad-black-pardon-daily-telegraph-owner-hollinger-a8916036.html][http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/05/trump-pardons-friend-who-wrote-glowing-book-about-him.html] |
|||
* "flattering" book[https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/15/us/politics/trump-conrad-black-pardon.html][https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/15/trump-pardons-conrad-black-1327919][http://time.com/5590067/trump-pardon-conrad-black/][https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/trump-pardons-ex-media-mogul-conrad-black-who-served-prison-n1006246][https://chicago.suntimes.com/2019/5/15/18627303/conrad-black-pardoned-former-chicago-sun-times-owner-trump][http://www.cityam.com/277710/trump-pardons-ex-media-mogul-conrad-black-after-flattering][https://www.scmp.com/news/world/united-states-canada/article/3010413/donald-trump-pardons-conrad-black-billionaire-ex] |
|||
* "hagiography"[https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/05/16/very-political-pattern-trumps-pardons/?utm_term=.b69200fd7bf6] |
|||
This is crucial context that many RS deem so important as to put in the headline next to the mention of the pardon. Omitting this is a NPOV violation. [[User:Snooganssnoogans|Snooganssnoogans]] ([[User talk:Snooganssnoogans|talk]]) 14:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC) |
|||
What about: ""Mr. Black was never charged much less convicted of any of these alleged corporate expenditures and anyone who knows Lady Black would have no doubt that she does not wear "jogging attire" and if she did it would not be the $140 Marks and Spencer variety." |
|||
:Agree. Who's omitting it? I just inserted "hagiographic" into the line I added a week or two ago about the book. [[User:Yopienso|YoPienso]] ([[User talk:Yopienso|talk]]) 14:30, 16 May 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::Oh, I see; will restore. [[User:Yopienso|YoPienso]] ([[User talk:Yopienso|talk]]) 14:32, 16 May 2019 (UTC) |
|||
* I removed some language which stated that the pardon was "following the publication" of the book. The sources indicate that it was a year after the publication of the book. The original language would lead a reader to believe that the book was published and then perhaps a week later the pardon came down. So I've changed that to add more detail. [[User:Cosmic Sans|Cosmic Sans]] ([[User talk:Cosmic Sans|talk]]) 17:25, 16 May 2019 (UTC) |
|||
That sentence is unsourced opinion and the tone makes it sound like it was written by his defence team or friend of Black rather than a neutral party. [[User:Vale of Glamorgan|Vale of Glamorgan]] ([[User talk:Vale of Glamorgan|talk]]) 14:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::But in so doing you misrepresent the sources, all of which mention the biography, as demonstrated above. [[User:Yopienso|YoPienso]] ([[User talk:Yopienso|talk]]) 14:28, 17 May 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::I mentioned the biography. None of the sources, though, use the terminology that we had previously used in the lede. [[User:Cosmic Sans|Cosmic Sans]] ([[User talk:Cosmic Sans|talk]]) 19:25, 17 May 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:Looks like most of the sources use the word "flattering" not "glowing." By the way, none of the sources use the word, "fawning," which Snooganssnoogans origially edit-warred to try to keep in. What gives, Snooganssnoogans? [[User:AppliedCharisma|AppliedCharisma]] ([[User talk:AppliedCharisma|talk]]) 16:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC) |
|||
: An IP editor keeps edit-warring this out of the lead. It's obviously pertinent to his pardon that he wrote a hagiography of the President just prior. [[User:Snooganssnoogans|Snooganssnoogans]] ([[User talk:Snooganssnoogans|talk]]) 15:29, 6 February 2020 (UTC) |
|||
==Please Update Net Worth== |
|||
:I agree that this is quite pertinent, and is mentioned in virtually all sources discussing the pardon, and have restored the content. --[[User:Neutrality|Neutrality]]<sup>[[User talk:Neutrality|talk]]</sup> 18:19, 6 February 2020 (UTC) |
|||
Apparently he is only worth ~$80 mill these days, see http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/10/conrad-black-201110 . (Not that the article makes him seem at all likable, but it does have an updated estimate of his net worth.) [[Special:Contributions/68.108.234.122|68.108.234.122]] ([[User talk:68.108.234.122|talk]]) 19:34, 24 September 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::It is reasonable to mention that Mr. Black wrote a biography of President Trump. It is also reasonable to mention that he was pardoned by President Trump about a year after the biography was published. What is not reasonable is to make an unreferenced statement that the biography was fawning, glowing, or flattering without a citation to a reliable source. More importantly, mentioning the biography and the pardon together in the lede implies causation and gives the statements undue weight. Both the pardon and biography are discussed in the body of an article, and a reader can draw his own conclusions. [[User:GlassBones|GlassBones]] ([[User talk:GlassBones|talk]]) 18:52, 14 February 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== Residence == |
|||
:::Facts in the lead don't have to be referenced if they're referenced in the body. "Glowing" is referenced in the lead and "flattering" in the body. I'll change "flattering" to "glowing" in the lead, and also join the two sentences, because the RSs are clearly linking Black's praise of Trump to the pardon. [[User:Yopienso|YoPienso]] ([[User talk:Yopienso|talk]]) 18:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{ping|User:GlassBones}} In looking at your editing history, it occurs to me you may not understand that the lead introduces and summarizes what the article says. You seem to have the impression that if something is mentioned in the body, it doesn't have to be in the lead. Just the opposite it true: something heavily treated in the body should be in the lead. I recommend a look at [[WP:MOSLEAD]], which says "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic." Best wishes, [[User:Yopienso|YoPienso]] ([[User talk:Yopienso|talk]]) 19:18, 14 February 2020 (UTC) |
|||
What is the basis for listing Toronto as his residence? He doesn't reside in Toronto. He resides in Florida. The prison is his residence. It's pure speculation where he may live in the future. Where he lived in the past may be his "home town" but is no longer his residence. He doesn't yet have permission to return to Canada. Toronto is appropriately listed as his "home town". Just because a person retains ownership of place they lived in, does not mean that should permanently be listed as their residence. If the article keeps Toronto as his residence, it should cite a post-incarceration source that says that his current residence is Toronto. I can sorta understand London as a residence, since he has a legal right to live there (at least under British law). But, it seems odd to list a place where he has no right to reside as his residence. --[[User:Thivierr|Rob]] ([[User talk:Thivierr|talk]]) 04:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:I agree. I don't think we have enough information to really know his legal residency, so I think we should just remove it entirely.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales|talk]]) 11:22, 31 March 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:No longer an issue. [http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/05/04/conrad-black-release.html Toronto is his residence]. [[Special:Contributions/208.65.73.105|208.65.73.105]] ([[User talk:208.65.73.105|talk]]) 21:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::::{{ping|User:GlassBones}} please revert your most recent edit to the lead. Please refrain from editing the article until you have discussed your issues here at talk and we have arrived at a consensus. Thank you. [[User:Yopienso|YoPienso]] ([[User talk:Yopienso|talk]]) 19:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== Moot for Deletion - rather insignificant subject == |
|||
:::::I'm inserting the word "favorable" (to describe ''biography'') into the lead because it's important the reader not assume the biography is objective. The press overwhelmingly refers to the book as "glowing" or "flattering"; "favorable" is the most neutral word I can come up with. ("Admiring" is another possibility.) I'm removing "a year later," because that's obvious from the dates given so closely together. I'm joining the two sentences because virtually all RSs connect the book with the pardon. Please see the 15 sources linked to above, as well as "[https://www.npr.org/2019/05/16/723849097/trump-pardons-his-friend-conrad-black-who-wrote-glowing-trump-biography-last-yea Trump Pardons His Friend Conrad Black, Who Wrote Glowing Trump Biography Last Year]" by Laurel Wamsley, published by NPR on May 16, 2019. [[User:Yopienso|YoPienso]] ([[User talk:Yopienso|talk]]) 19:10, 15 February 2020 (UTC) |
|||
Anyone else agree? About as important as that other HOL 'character' , Jeffrey Archer.[[Special:Contributions/212.139.96.62|212.139.96.62]] ([[User talk:212.139.96.62|talk]]) 17:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC)twl[[Special:Contributions/212.139.96.62|212.139.96.62]] ([[User talk:212.139.96.62|talk]]) 17:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Style-wise, "biography favorable of" may be better than "favorable biography." [[User:Yopienso|YoPienso]] ([[User talk:Yopienso|talk]]) 19:14, 15 February 2020 (UTC) |
|||
==Plagiarist?== |
|||
:The last sentence in the lead current reads: "In 2018, Black wrote a favorable biography of President Donald Trump; on May 15, 2019, Trump granted him a full pardon."[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conrad_Black&oldid=940961908] That is implicit [[WP:SYN|synthesis]], implying that Trump granted the pardon because Black wrote a book about him and by implication the pardon was undeserved. That's a clear [[WP:BLP|BLP]] violation for both Black and Trump and I will edit it. If any editor wants to state the connection it must be explicit and sourced. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 01:25, 17 February 2020 (UTC) |
|||
This might be worthy of an additional note, although it might be contentious if not well sourced. His regular HuffPo column, on Language laws [[http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/conrad-black/language-laws-canada_b_2439486.html]] used a very familiar funny few paragraphs on the English language in the EU without attribution. This was also published as his in a New York tabloid [[http://www.nysun.com/foreign/europe-too-to-be-divided-by-a-common-language/88146/]], at least, in 2013. It can be found elsewhere from years before, even in the Urban Dictionary [[http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=drem]] [[http://www.joke-archives.com/oddsends/euroenglish.html]]. I recall it even from years before that UD posting (in 2005) as well, from the mainstream press. Often reprinted without attribution, and I doubt that he wrote it originally. There is a copyrighted document here [[http://www.beaconlearningcenter.com/documents/967_01.pdf]] Thoughts? |
|||
::{{ping|User:The Four Deuces}} Please take the time to read the comments here before summarily reverting. At the top of this section are 12 RSs (all 15 given except 3, 8, and 10) that explicitly link the pardon to the book. (Source #3 links the pardon to an earlier favorable column Black wrote about Trump; source #8 calls Black "a political ally and longtime associate of Mr. Trump’s," and source #10 is a dead link to a ''Time'' article.) At 19:10, 15 February 2020 I wrote, immediately above your comment, "I'm joining the two sentences because virtually all RSs connect the book with the pardon." [[User:Yopienso|YoPienso]] ([[User talk:Yopienso|talk]]) 01:54, 17 February 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::The source used (''WAPO'') does not make an explicit connection. Which of the sources explicitly say that Trump pardoned Black because of his book? The fact that Black and Trump were long term allies and associates (in fact Trump said Black was innocent when he was prosecuted) actually argues against the view that he pardoned him because of the book. Presumably if they were that close he would have pardoned him anyway. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 02:38, 17 February 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::The very first sentence of the ''WaPo'' article is "President Trump gave a full pardon to a longtime friend who last year wrote a glowing book about Trump’s successes." [[User:Yopienso|YoPienso]] ([[User talk:Yopienso|talk]]) 02:43, 17 February 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::The second source on this page says, "Donald Trump has pardoned Conrad Black, the former media mogul who owned the Daily Telegraph and the Spectator before being jailed for fraud, shortly after he wrote a book praising the US president." Etc. Twelve sources LINK the two events; I'm not sure if any show cause-and-effect. Neither does the sentence I've just restored to the article: just like the sources, it links them. [[User:Yopienso|YoPienso]] ([[User talk:Yopienso|talk]]) 02:46, 17 February 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::The sources do make an ''explicit connection,'' but do not explicitly say Trump pardoned Black ''because'' Black wrote that book. [[User:Yopienso|YoPienso]] ([[User talk:Yopienso|talk]]) 02:48, 17 February 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::A number of the sources--which you can check out for yourself, btw--point out that Trump did not mention Black's biography of him when he explained why he thought Black deserved a pardon. The fact that the stories made a point of it is a suggestion that the sources suspect Trump was influenced by the fact that Black praised him in print. Here's [https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/trump-pardons-ex-media-mogul-conrad-black-who-served-prison-n1006246 what NBC said]: "The White House statement did not mention that Black wrote what was described as a flattering biography of Trump published in 2018, titled ''Donald J. Trump: A President Like No Other.''" This was under a large-font headline, ''Trump pardons ex-media mogul Conrad Black, who wrote flattering biography of him,'' and a smaller-print headline right under it, ''The convicted fraudster is the author of "Donald J. Trump: A President Like No Other," which came out last year.'' [[User:Yopienso|YoPienso]] ([[User talk:Yopienso|talk]]) 02:59, 17 February 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::What is the ''explicit connection'' made? I have posted a discussion to BLPN. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 19:42, 17 February 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Ten hours before you did that, I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conrad_Black&diff=941225285&oldid=941224988 removed] mention of the book from the lead. I gave a full account in my edit summary--''I don't think the lead has to give the complete date of the pardon (but year only) or the detail about the flattering book, which is covered in the body''--but guess I should have also mentioned it here at talk. I assure you I want an article as unbiased as possible, forthcoming but not accusatory. [[User:Yopienso|YoPienso]] ([[User talk:Yopienso|talk]]) 00:30, 18 February 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== RfC: Flattering biography of Donald Trump == |
|||
BCameron54 01:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
{{closed rfc top|result= There seems to be a rough consensus that the fact he wrote a favourable biography of Trump should be mentioned in the lead, and that it can be included as part of the general background to the pardon. Opponents argued that this implies a connection between the two while supporters countered that the preponderance of reliable sources similarly treat the one as significant context for the other or even explicitly link the two. A number of editors also argue for noting their personal history/friendship but being beyond the scope of the RfC there was insufficient participation to judge a consensus on the matter. ─ [[User:ReconditeRodent|ReconditeRodent]] « [[User talk:ReconditeRodent|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/ReconditeRodent|contribs]] » 14:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC) {{nac}} }} |
|||
Should the lead note that Black wrote a "flattering biography of Donald Trump" and that he was pardoned ''by President Trump''? Currently, the lead says Black was pardoned but it doesn't say by whom, and it doesn't include the context that Black had just prior to the pardon released a hagiography of Trump. (Original timestamp: 12:55, 13 May 2020) [[User:Snooganssnoogans|Snooganssnoogans]] ([[User talk:Snooganssnoogans|talk]]) 05:35, 24 December 2020 (UTC) |
|||
===Survey=== |
|||
== External links modified == |
|||
* '''Yes, include.''' Every single RS that covers the Black pardon notes that Black wrote a flattering biography of Trump, ''Donald J. Trump: A President Like No Other'', in 2018: |
|||
:* "glowing" book[https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-pardons-billionaire-friend-conrad-black-who-wrote-book-about-him/2019/05/15/b494b208-7771-11e9-bd25-c989555e7766_story.html?utm_term=.b40956526b70][https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/may/15/conrad-black-trump-pardons-ex-media-mogul][https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/05/16/donald-trumps-pardon-conrad-black-shows-didnt-forget-old-friend/][https://www.kpbs.org/news/2019/may/16/trump-pardons-his-friend-conrad-black-who-wrote/][https://theweek.com/speedreads/841747/trump-pardons-conrad-black-exbusiness-partner-trump-hagiographer-claims-elton-johns-backing][https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-conrad-black-pardon-daily-telegraph-owner-hollinger-a8916036.html][http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/05/trump-pardons-friend-who-wrote-glowing-book-about-him.html] |
|||
:* "flattering" book[https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/15/us/politics/trump-conrad-black-pardon.html][https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/15/trump-pardons-conrad-black-1327919][http://time.com/5590067/trump-pardon-conrad-black/][https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/trump-pardons-ex-media-mogul-conrad-black-who-served-prison-n1006246][https://chicago.suntimes.com/2019/5/15/18627303/conrad-black-pardoned-former-chicago-sun-times-owner-trump][http://www.cityam.com/277710/trump-pardons-ex-media-mogul-conrad-black-after-flattering][https://www.scmp.com/news/world/united-states-canada/article/3010413/donald-trump-pardons-conrad-black-billionaire-ex] |
|||
:* "hagiography"[https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/05/16/very-political-pattern-trumps-pardons/?utm_term=.b69200fd7bf6] |
|||
: This is crucial context that many RS deem so important as to put in the headline next to the mention of the pardon. Omitting this is a NPOV violation. Furthermore, it's completely inexplicable that the lead can't mention that Black was pardoned ''by Trump''. It is the most basic pertinent content that I can think of. There's not a single justification for just vaguely saying "he was pardoned", without clarifying by whom. [[User:Snooganssnoogans|Snooganssnoogans]] ([[User talk:Snooganssnoogans|talk]]) 12:59, 13 May 2020 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Support mentioning Trump''', I think that's pretty relevant. I don't know if the other bit is necessary in the lede and I feel like "flattering" shouldn't be in Wikipedia's Voice. Maybe "positive" or something? I don't know. ~ [[User:HAL333|<span style="background:red; color:white; padding:2px;">HAL</span>]][[User talk:HAL333|<span style="background:black; color:white; padding:2px;">333</span>]] 20:01, 13 May 2020 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Not in lead''' the juxtaposition is presenting an OR and false impression of a quid-pro-quo, and just isn't a significant amount of the article so does not belong in lead per [[WP:LEAD]]. That he had already served his time years before or that he wrote many books is not mentioned, although those are both clearly much bigger parts of his BLP life. This seems just indulging some anti-Trump conspiracy theory and sensationalizing being given UNDUE prominence, it's not something about *Blacks* life. Cheers [[User:Markbassett|Markbassett]] ([[User talk:Markbassett|talk]]) 22:44, 15 May 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:* The juxtaposition is made by EVERY SINGLE RELIABLE SOURCE that covered the pardon. It's a grotesque NPOV violation to leave it out. It would be an egregious example of OR to exclude the content when EVERY SINGLE RS deems it crucial context.[[User:Snooganssnoogans|Snooganssnoogans]] ([[User talk:Snooganssnoogans|talk]]) 22:53, 15 May 2020 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Yes, include.''' It is important for the lead to mention Trump in the Black's pardon. [[User:Idealigic|Idealigic]] ([[User talk:Idealigic|talk]]) 11:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Include but not in current configuration in lead.''' Anyone would draw a causal link between them and it's clearly notable, but putting the two claims next to each other puts us in the position of implying the causality by insinuation. This gives the impression of a lack of neutrality. A potential solution to this is to have a longer lead which refers to a number of books he has written, and then conclude with his pardoning by Trump. That way, both the pieces of information (noteworthy) are in the lead, but they are not placed together in such a way as to appear to violate WP:OR. [[User:Cleopatran Apocalypse|Cleopatran Apocalypse]] ([[User talk:Cleopatran Apocalypse|talk]]) 13:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:* If you choose to pardon a grifter who just so happened to have a written a hagiography about you, then of course any rational person will draw a causal link between the two. That just stating the facts naturally lead most readers to assume a quid pro quo (which is not stated in the lead) does not mean we have to obscure the facts and omit what EVERY SINGLE RS deems to be absolutely pertinent information. [[User:Snooganssnoogans|Snooganssnoogans]] ([[User talk:Snooganssnoogans|talk]]) 15:41, 19 May 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:* The question really boils down to: should we hide facts from readers that all RS report because we don't want readers to draw conclusions that the facts themselves might lead to? It's as if we were to hide that [[Robert F. Kennedy]] served in his '''brother''' John F. Kennedy's administration because readers will draw the inevitable conclusion that he only served in the administration due to nepotism. [[User:Snooganssnoogans|Snooganssnoogans]] ([[User talk:Snooganssnoogans|talk]]) 14:38, 30 December 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::: What are these facts that are being hidden? [[User:Korny O'Near|Korny O'Near]] ([[User talk:Korny O'Near|talk]]) 22:36, 30 December 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::: That he wrote a hagiography of Trump prior to being pardoned by Trump. Please pay attention to the RfC that you're voting in. [[User:Snooganssnoogans|Snooganssnoogans]] ([[User talk:Snooganssnoogans|talk]]) 22:40, 30 December 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::::That fact is not hidden. The year of his Trump biography (2018) is in the article, as is the year of the Trump pardon (2019). That it's a "hagiography" is a matter of opinion. (Though if it's an opinion that many people share, that should probably be in the article too.) [[User:Korny O'Near|Korny O'Near]] ([[User talk:Korny O'Near|talk]]) 04:43, 31 December 2020 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Mention Trump but not biography''' - obviously the person who pardoned him should be mentioned. But mentioning the biography is an awkward attempt at [[WP:SYNTH|synthesis]] and/or insinuation, as others have noted. Sure, a lot of sources have noted both things, but have any actually said that the pardon came about because of the biography? Is there any proof of that? Plus, this is an article about a someone with a successful, 50-year career in publishing - it's not clear that, even if the biography were the cause of the pardon, it would be an important enough fact to include in the intro. Let's remember that we're writing about Conrad Black, not Donald Trump. [[User:Korny O'Near|Korny O'Near]] ([[User talk:Korny O'Near|talk]]) 15:17, 19 May 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:* This is not a trial where we have to prove anything. And there's not any causal claim being considered in the lead, so what is there to be proved? That he wrote a hagiography of Trump is a fact. Also, it's not SYNTH to state what every single RS has stated about the pardon. Rather than present the sequence of events as EVERY SINGLE RS has done, you are instead advocating that we omit completely relevant information so that readers purposely will not have the relevant information. That's the original research here: editors deciding to omit RS content just because they personally dislike that the facts on their own imply sycophantism and quid pro quo. [[User:Snooganssnoogans|Snooganssnoogans]] ([[User talk:Snooganssnoogans|talk]]) 15:41, 19 May 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::No, it's not a trial, but there still has to be some proof of everything; that's what all these references are for, after all. Again, there are two issues here: whether this juxtaposition should be mentioned at all, and whether it should be mentioned in the intro. The case for the former is weak, but the case for the latter is much weaker. These news articles that include this juxtaposition are articles about one specific episode in a man's long life and career, so they're not really relevant to decisions about the intro. Let me note, looking at the intro again, that it needs a lot of work. Almost half of it right now is about his legal troubles. Meanwhile, the intro says nothing about his life peerage, his political views, or his TV gigs, and mentions only one of his 10+ books (guess which one). [[User:Korny O'Near|Korny O'Near]] ([[User talk:Korny O'Near|talk]]) 16:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::Okay, I just expanded the intro, though I kept that "all-important" reference to his biography of Donald Trump - which I think looks even more out of place now. [[User:Korny O'Near|Korny O'Near]] ([[User talk:Korny O'Near|talk]]) 14:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::::What "proof" could exist? Anyone who claims that they understand what's going on in Trump's head is mistaken. The only "proof" relevant to Wikipedia is the words of reliable secondary sources, who have their own ways of determining truth or reasonable provability. We can't relitigate the facts as if we are a newspaper because this is not the purpose of a tertiary source and we would be very ill-placed to judge this. — [[User:Bilorv|Bilorv]] ('''[[User talk:Bilorv|<span style="color:purple">talk</span>]]''') 12:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Yes, include''' I conjecture that it would be relatively related and helpful; at least based on my assumption! [[User:Ali Ahwazi|Ali Ahwazi]] ([[User talk:Ali Ahwazi|talk]]) 09:06, 21 May 2020 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Yes, include''' - per Snooganssnoogans, we are following the story told by RS. Frankly it should even be extended that Trump is his friend. '''[[User:Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">starship</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">.paint</span>]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|talk]])''' 01:13, 25 May 2020 (UTC) |
|||
*'''No, don't include''' as phrased. It is the crudest kind of implied synth as currently phrased - quid pro quo, which is not anywhere near as bluntly put as that in the sources - some of which think that the pardon was inevitable long before the biography, given their backstory. What IS said in the sources very clearly is that the two have been personal friends for a longtime/ have had business dealings in the past/ CB has been a supporter of DT/ DT was due to be a character witness for CB's trial, but was not called. All this deserves to be recorded in the body and is probably a great deal more relevant than a biography that perhaps no one read, about someone who most people already have a clear opinion about anyway. Possibly the longterm friendship/support could be in the lead along with the pardon if concise wording for that can be found. [[User:Pincrete|Pincrete]] ([[User talk:Pincrete|talk]]) 09:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:: "It is the crudest kind of implied synth as currently phrased - quid pro quo, which is not anywhere near as bluntly put as that in the sources" – That is completely and utterly false (and the closer should judge this vote accordingly). The sources ''go further'' than the proposed text. The proposed text just lays out the facts. [[User:Snooganssnoogans|Snooganssnoogans]] ([[User talk:Snooganssnoogans|talk]]) 12:14, 25 December 2020 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Support mentioning Trump but not friendship/biography in lead'''. Scanning through the Google News results for "Conrad Black pardon", it seems about half of the titles include the friend/biography aspect and half don't, while all mention Donald Trump. The connection between the pardon and their friendship/biography is not universally included in top-level info so isn't appropriate for the lead of his article here. Along the same lines, the lead should be a summary of the most significant elements of the person's life; my gut feel is that the pardon itself is significant enough to be included but the reason behind it is not and is more appropriate in the body. -[[User:M.nelson|M.Nelson]] ([[User talk:M.nelson|talk]]) 14:19, 31 May 2020 (UTC) |
|||
*:Headlines are not generally reliable or how we determine due weight. I believe there's been significant recent discussion on this point and there's consensus that, for example, information or spin only present in the headlines of some sources is not reliable or significant critical opinion. — [[User:Bilorv|Bilorv]] ('''[[User talk:Bilorv|<span style="color:purple">talk</span>]]''') 12:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Support just mentioning Trump'''--obviously it's fine to clarify who pardoned him. However, Wikipedia, and especially BLPs, are [[WP:NOTGOSSIP]]. The provided sources only contain speculations--none of them provide evidence that Trump pardoned him due to his book. We don't include unconfirmed conjectures in BLPs, even if sources do. [[User:Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d|Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d]] ([[User talk:Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d|talk]]) 07:53, 25 December 2020 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Yes, include'''. Sources provide ample coverage of the pardon and Black's laudatory book about Trump. Both are biographically significant, and many very high-quality sources explicitly draw a connection between the book and the pardon. Our job here is to reflect what the RS say. The comments asserting that the connection is "synthesis" are simply incorrect. Even a quick perusal of the sources makes clear that the sources draw a connection between the pardon and Black's consistent public praise for Trump. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality]]<sup>[[User talk:Neutrality|talk]]</sup> 22:38, 25 December 2020 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Yes''' - Seems pretty obvious to me, numerous high-quality sources explicitly draw a connection between the book and the pardon. By omitting this we would be failing to reflect what authoritative reliable sources say. [[User:Bacondrum|Bacondrum]] ([[User talk:Bacondrum|talk]]) 00:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Yes''', the connection is heavily covered by [[WP:RS]]es to the point where it's a big part of what makes that aspect notable and a major aspect of Black's bio. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 13:36, 30 December 2020 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Yes, include.''' Yopienso has summarized well how the sources present the book and the pardon. Sources do not say explicitly that Black was pardoned *because of* the book. Yet, every one makes the implicit insinuation through the immediate juxtaposition of the book/pardon. In a vacuum, I'd agree with TFD that we'd be improperly implying a causal relationship by mentioning both the book and the pardon so close together in the lede. But the reliable sources here fill up the vacuum. We follow the sources. The predominance of sources mention both the book and the pardon in close proximity, and it seems hardly ever one without the other; so we should do that too.[[User:Moishe Rosenbaum|Moishe Rosenbaum]] ([[User talk:Moishe Rosenbaum|talk]]) 14:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC) |
|||
* '''No'''-The lead can say that Black wrote a favorable biography of Trump and that he was pardoned by Trump, but in order to avoid partiality, it should not imply without evidence that these two events are connected, as this version does. The word "flattering" has a decidedly inauspicious context and should be replaced. [[User:Display name 99|Display name 99]] ([[User talk:Display name 99|talk]]) 00:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Yes, include both'''. Most objections are based on willful misunderstandings of [[WP:NPOV]] (see [[WP:FALSEBALANCE]]) or [[WP:SYNTH]]. Reliable sources overwhelmingly show the significance of both facts, to the point where if either are omitted then the pardon must not be mentioned in the lead (which I believe no-one has advocated). — [[User:Bilorv|Bilorv]] ('''[[User talk:Bilorv|<span style="color:purple">talk</span>]]''') 12:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Yes to both'''. Clearly relevant context to an important part of his life. <span style="color:#AAA"><small>{{u|</small><span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 5px;background:#088">[[User:Sdkb|<span style="color:#FFF">'''Sdkb'''</span>]]</span><small>}}</small></span> <sup>[[User talk:Sdkb|'''talk''']]</sup> 10:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Include the fraud conviction, Trump biography, and pardon''' in the lead, but I'd suggest altering the text devoted to these issues. Called by bot. [[User:Snooganssnoogans|Snooganssnoogans]] has demonstrated that this issue has enough coverage that it should be in the lead. Some details present in the current text seem unnecessary however, while the fact that the Supreme Court heard his appeal is not mentioned. I'd suggest something like this: |
|||
::{{talk quote|In 2007, Black was convicted of obstruction of justice and defrauding [Chicago ''Sun-Times''?] investors in the United States; his appeal ultimately reached the Supreme Court. While incarcerated Black wrote accounts of the prison system, and a flattering biography of U.S. President Donald Trump. Trump pardoned Black in 2019.}} |
|||
:I've placed brackets around the "Sun Times?" text because I'm not sure if those were the specific investors defrauded? |
|||
:Lobbying from such noble characters as Henry Kissinger and Rush Limbaugh. With friends like these... -[[User:Darouet|Darouet]] ([[User talk:Darouet|talk]]) 15:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Yes''': I haven't gone through every single RS link in the opener of the RfC, but the Washington Post article definitely mentions them in connection (as well as the interesting "{{tq|Black, whose media company owned the Chicago Sun Times, at one time partnered with Trump to build Trump Tower in Chicago}}" -- wowzers!) and the NYT has this to say: |
|||
:<blockquote>The pardon of Mr. Black, a political ally and longtime associate of Mr. Trump’s, was the latest example of the president using one of the unilateral powers of his office to absolve a high-profile public figure whose case resonates with him personally, bucking the more traditional practice of sifting through thousands of pardon applications awaiting his review. [...] His pardon of Mr. Black, a personal friend and the author of pro-Trump opinion pieces as well as a flattering book, “Donald J. Trump: A President Like No Other,”</blockquote> |
|||
:While we can hem and haw about whether the pardon was connected ''specifically'' to his biography, it seems reasonable to say both that the pardon was probably due to a personal connection between the two, ''and'' that the sources are in consensus on the issue (even if the thing they're in consensus on is to say it as innuendo). I think that the best thing to put in the article would probably be a phrase with similar preterition. Here is what it currently says: |
|||
::{{tq|n 2007, he was convicted on four counts of fraud in U.S. District Court in Chicago. While two of the criminal fraud charges were dropped on appeal, a conviction for felony fraud and obstruction of justice was upheld in 2010 and he was re-sentenced to 42 months in prison and a fine of $125,000. In 2019, U.S. President Donald Trump granted him a presidential pardon.}} |
|||
:Here is something that I think would be justified: |
|||
::{{tq|n 2007, he was convicted on four counts of fraud in U.S. District Court in Chicago. While two of the criminal fraud charges were dropped on appeal, a conviction for felony fraud and obstruction of justice was upheld in 2010 and he was re-sentenced to 42 months in prison and a fine of $125,000. In 2019, U.S. President Donald Trump, a former business partner about whom Black had written a "flattering" biography the year before, granted him a presidential pardon.}} |
|||
:This [[apophasis|doesn't really say it]], because the articles being referenced also don't really say it -- because, well, how can you prove something like that is true? The involved parties have every incentive to just say that wasn't what was going on; obviously it's suspicious, but the only thing you can say with confidence is that it looks fishy. Saying more would be [[WP:SYNTH]], but I think we ought to say at least that much. [[User:Darouet|Darouet]]'s version above also looks good to me. '''[[User:JPxG|jp]]'''×'''[[User talk:JPxG|g]]''' 19:02, 16 January 2021 (UTC) |
|||
{{closed rfc bottom}} |
|||
== Since he was pardoned, is he still a criminal? == |
|||
Hello fellow Wikipedians, |
|||
There has been some changes to the lead sentence that initially included "convicted criminal", was removed by an IP user and now has "pardoned criminal" in its place. I am sure there are lots of biographies on Wikipedia of people who have been convicted crimes, been to jail, but do not have criminal in their lead sentence. Are we justified in calling this man criminal, pardoned or otherwise? Is this a [[WP:BLP]] violation? See [[WP:BLPCRIME]] and [[WP:PERPETRATOR]] and post opinions here. [[User:Richard-of-Earth|Richard-of-Earth]] ([[User talk:Richard-of-Earth|talk]]) 17:43, 15 May 2021 (UTC) |
|||
I have just modified {{plural:1|one external link|1 external links}} on [[Conrad Black]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=712916521 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes: |
|||
:I found sub section in a [[WP:BPL/N]] discussion about [[Stephen M. Cohen]] at [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive156#Using the descriptor - is an American criminal in the intro]] that seems pertinent. [[User:Richard-of-Earth|Richard-of-Earth]] ([[User talk:Richard-of-Earth|talk]]) 19:10, 15 May 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111028110335/http://www.vanityfair.com:80/society/features/2011/10/conrad-black-201110? to http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/10/conrad-black-201110 |
|||
:: His conviction and pardoning are certainly worth mentioning in the article, but it seems odd and awkward to mention it in the second sentence, or put it in the infobox. <b>[[User:Ohnoitsjamie|OhNo<span style="color: #D47C14;">itsJamie</span>]] [[User talk:Ohnoitsjamie|<sup>Talk</sup>]]</b> 16:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:Black's being a pardoned criminal is one of the things that makes him notable. It shapes his role in the House of Lords, it shapes his legacy at the company where the fraud took place, and it shapes his continuing role in Canadian media and politics. Failing to include the description "pardoned criminal" in the introduction to the article seems like doing a disservice to readers. [[User:Remes|Remes]] ([[User talk:Remes|talk]]) 01:16, 21 May 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::But the fact he was pardon of a crime is mentioned in the third paragraph, so I do not see the disservice. It does not seem like this guy is a career criminal; it seems like the desire to label this guy is politicly motivated. [[User:Richard-of-Earth|Richard-of-Earth]] ([[User talk:Richard-of-Earth|talk]]) 01:59, 21 May 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::User:Ohnoitsjamie tells me there's no consensus for "fraudster" in the lead, yet it's been there continuously since Nov. 19, 2021, except for their removal on Jan. 17, 2022, and has been in this article for years in some iteration. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conrad_Black&diff=647895301&oldid=640097838 Here it is on Feb. 19, 2015] as "convicted felon". Looks to me that there's consensus to identify Black as a felon or fraudster, which he is, and is widely known for. We could call him a "pardoned felon" if that's better. {{Ping|User:Ohnoitsjamie}}, let's engage on this. Nothing on this talk page supports removing it. [[User:Yopienso|YoPienso]] ([[User talk:Yopienso|talk]]) 21:33, 4 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::: There's already a paragraph about his felony conviction in the lede. The first sentence of the article should sum up what he's primarily known for. Other examples include [[Martha Stewart]] and [[Jesse Jackson Jr.]]; both were convicted of crimes, and in both cases that's mentioned in the lede but not the first sentence. In other cases, such as [[Bernie Madoff]], it is mentioned in the first sentence because it's what he's primarily known for. <b>[[User:Ohnoitsjamie|OhNo<span style="color: #D47C14;">itsJamie</span>]] [[User talk:Ohnoitsjamie|<sup>Talk</sup>]]</b> 22:34, 4 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Your [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conrad_Black&type=revision&diff=1108518335&oldid=1108517443 edit summary] reverting my restoration of an IP's removal of "convicted fraudster" in the lead says "there's no consensus for it to be in the first sentence." Yet is has been there for almost 10 years, having by removed a few times by you and maybe others but always restored. That is consensus by both default and by restoration after brief removals. Here's what I think is the first addition, on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conrad_Black&diff=519703369&oldid=519665984 October 25, 2012]. The onus is on you to give evidence that a long-standing descriptor should be removed. I would be open to "pardoned felon" or some such other iteration. Please do not edit war. Thanks, [[User:Yopienso|YoPienso]] ([[User talk:Yopienso|talk]]) 23:07, 4 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::: A single [[WP:BLP|policy-based]] revert is hardly edit-warring. "Fraudster" doesn't belong in the [[MOS:FIRST|first sentence]] unless that's what the individual is primarily known for, and as I noted we have numerous examples of that in action. The fact that "fraudster" has been in the the first sentence for stretches of time does not imply consensus, nor does it confer some sort of "tenure" on that content.<b>[[User:Ohnoitsjamie|OhNo<span style="color: #D47C14;">itsJamie</span>]] [[User talk:Ohnoitsjamie|<sup>Talk</sup>]]</b> 23:19, 4 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Hi! Thanks for replying. I don't mean to be confrontational. |
|||
::::::::About edit-warring, I meant going forward. Also, I thought your revert of Aug. 18 was removing "fraudster," when in fact it seems to be restoring it. Why is that? |
|||
::::::::Black is known for several things, most recently for Trump's pardon. Beyond stylistic considerations, there's no limit to descriptors for a subject. We appropriately have "newspaper publisher, businessman, and writer" first. Just google him and you'll see how well known he is for his criminal conviction. Even [https://www.britannica.com/biography/Conrad-Black Encyclopaedia Britannica]--which I realize is not as eminent as it used to be--headlines his felony. It doesn't call him a felon, but it does have the felony in the lead paragraph, and gives it a great deal of weight and space in the article. |
|||
::::::::When a fact has been in an article for a long time and restored every time it's been removed, there's a consensus that it should be there. [[WP:EDITCON]]: "Wikipedia consensus usually occurs implicitly. An edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted. Should another editor revise that edit then the new edit will have presumed consensus until it meets with disagreement. In this way, the encyclopedia gradually improves over time." |
|||
::::::::If you feel Black shouldn't be described as a felon, fraudster, pardoned felon, or some such thing in the lead, please take it to talk. I'm not sure a lot of editors are watchin this page or caring much about it, so you may need to make an RfC. Happy editing, [[User:Yopienso|YoPienso]] ([[User talk:Yopienso|talk]]) 23:51, 4 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::: Please take it to talk? Is there some other talk page I'm not aware of? I've created an RFC below; pinging [[User:Richard-of-Earth]] and [[User:Remes]] who participated in an earlier discussion. <b>[[User:Ohnoitsjamie|OhNo<span style="color: #D47C14;">itsJamie</span>]] [[User talk:Ohnoitsjamie|<sup>Talk</sup>]]</b> 23:55, 4 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::I hadn't actually read the preceding paragraphs, just the title, which I wrongly assumed meant exactly what it says. |
|||
::::::::::You may find it odd that at least for now I'm not chiming in on the RFC, which I'm glad you started. I can see both sides of the argument. I was objecting to the abrupt removal of content that has had consensus for 10 years. Best wishes, [[User:Yopienso|YoPienso]] ([[User talk:Yopienso|talk]]) 00:25, 5 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== RFC: Should the first sentence include the descriptor "fraudster"? == |
|||
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' or '''failed''' to let others know (documentation at {{tlx|Sourcecheck}}). |
|||
<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 01:01, 10 October 2022 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1665363680}} |
|||
{{closed rfc top|result= Consensus was reached ''not'' to include the descriptor [[User:JamesLewisBedford01|JamesLewisBedford01]] ([[User talk:JamesLewisBedford01|talk]]) 01:25, 18 September 2022 (UTC)}} |
|||
Should the first sentence of the article include a term such as "fraudster" or "convicted criminial"? <b>[[User:Ohnoitsjamie|OhNo<span style="color: #D47C14;">itsJamie</span>]] [[User talk:Ohnoitsjamie|<sup>Talk</sup>]]</b> 00:07, 5 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*'''No''' The third paragraph of [[WP:LEDE]] already summarizes his conviction, sentencing, and subsequent events, and as such it's not appropriate to label him in the [[MOS:FIRST|first sentence]]. Black is not primarily known for his crime; similar to other articles such as [[Martha Stewart]] and [[Jesse Jackson Jr.]], we don't describe them as a criminal in the first sentence, but notable legal issues are noted later in the lede. For other individuals such as [[Bernie Madoff]] who are primarily known for their crime/conviction, it is appropriate to mention it in the first sentence. <b>[[User:Ohnoitsjamie|OhNo<span style="color: #D47C14;">itsJamie</span>]] [[User talk:Ohnoitsjamie|<sup>Talk</sup>]]</b> 00:07, 5 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*'''No'''. My views are fairly close to that of Ohnoitsjamie, where if someone isn't primarily notable for it, a negative label should not be applied in the first sentence of an article. I'd also like to note that Ravelston sounds like a fake company run by an ancient vampire in an HBO prestige genre drama. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 00:20, 5 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*'''No'''. I guess this relates to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conrad_Black&diff=1108517443&oldid=1108500669 a re-insertion] by [[User:Yopienso|Yopienso]]. I mentioned Conrad Black in a 2020 discussion [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/Archive_46#Applying_controversial_labels_to_people Applying controversial labels to people] where it seemed to me that some participants were not in favour of emphasizing criminality thus. [[User:Peter Gulutzan|Peter Gulutzan]] ([[User talk:Peter Gulutzan|talk]]) 18:26, 5 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*:More technically, it's in response to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conrad_Black&diff=next&oldid=1108517443 OhNoitsJamie's assertion] that "there's no consensus for it to be in the first sentence" after it had been there for a decade. (It was removed and promptly restored a few times during those nearly 10 yrs.) I agree it's best not to describe Black as a fraudster in the first sentence. [[User:Yopienso|YoPienso]] ([[User talk:Yopienso|talk]]) 18:47, 5 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*'''No''' - his legal issues are already sufficiently covered in the [[WP:LEAD]]. What I was most concerned with was that in reading the first sentence of "former newspaper publisher, businessman, and writer" I assumed he was a former businessman and former writer. I read further and realized that is not true. [[User:Fyunck(click)|Fyunck(click)]] ([[User talk:Fyunck(click)|talk]]) 22:00, 6 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*'''No'''. It is one part of a biography, and warrants inclusion in the lead, but not a defining characteristic for the first sentence. I also don't think {{tl|Infobox criminal}} should be used in [[Conrad_Black#Fraud_conviction]] (which itself appears to itself be given disproportionate emphasis, with a sensationalist, play-by-play, breaking news, precise dates, [[WP:PROSELINE]] style; a full-blown case of [[WP:RECENTISM]], even 10+ years later). Usage notes at [[Template:Infobox criminal]] inlude: {{xt|This template is generally reserved for convicted serial killers, gangsters, mass murderers, old west outlaws, murderers, mafia members, fugitives, FBI 10 Most Wanted, serial rapists, mobsters, and other notorious criminals... Infobox criminal is rarely used where notability is not due '''primarily''' to the person being a convicted criminal.}} Its placement in an already bloated section appears little more than shoe-horning and piling-on by political opponents. Not even [[O. J. Simpson]], who has at least two subsidiary articles on his trials and convictions ("a crime of the century"), has {{tl|Infobox criminal}} anywhere. The fraud convction section should be given a comprehensive rewrite per [[WP:10YEARTEST]], with trivial or out-of-date elements removed (do readers in 2022 absolutely need to know the exact date of every legal filing, and that "{{xt|His next court appearance, where he might reapply for permission to return to Canada, was set for 20 September 2010}}?) I've said it many times: Wikipedians tend to be good compilers but poor editors. [[User:Animalparty|--Animalparty!]] ([[User talk:Animalparty|talk]]) 22:12, 6 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::Good point about the "criminal" infobox; I've removed it.<b>[[User:Ohnoitsjamie|OhNo<span style="color: #D47C14;">itsJamie</span>]] [[User talk:Ohnoitsjamie|<sup>Talk</sup>]]</b> 22:25, 6 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''No.''' They seem to be more notable for other things, so I think the lead calling them a criminal is [[wp:libel|libel]]ous. '''@'''<small>[[User:ClydeFranklin|<span style="color:#218383">CLYDE</span>]][[User talk:ClydeFranklin|<span style="color:#C431C4">FRANKLIN</span>]]</small> 02:08, 10 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
* '''No'''. The reasoning provided by OhNoitsJamie is completely sound. [[User:Barnards.tar.gz|Barnards.tar.gz]] ([[User talk:Barnards.tar.gz|talk]]) 08:34, 12 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
{{closed rfc bottom}} |
|||
== Nickle Resolution == |
|||
{{sourcecheck|checked=false}} |
|||
The Nickel resolution cannot "bans British honours for Canadian citizens". It provides policy guidance to the government, that's it. It hasn't the legal capability of banning such honours. [[Special:Contributions/216.121.144.59|216.121.144.59]] ([[User talk:216.121.144.59|talk]]) 20:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Cheers.—[[User:Cyberbot II|<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II</sup>]]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">[[User talk:Cyberbot II|<span style="color:green">Talk to my owner</span>]]:Online</sub></small> 20:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 20:09, 9 July 2024
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Conrad Black article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
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 It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Black x Jeffrey Epstein
[edit]Are we just going to overlook his connections to Jeffrey Epstein? https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/07/jeffrey-epstein-high-society-contacts.html
That Black wrote a hagiography of Trump is pertinent
[edit]Every single RS that covers the Black pardon notes that Black basically wrote a hagiography of the man:
This is crucial context that many RS deem so important as to put in the headline next to the mention of the pardon. Omitting this is a NPOV violation. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
- Agree. Who's omitting it? I just inserted "hagiographic" into the line I added a week or two ago about the book. YoPienso (talk) 14:30, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
- Oh, I see; will restore. YoPienso (talk) 14:32, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
- I removed some language which stated that the pardon was "following the publication" of the book. The sources indicate that it was a year after the publication of the book. The original language would lead a reader to believe that the book was published and then perhaps a week later the pardon came down. So I've changed that to add more detail. Cosmic Sans (talk) 17:25, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
- But in so doing you misrepresent the sources, all of which mention the biography, as demonstrated above. YoPienso (talk) 14:28, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
- I mentioned the biography. None of the sources, though, use the terminology that we had previously used in the lede. Cosmic Sans (talk) 19:25, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
- But in so doing you misrepresent the sources, all of which mention the biography, as demonstrated above. YoPienso (talk) 14:28, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
- Looks like most of the sources use the word "flattering" not "glowing." By the way, none of the sources use the word, "fawning," which Snooganssnoogans origially edit-warred to try to keep in. What gives, Snooganssnoogans? AppliedCharisma (talk) 16:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
- An IP editor keeps edit-warring this out of the lead. It's obviously pertinent to his pardon that he wrote a hagiography of the President just prior. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:29, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- I agree that this is quite pertinent, and is mentioned in virtually all sources discussing the pardon, and have restored the content. --Neutralitytalk 18:19, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- It is reasonable to mention that Mr. Black wrote a biography of President Trump. It is also reasonable to mention that he was pardoned by President Trump about a year after the biography was published. What is not reasonable is to make an unreferenced statement that the biography was fawning, glowing, or flattering without a citation to a reliable source. More importantly, mentioning the biography and the pardon together in the lede implies causation and gives the statements undue weight. Both the pardon and biography are discussed in the body of an article, and a reader can draw his own conclusions. GlassBones (talk) 18:52, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
- Facts in the lead don't have to be referenced if they're referenced in the body. "Glowing" is referenced in the lead and "flattering" in the body. I'll change "flattering" to "glowing" in the lead, and also join the two sentences, because the RSs are clearly linking Black's praise of Trump to the pardon. YoPienso (talk) 18:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
- It is reasonable to mention that Mr. Black wrote a biography of President Trump. It is also reasonable to mention that he was pardoned by President Trump about a year after the biography was published. What is not reasonable is to make an unreferenced statement that the biography was fawning, glowing, or flattering without a citation to a reliable source. More importantly, mentioning the biography and the pardon together in the lede implies causation and gives the statements undue weight. Both the pardon and biography are discussed in the body of an article, and a reader can draw his own conclusions. GlassBones (talk) 18:52, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
- @GlassBones: In looking at your editing history, it occurs to me you may not understand that the lead introduces and summarizes what the article says. You seem to have the impression that if something is mentioned in the body, it doesn't have to be in the lead. Just the opposite it true: something heavily treated in the body should be in the lead. I recommend a look at WP:MOSLEAD, which says "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic." Best wishes, YoPienso (talk) 19:18, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
- @GlassBones: please revert your most recent edit to the lead. Please refrain from editing the article until you have discussed your issues here at talk and we have arrived at a consensus. Thank you. YoPienso (talk) 19:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
- I'm inserting the word "favorable" (to describe biography) into the lead because it's important the reader not assume the biography is objective. The press overwhelmingly refers to the book as "glowing" or "flattering"; "favorable" is the most neutral word I can come up with. ("Admiring" is another possibility.) I'm removing "a year later," because that's obvious from the dates given so closely together. I'm joining the two sentences because virtually all RSs connect the book with the pardon. Please see the 15 sources linked to above, as well as "Trump Pardons His Friend Conrad Black, Who Wrote Glowing Trump Biography Last Year" by Laurel Wamsley, published by NPR on May 16, 2019. YoPienso (talk) 19:10, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- Style-wise, "biography favorable of" may be better than "favorable biography." YoPienso (talk) 19:14, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- I'm inserting the word "favorable" (to describe biography) into the lead because it's important the reader not assume the biography is objective. The press overwhelmingly refers to the book as "glowing" or "flattering"; "favorable" is the most neutral word I can come up with. ("Admiring" is another possibility.) I'm removing "a year later," because that's obvious from the dates given so closely together. I'm joining the two sentences because virtually all RSs connect the book with the pardon. Please see the 15 sources linked to above, as well as "Trump Pardons His Friend Conrad Black, Who Wrote Glowing Trump Biography Last Year" by Laurel Wamsley, published by NPR on May 16, 2019. YoPienso (talk) 19:10, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- The last sentence in the lead current reads: "In 2018, Black wrote a favorable biography of President Donald Trump; on May 15, 2019, Trump granted him a full pardon."[16] That is implicit synthesis, implying that Trump granted the pardon because Black wrote a book about him and by implication the pardon was undeserved. That's a clear BLP violation for both Black and Trump and I will edit it. If any editor wants to state the connection it must be explicit and sourced. TFD (talk) 01:25, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- @The Four Deuces: Please take the time to read the comments here before summarily reverting. At the top of this section are 12 RSs (all 15 given except 3, 8, and 10) that explicitly link the pardon to the book. (Source #3 links the pardon to an earlier favorable column Black wrote about Trump; source #8 calls Black "a political ally and longtime associate of Mr. Trump’s," and source #10 is a dead link to a Time article.) At 19:10, 15 February 2020 I wrote, immediately above your comment, "I'm joining the two sentences because virtually all RSs connect the book with the pardon." YoPienso (talk) 01:54, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- The source used (WAPO) does not make an explicit connection. Which of the sources explicitly say that Trump pardoned Black because of his book? The fact that Black and Trump were long term allies and associates (in fact Trump said Black was innocent when he was prosecuted) actually argues against the view that he pardoned him because of the book. Presumably if they were that close he would have pardoned him anyway. TFD (talk) 02:38, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- The very first sentence of the WaPo article is "President Trump gave a full pardon to a longtime friend who last year wrote a glowing book about Trump’s successes." YoPienso (talk) 02:43, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- The second source on this page says, "Donald Trump has pardoned Conrad Black, the former media mogul who owned the Daily Telegraph and the Spectator before being jailed for fraud, shortly after he wrote a book praising the US president." Etc. Twelve sources LINK the two events; I'm not sure if any show cause-and-effect. Neither does the sentence I've just restored to the article: just like the sources, it links them. YoPienso (talk) 02:46, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- The sources do make an explicit connection, but do not explicitly say Trump pardoned Black because Black wrote that book. YoPienso (talk) 02:48, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- A number of the sources--which you can check out for yourself, btw--point out that Trump did not mention Black's biography of him when he explained why he thought Black deserved a pardon. The fact that the stories made a point of it is a suggestion that the sources suspect Trump was influenced by the fact that Black praised him in print. Here's what NBC said: "The White House statement did not mention that Black wrote what was described as a flattering biography of Trump published in 2018, titled Donald J. Trump: A President Like No Other." This was under a large-font headline, Trump pardons ex-media mogul Conrad Black, who wrote flattering biography of him, and a smaller-print headline right under it, The convicted fraudster is the author of "Donald J. Trump: A President Like No Other," which came out last year. YoPienso (talk) 02:59, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- What is the explicit connection made? I have posted a discussion to BLPN. TFD (talk) 19:42, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- Ten hours before you did that, I removed mention of the book from the lead. I gave a full account in my edit summary--I don't think the lead has to give the complete date of the pardon (but year only) or the detail about the flattering book, which is covered in the body--but guess I should have also mentioned it here at talk. I assure you I want an article as unbiased as possible, forthcoming but not accusatory. YoPienso (talk) 00:30, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
- The source used (WAPO) does not make an explicit connection. Which of the sources explicitly say that Trump pardoned Black because of his book? The fact that Black and Trump were long term allies and associates (in fact Trump said Black was innocent when he was prosecuted) actually argues against the view that he pardoned him because of the book. Presumably if they were that close he would have pardoned him anyway. TFD (talk) 02:38, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- @The Four Deuces: Please take the time to read the comments here before summarily reverting. At the top of this section are 12 RSs (all 15 given except 3, 8, and 10) that explicitly link the pardon to the book. (Source #3 links the pardon to an earlier favorable column Black wrote about Trump; source #8 calls Black "a political ally and longtime associate of Mr. Trump’s," and source #10 is a dead link to a Time article.) At 19:10, 15 February 2020 I wrote, immediately above your comment, "I'm joining the two sentences because virtually all RSs connect the book with the pardon." YoPienso (talk) 01:54, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
RfC: Flattering biography of Donald Trump
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Should the lead note that Black wrote a "flattering biography of Donald Trump" and that he was pardoned by President Trump? Currently, the lead says Black was pardoned but it doesn't say by whom, and it doesn't include the context that Black had just prior to the pardon released a hagiography of Trump. (Original timestamp: 12:55, 13 May 2020) Snooganssnoogans (talk) 05:35, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Survey
[edit]- Yes, include. Every single RS that covers the Black pardon notes that Black wrote a flattering biography of Trump, Donald J. Trump: A President Like No Other, in 2018:
- This is crucial context that many RS deem so important as to put in the headline next to the mention of the pardon. Omitting this is a NPOV violation. Furthermore, it's completely inexplicable that the lead can't mention that Black was pardoned by Trump. It is the most basic pertinent content that I can think of. There's not a single justification for just vaguely saying "he was pardoned", without clarifying by whom. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:59, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support mentioning Trump, I think that's pretty relevant. I don't know if the other bit is necessary in the lede and I feel like "flattering" shouldn't be in Wikipedia's Voice. Maybe "positive" or something? I don't know. ~ HAL333 20:01, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- Not in lead the juxtaposition is presenting an OR and false impression of a quid-pro-quo, and just isn't a significant amount of the article so does not belong in lead per WP:LEAD. That he had already served his time years before or that he wrote many books is not mentioned, although those are both clearly much bigger parts of his BLP life. This seems just indulging some anti-Trump conspiracy theory and sensationalizing being given UNDUE prominence, it's not something about *Blacks* life. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:44, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- The juxtaposition is made by EVERY SINGLE RELIABLE SOURCE that covered the pardon. It's a grotesque NPOV violation to leave it out. It would be an egregious example of OR to exclude the content when EVERY SINGLE RS deems it crucial context.Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:53, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, include. It is important for the lead to mention Trump in the Black's pardon. Idealigic (talk) 11:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- Include but not in current configuration in lead. Anyone would draw a causal link between them and it's clearly notable, but putting the two claims next to each other puts us in the position of implying the causality by insinuation. This gives the impression of a lack of neutrality. A potential solution to this is to have a longer lead which refers to a number of books he has written, and then conclude with his pardoning by Trump. That way, both the pieces of information (noteworthy) are in the lead, but they are not placed together in such a way as to appear to violate WP:OR. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 13:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- If you choose to pardon a grifter who just so happened to have a written a hagiography about you, then of course any rational person will draw a causal link between the two. That just stating the facts naturally lead most readers to assume a quid pro quo (which is not stated in the lead) does not mean we have to obscure the facts and omit what EVERY SINGLE RS deems to be absolutely pertinent information. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:41, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- The question really boils down to: should we hide facts from readers that all RS report because we don't want readers to draw conclusions that the facts themselves might lead to? It's as if we were to hide that Robert F. Kennedy served in his brother John F. Kennedy's administration because readers will draw the inevitable conclusion that he only served in the administration due to nepotism. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:38, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- What are these facts that are being hidden? Korny O'Near (talk) 22:36, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- That he wrote a hagiography of Trump prior to being pardoned by Trump. Please pay attention to the RfC that you're voting in. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:40, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- That fact is not hidden. The year of his Trump biography (2018) is in the article, as is the year of the Trump pardon (2019). That it's a "hagiography" is a matter of opinion. (Though if it's an opinion that many people share, that should probably be in the article too.) Korny O'Near (talk) 04:43, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- That he wrote a hagiography of Trump prior to being pardoned by Trump. Please pay attention to the RfC that you're voting in. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:40, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- What are these facts that are being hidden? Korny O'Near (talk) 22:36, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Mention Trump but not biography - obviously the person who pardoned him should be mentioned. But mentioning the biography is an awkward attempt at synthesis and/or insinuation, as others have noted. Sure, a lot of sources have noted both things, but have any actually said that the pardon came about because of the biography? Is there any proof of that? Plus, this is an article about a someone with a successful, 50-year career in publishing - it's not clear that, even if the biography were the cause of the pardon, it would be an important enough fact to include in the intro. Let's remember that we're writing about Conrad Black, not Donald Trump. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:17, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- This is not a trial where we have to prove anything. And there's not any causal claim being considered in the lead, so what is there to be proved? That he wrote a hagiography of Trump is a fact. Also, it's not SYNTH to state what every single RS has stated about the pardon. Rather than present the sequence of events as EVERY SINGLE RS has done, you are instead advocating that we omit completely relevant information so that readers purposely will not have the relevant information. That's the original research here: editors deciding to omit RS content just because they personally dislike that the facts on their own imply sycophantism and quid pro quo. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:41, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- No, it's not a trial, but there still has to be some proof of everything; that's what all these references are for, after all. Again, there are two issues here: whether this juxtaposition should be mentioned at all, and whether it should be mentioned in the intro. The case for the former is weak, but the case for the latter is much weaker. These news articles that include this juxtaposition are articles about one specific episode in a man's long life and career, so they're not really relevant to decisions about the intro. Let me note, looking at the intro again, that it needs a lot of work. Almost half of it right now is about his legal troubles. Meanwhile, the intro says nothing about his life peerage, his political views, or his TV gigs, and mentions only one of his 10+ books (guess which one). Korny O'Near (talk) 16:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- Okay, I just expanded the intro, though I kept that "all-important" reference to his biography of Donald Trump - which I think looks even more out of place now. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- What "proof" could exist? Anyone who claims that they understand what's going on in Trump's head is mistaken. The only "proof" relevant to Wikipedia is the words of reliable secondary sources, who have their own ways of determining truth or reasonable provability. We can't relitigate the facts as if we are a newspaper because this is not the purpose of a tertiary source and we would be very ill-placed to judge this. — Bilorv (talk) 12:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Okay, I just expanded the intro, though I kept that "all-important" reference to his biography of Donald Trump - which I think looks even more out of place now. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- No, it's not a trial, but there still has to be some proof of everything; that's what all these references are for, after all. Again, there are two issues here: whether this juxtaposition should be mentioned at all, and whether it should be mentioned in the intro. The case for the former is weak, but the case for the latter is much weaker. These news articles that include this juxtaposition are articles about one specific episode in a man's long life and career, so they're not really relevant to decisions about the intro. Let me note, looking at the intro again, that it needs a lot of work. Almost half of it right now is about his legal troubles. Meanwhile, the intro says nothing about his life peerage, his political views, or his TV gigs, and mentions only one of his 10+ books (guess which one). Korny O'Near (talk) 16:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, include I conjecture that it would be relatively related and helpful; at least based on my assumption! Ali Ahwazi (talk) 09:06, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, include - per Snooganssnoogans, we are following the story told by RS. Frankly it should even be extended that Trump is his friend. starship.paint (talk) 01:13, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- No, don't include as phrased. It is the crudest kind of implied synth as currently phrased - quid pro quo, which is not anywhere near as bluntly put as that in the sources - some of which think that the pardon was inevitable long before the biography, given their backstory. What IS said in the sources very clearly is that the two have been personal friends for a longtime/ have had business dealings in the past/ CB has been a supporter of DT/ DT was due to be a character witness for CB's trial, but was not called. All this deserves to be recorded in the body and is probably a great deal more relevant than a biography that perhaps no one read, about someone who most people already have a clear opinion about anyway. Possibly the longterm friendship/support could be in the lead along with the pardon if concise wording for that can be found. Pincrete (talk) 09:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- "It is the crudest kind of implied synth as currently phrased - quid pro quo, which is not anywhere near as bluntly put as that in the sources" – That is completely and utterly false (and the closer should judge this vote accordingly). The sources go further than the proposed text. The proposed text just lays out the facts. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:14, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support mentioning Trump but not friendship/biography in lead. Scanning through the Google News results for "Conrad Black pardon", it seems about half of the titles include the friend/biography aspect and half don't, while all mention Donald Trump. The connection between the pardon and their friendship/biography is not universally included in top-level info so isn't appropriate for the lead of his article here. Along the same lines, the lead should be a summary of the most significant elements of the person's life; my gut feel is that the pardon itself is significant enough to be included but the reason behind it is not and is more appropriate in the body. -M.Nelson (talk) 14:19, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
- Headlines are not generally reliable or how we determine due weight. I believe there's been significant recent discussion on this point and there's consensus that, for example, information or spin only present in the headlines of some sources is not reliable or significant critical opinion. — Bilorv (talk) 12:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Support just mentioning Trump--obviously it's fine to clarify who pardoned him. However, Wikipedia, and especially BLPs, are WP:NOTGOSSIP. The provided sources only contain speculations--none of them provide evidence that Trump pardoned him due to his book. We don't include unconfirmed conjectures in BLPs, even if sources do. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 07:53, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, include. Sources provide ample coverage of the pardon and Black's laudatory book about Trump. Both are biographically significant, and many very high-quality sources explicitly draw a connection between the book and the pardon. Our job here is to reflect what the RS say. The comments asserting that the connection is "synthesis" are simply incorrect. Even a quick perusal of the sources makes clear that the sources draw a connection between the pardon and Black's consistent public praise for Trump. Neutralitytalk 22:38, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
- Yes - Seems pretty obvious to me, numerous high-quality sources explicitly draw a connection between the book and the pardon. By omitting this we would be failing to reflect what authoritative reliable sources say. Bacondrum (talk) 00:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, the connection is heavily covered by WP:RSes to the point where it's a big part of what makes that aspect notable and a major aspect of Black's bio. --Aquillion (talk) 13:36, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, include. Yopienso has summarized well how the sources present the book and the pardon. Sources do not say explicitly that Black was pardoned *because of* the book. Yet, every one makes the implicit insinuation through the immediate juxtaposition of the book/pardon. In a vacuum, I'd agree with TFD that we'd be improperly implying a causal relationship by mentioning both the book and the pardon so close together in the lede. But the reliable sources here fill up the vacuum. We follow the sources. The predominance of sources mention both the book and the pardon in close proximity, and it seems hardly ever one without the other; so we should do that too.Moishe Rosenbaum (talk) 14:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- No-The lead can say that Black wrote a favorable biography of Trump and that he was pardoned by Trump, but in order to avoid partiality, it should not imply without evidence that these two events are connected, as this version does. The word "flattering" has a decidedly inauspicious context and should be replaced. Display name 99 (talk) 00:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, include both. Most objections are based on willful misunderstandings of WP:NPOV (see WP:FALSEBALANCE) or WP:SYNTH. Reliable sources overwhelmingly show the significance of both facts, to the point where if either are omitted then the pardon must not be mentioned in the lead (which I believe no-one has advocated). — Bilorv (talk) 12:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yes to both. Clearly relevant context to an important part of his life. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 10:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- Include the fraud conviction, Trump biography, and pardon in the lead, but I'd suggest altering the text devoted to these issues. Called by bot. Snooganssnoogans has demonstrated that this issue has enough coverage that it should be in the lead. Some details present in the current text seem unnecessary however, while the fact that the Supreme Court heard his appeal is not mentioned. I'd suggest something like this:
In 2007, Black was convicted of obstruction of justice and defrauding [Chicago Sun-Times?] investors in the United States; his appeal ultimately reached the Supreme Court. While incarcerated Black wrote accounts of the prison system, and a flattering biography of U.S. President Donald Trump. Trump pardoned Black in 2019.
- I've placed brackets around the "Sun Times?" text because I'm not sure if those were the specific investors defrauded?
- Lobbying from such noble characters as Henry Kissinger and Rush Limbaugh. With friends like these... -Darouet (talk) 15:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yes: I haven't gone through every single RS link in the opener of the RfC, but the Washington Post article definitely mentions them in connection (as well as the interesting "
Black, whose media company owned the Chicago Sun Times, at one time partnered with Trump to build Trump Tower in Chicago
" -- wowzers!) and the NYT has this to say:
The pardon of Mr. Black, a political ally and longtime associate of Mr. Trump’s, was the latest example of the president using one of the unilateral powers of his office to absolve a high-profile public figure whose case resonates with him personally, bucking the more traditional practice of sifting through thousands of pardon applications awaiting his review. [...] His pardon of Mr. Black, a personal friend and the author of pro-Trump opinion pieces as well as a flattering book, “Donald J. Trump: A President Like No Other,”
- While we can hem and haw about whether the pardon was connected specifically to his biography, it seems reasonable to say both that the pardon was probably due to a personal connection between the two, and that the sources are in consensus on the issue (even if the thing they're in consensus on is to say it as innuendo). I think that the best thing to put in the article would probably be a phrase with similar preterition. Here is what it currently says:
n 2007, he was convicted on four counts of fraud in U.S. District Court in Chicago. While two of the criminal fraud charges were dropped on appeal, a conviction for felony fraud and obstruction of justice was upheld in 2010 and he was re-sentenced to 42 months in prison and a fine of $125,000. In 2019, U.S. President Donald Trump granted him a presidential pardon.
- Here is something that I think would be justified:
n 2007, he was convicted on four counts of fraud in U.S. District Court in Chicago. While two of the criminal fraud charges were dropped on appeal, a conviction for felony fraud and obstruction of justice was upheld in 2010 and he was re-sentenced to 42 months in prison and a fine of $125,000. In 2019, U.S. President Donald Trump, a former business partner about whom Black had written a "flattering" biography the year before, granted him a presidential pardon.
- This doesn't really say it, because the articles being referenced also don't really say it -- because, well, how can you prove something like that is true? The involved parties have every incentive to just say that wasn't what was going on; obviously it's suspicious, but the only thing you can say with confidence is that it looks fishy. Saying more would be WP:SYNTH, but I think we ought to say at least that much. Darouet's version above also looks good to me. jp×g 19:02, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Since he was pardoned, is he still a criminal?
[edit]There has been some changes to the lead sentence that initially included "convicted criminal", was removed by an IP user and now has "pardoned criminal" in its place. I am sure there are lots of biographies on Wikipedia of people who have been convicted crimes, been to jail, but do not have criminal in their lead sentence. Are we justified in calling this man criminal, pardoned or otherwise? Is this a WP:BLP violation? See WP:BLPCRIME and WP:PERPETRATOR and post opinions here. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 17:43, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- I found sub section in a WP:BPL/N discussion about Stephen M. Cohen at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive156#Using the descriptor - is an American criminal in the intro that seems pertinent. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:10, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- His conviction and pardoning are certainly worth mentioning in the article, but it seems odd and awkward to mention it in the second sentence, or put it in the infobox. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Black's being a pardoned criminal is one of the things that makes him notable. It shapes his role in the House of Lords, it shapes his legacy at the company where the fraud took place, and it shapes his continuing role in Canadian media and politics. Failing to include the description "pardoned criminal" in the introduction to the article seems like doing a disservice to readers. Remes (talk) 01:16, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- But the fact he was pardon of a crime is mentioned in the third paragraph, so I do not see the disservice. It does not seem like this guy is a career criminal; it seems like the desire to label this guy is politicly motivated. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 01:59, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- User:Ohnoitsjamie tells me there's no consensus for "fraudster" in the lead, yet it's been there continuously since Nov. 19, 2021, except for their removal on Jan. 17, 2022, and has been in this article for years in some iteration. Here it is on Feb. 19, 2015 as "convicted felon". Looks to me that there's consensus to identify Black as a felon or fraudster, which he is, and is widely known for. We could call him a "pardoned felon" if that's better. @Ohnoitsjamie:, let's engage on this. Nothing on this talk page supports removing it. YoPienso (talk) 21:33, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- There's already a paragraph about his felony conviction in the lede. The first sentence of the article should sum up what he's primarily known for. Other examples include Martha Stewart and Jesse Jackson Jr.; both were convicted of crimes, and in both cases that's mentioned in the lede but not the first sentence. In other cases, such as Bernie Madoff, it is mentioned in the first sentence because it's what he's primarily known for. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:34, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- Your edit summary reverting my restoration of an IP's removal of "convicted fraudster" in the lead says "there's no consensus for it to be in the first sentence." Yet is has been there for almost 10 years, having by removed a few times by you and maybe others but always restored. That is consensus by both default and by restoration after brief removals. Here's what I think is the first addition, on October 25, 2012. The onus is on you to give evidence that a long-standing descriptor should be removed. I would be open to "pardoned felon" or some such other iteration. Please do not edit war. Thanks, YoPienso (talk) 23:07, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- A single policy-based revert is hardly edit-warring. "Fraudster" doesn't belong in the first sentence unless that's what the individual is primarily known for, and as I noted we have numerous examples of that in action. The fact that "fraudster" has been in the the first sentence for stretches of time does not imply consensus, nor does it confer some sort of "tenure" on that content.OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:19, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- Hi! Thanks for replying. I don't mean to be confrontational.
- About edit-warring, I meant going forward. Also, I thought your revert of Aug. 18 was removing "fraudster," when in fact it seems to be restoring it. Why is that?
- Black is known for several things, most recently for Trump's pardon. Beyond stylistic considerations, there's no limit to descriptors for a subject. We appropriately have "newspaper publisher, businessman, and writer" first. Just google him and you'll see how well known he is for his criminal conviction. Even Encyclopaedia Britannica--which I realize is not as eminent as it used to be--headlines his felony. It doesn't call him a felon, but it does have the felony in the lead paragraph, and gives it a great deal of weight and space in the article.
- When a fact has been in an article for a long time and restored every time it's been removed, there's a consensus that it should be there. WP:EDITCON: "Wikipedia consensus usually occurs implicitly. An edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted. Should another editor revise that edit then the new edit will have presumed consensus until it meets with disagreement. In this way, the encyclopedia gradually improves over time."
- If you feel Black shouldn't be described as a felon, fraudster, pardoned felon, or some such thing in the lead, please take it to talk. I'm not sure a lot of editors are watchin this page or caring much about it, so you may need to make an RfC. Happy editing, YoPienso (talk) 23:51, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- Please take it to talk? Is there some other talk page I'm not aware of? I've created an RFC below; pinging User:Richard-of-Earth and User:Remes who participated in an earlier discussion. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:55, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- I hadn't actually read the preceding paragraphs, just the title, which I wrongly assumed meant exactly what it says.
- You may find it odd that at least for now I'm not chiming in on the RFC, which I'm glad you started. I can see both sides of the argument. I was objecting to the abrupt removal of content that has had consensus for 10 years. Best wishes, YoPienso (talk) 00:25, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- Please take it to talk? Is there some other talk page I'm not aware of? I've created an RFC below; pinging User:Richard-of-Earth and User:Remes who participated in an earlier discussion. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:55, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- A single policy-based revert is hardly edit-warring. "Fraudster" doesn't belong in the first sentence unless that's what the individual is primarily known for, and as I noted we have numerous examples of that in action. The fact that "fraudster" has been in the the first sentence for stretches of time does not imply consensus, nor does it confer some sort of "tenure" on that content.OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:19, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- Your edit summary reverting my restoration of an IP's removal of "convicted fraudster" in the lead says "there's no consensus for it to be in the first sentence." Yet is has been there for almost 10 years, having by removed a few times by you and maybe others but always restored. That is consensus by both default and by restoration after brief removals. Here's what I think is the first addition, on October 25, 2012. The onus is on you to give evidence that a long-standing descriptor should be removed. I would be open to "pardoned felon" or some such other iteration. Please do not edit war. Thanks, YoPienso (talk) 23:07, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- There's already a paragraph about his felony conviction in the lede. The first sentence of the article should sum up what he's primarily known for. Other examples include Martha Stewart and Jesse Jackson Jr.; both were convicted of crimes, and in both cases that's mentioned in the lede but not the first sentence. In other cases, such as Bernie Madoff, it is mentioned in the first sentence because it's what he's primarily known for. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:34, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- User:Ohnoitsjamie tells me there's no consensus for "fraudster" in the lead, yet it's been there continuously since Nov. 19, 2021, except for their removal on Jan. 17, 2022, and has been in this article for years in some iteration. Here it is on Feb. 19, 2015 as "convicted felon". Looks to me that there's consensus to identify Black as a felon or fraudster, which he is, and is widely known for. We could call him a "pardoned felon" if that's better. @Ohnoitsjamie:, let's engage on this. Nothing on this talk page supports removing it. YoPienso (talk) 21:33, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- But the fact he was pardon of a crime is mentioned in the third paragraph, so I do not see the disservice. It does not seem like this guy is a career criminal; it seems like the desire to label this guy is politicly motivated. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 01:59, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
RFC: Should the first sentence include the descriptor "fraudster"?
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Should the first sentence of the article include a term such as "fraudster" or "convicted criminial"? OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:07, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- No The third paragraph of WP:LEDE already summarizes his conviction, sentencing, and subsequent events, and as such it's not appropriate to label him in the first sentence. Black is not primarily known for his crime; similar to other articles such as Martha Stewart and Jesse Jackson Jr., we don't describe them as a criminal in the first sentence, but notable legal issues are noted later in the lede. For other individuals such as Bernie Madoff who are primarily known for their crime/conviction, it is appropriate to mention it in the first sentence. OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:07, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- No. My views are fairly close to that of Ohnoitsjamie, where if someone isn't primarily notable for it, a negative label should not be applied in the first sentence of an article. I'd also like to note that Ravelston sounds like a fake company run by an ancient vampire in an HBO prestige genre drama. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:20, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- No. I guess this relates to a re-insertion by Yopienso. I mentioned Conrad Black in a 2020 discussion Applying controversial labels to people where it seemed to me that some participants were not in favour of emphasizing criminality thus. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:26, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- More technically, it's in response to OhNoitsJamie's assertion that "there's no consensus for it to be in the first sentence" after it had been there for a decade. (It was removed and promptly restored a few times during those nearly 10 yrs.) I agree it's best not to describe Black as a fraudster in the first sentence. YoPienso (talk) 18:47, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- No - his legal issues are already sufficiently covered in the WP:LEAD. What I was most concerned with was that in reading the first sentence of "former newspaper publisher, businessman, and writer" I assumed he was a former businessman and former writer. I read further and realized that is not true. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:00, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- No. It is one part of a biography, and warrants inclusion in the lead, but not a defining characteristic for the first sentence. I also don't think {{Infobox criminal}} should be used in Conrad_Black#Fraud_conviction (which itself appears to itself be given disproportionate emphasis, with a sensationalist, play-by-play, breaking news, precise dates, WP:PROSELINE style; a full-blown case of WP:RECENTISM, even 10+ years later). Usage notes at Template:Infobox criminal inlude: This template is generally reserved for convicted serial killers, gangsters, mass murderers, old west outlaws, murderers, mafia members, fugitives, FBI 10 Most Wanted, serial rapists, mobsters, and other notorious criminals... Infobox criminal is rarely used where notability is not due primarily to the person being a convicted criminal. Its placement in an already bloated section appears little more than shoe-horning and piling-on by political opponents. Not even O. J. Simpson, who has at least two subsidiary articles on his trials and convictions ("a crime of the century"), has {{Infobox criminal}} anywhere. The fraud convction section should be given a comprehensive rewrite per WP:10YEARTEST, with trivial or out-of-date elements removed (do readers in 2022 absolutely need to know the exact date of every legal filing, and that "His next court appearance, where he might reapply for permission to return to Canada, was set for 20 September 2010?) I've said it many times: Wikipedians tend to be good compilers but poor editors. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:12, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- Good point about the "criminal" infobox; I've removed it.OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:25, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- No. They seem to be more notable for other things, so I think the lead calling them a criminal is libelous. @CLYDEFRANKLIN 02:08, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
- No. The reasoning provided by OhNoitsJamie is completely sound. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 08:34, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Nickle Resolution
[edit]The Nickel resolution cannot "bans British honours for Canadian citizens". It provides policy guidance to the government, that's it. It hasn't the legal capability of banning such honours. 216.121.144.59 (talk) 20:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia controversial topics
- Biography articles of living people
- B-Class vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia vital articles in People
- B-Class level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles in People
- B-Class vital articles in People
- B-Class biography articles
- B-Class biography (peerage) articles
- Mid-importance biography (peerage) articles
- Peerage and Baronetage work group articles
- B-Class biography (politics and government) articles
- Mid-importance biography (politics and government) articles
- Politics and government work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- B-Class Politics of the United Kingdom articles
- Low-importance Politics of the United Kingdom articles
- B-Class Canada-related articles
- Mid-importance Canada-related articles
- B-Class Ontario articles
- Mid-importance Ontario articles
- B-Class Toronto articles
- High-importance Toronto articles
- All WikiProject Canada pages
- B-Class Media articles
- Low-importance Media articles
- WikiProject Media articles
- B-Class Journalism articles
- Low-importance Journalism articles
- WikiProject Journalism articles
- B-Class Crime-related articles
- Low-importance Crime-related articles
- WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
- B-Class United Kingdom articles
- Low-importance United Kingdom articles
- WikiProject United Kingdom articles