Talk:Canada Free Press

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Can an administrator look at this page please? Someone keeps trying to link Canada Free Press and editor Judi McLeod to neo-nazi Paul Fromm. He's had nothing to do with the paper, which is anti-racist. This is libel, and malicious at that. Hobbes000 20:14, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Or an inconvenient truth. McLeod's newspaper has published racist articles including this gem [1] "The admission of Turkey into the European Community will be the final blow to the Christian identity of Europe. Once the Turkish people are free to live in and work, legally, in the European nation of their choice, the problem will not be Paris burning but a deluge of Islamic immigrants into the Christian world which will be unstoppable. If one remembers with horror the acts of Black September, the Red Brigade, or the sectarian violence in Yugoslavia; then, just wait until every citizen of Turkey has a European Passport." You claim McLeod has written articles denouncing Ernst Zundel, Paul Fromm, etc but these articles are nowhere to be found. Links, please. Or were you hoping you could bluff us? That's a typical Judi McLeod tactic. In fact Judi McLeod refuses to write anything against Paul Fromm and published a short letter to the editor from him. --Cyberboomer 00:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Technically that sounds more like religious bigotry than racism.

Welcome to Wikipedia. I restored the text that you removed without explanation because you had provided no reason for removing it. Now that you have made your objections known, we can discuss what should appear in the article and what should not. I have notified the editor who posted this material, and invited him to comment. I also not that you removed references to the CFP beginning as Our Toronto Free Press, which seems to be true. For example, torontofreepress.com redirects to the CFP website. In the future, if you explain your edits, it will help avoid revert wars. Thanks, Ground Zero 20:27, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Of course. I removed Our Toronto Free Press because it was a separate publication, to the best of my knowledge. Our Toronto was a fairly minor local print publication for Toronto that, if I recall correctly, focussed on local municipal politics and corruption in it, and though it was a venture of Judi McLeod, it's not the same paper. Thanks for the help though. This is great: Wikipedia rocks. Hobbes000 21:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it is the same paper, just changed its name and focus. Homey 22:45, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I suppose it's a matter of perspective, because a different name and focus would mean a different paper in my books. Nonetheless, I concede the point for now as it seems to be minor to me.

Hobbes000 15:36, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Can we find out?

Can anyone help in finding out the identity (IP address) of the person who made the malicious changes? I'm sure that information can be used to trace this person's activity on wikipedia, and help prevent other malicious edits. (anon)

Which "malicious" changes are you talking about? It's important to, as a rule, assume good faith on Wikipedia. Just because you disagree with something someone said doesn't mean they said it "maliciously". Indeed, even if you are right and they are wrong that doesn't mean their belief is not (or was not) sincere. If you're talking about the additions I made, I was trying to rewrite an article someone had contributed that was had lots of info but was in point form. I added some information from other articles and some from my own general knowledge. Some of this information may be incorrect, in which case you are perfectly in order asking that it be removed, asking for a source, challenging it etc but you can do that without assuming "malicious"ness or suggesting that the author needs to be "traced". Homey 14:31, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I am satisfied with the page now. Thanks for all the tips and help everyone.  :D Hobbes000 16:59, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Kofi Annan paragraph - original research?

SlimVirgin deleted the following paragraph:

  • On Tuesday, February 7, 2006, McLeod wondered why information in a Wikipedia article on Kofi Annan suggesting that his father had been a "leading freemason" had "flat out disappear[ed] from Wikipedia". [2] Research by Wikipedia editors revealed that such claims had never appeared in the article. She may have confused Wikipedia with William Shawcross's website which is where the information actually appears.[3] Wikipedia staff sent the CFP a letter to the editor about this on 12 February 2006. Neither McLeod or her staff have responded to Wikipedia or corrected the article. The CFP claims to "show all our letters--good and bad" in their letter blog but have not published either of Wikipedia's letters.

Several editors, including a senior administrator, worked on the passage. I would like to know why SlimVirgin considers this OR. I might be willing to agree with her that the inability to get a response and the CFP's claim that they publish all their letters should be removed, but not the bulk of the paragraph. Several other Wikipedia articles include comparable information. --Cyberboomer 00:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, while there is no published source verifying this incident, I can provide records of the message being sent, to prove it I did send it. Alternatively, I could publish an article on Wikinews relating to the incident, so then that article could be cited. Normally Wikipedia references should be avoided, such as in the Nature and Veja, but the CFP article acts as a track record of numerous other incidents, of equal merit. -- Zanimum 00:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Cyberboomer asked me to respond here. There's no third-party source, it's not an important incident, and it's self-referential. Should be avoided for all those reasons. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
With all due respect, I shouldn't have to ask you or anybody I'm in an editing dispute with to respond. --Cyberboomer 22:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Couldn't the same arguments be used against
"It's not an important incident" comes down to notability. There is no official Wikipedia policy or consensus on notability. --Cyberboomer 23:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Not important? "There was a report that a Wikipedia entry on Kofi Annan had recently been edited to take out reference to his father being a Freemason." --Cyberboomer 22:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've checked that UN transcript, and one of the questions does ask about the Wikipedia entry being changed. I brought up the issue at Talk:Judi McLeod#Latest conspiracy theory, where SlimVirgin replied that "The CFP is not a particularly notable publication and it's not a notable story". Well, clearly the CFP is notable, we've got an article on it. BTW this was mentioned on wikien-l, which is where I found the link which I posted to the talk page... so, you can use that if you want. But a Wikinews article would also be good. Alphax τεχ 04:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
You can't use Wikipedia as a source. Just because someone has created an article about CFP doesn't make it notable enough to quote. This is an entirely non-notable, self-referential, trivial incident that no one else has written about it, or would, and it would be silly to include it. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/a/n/Talk%7ECanada_Free_Press_4461.html"