Talk:Wayne Crookes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There was no problem with the sources of this article. Two are major newspapers, one of the authors is a major columnist. The articles include quotes from party figures named. You can get the text easily to the GPC articles from google. Is someone suggesting google has doctored the text?

And does anyone have the URL of the actual lawsuit? The commentators like Geist say it is not facts but the opinions and right to reply at issue, so if Crookes' lawyers have no factual issue with the content of any of the articles at openpolitics.ca, it seems reasonable to rely on them as sources of facts (though not necessarily opinion).

The only missing source is seemingly for this, which ought to be easy to verify: "Judy Rebick published a boilerplate apology to Crookes, who was otherwise generally successful at avoiding media scrutiny until 2005-6." There must be a URL for this, as babble is a phpbb site.

Also someone should contact Elio Di Iorio to have him verify his claim re: Anderson's "Uncle Wayne". His resignation letter lists some specific financial and procedural abuses of the Crookes era. Also this post by former fundraising chair, current Chief Agent Kathryn Holloway lists the staff and finances of the Crookes team. Looks fishy:

Out of the 1.76 million bucks they were supposed to pay back creditor Wayne Crookes $420 000 they owed him from loans for the 2004 election. That left 1.3 million to spend on other stuff.

This $1.3 million 2005 budget was to cover the costs of a potential 2005 election. However, in May 2005, The party Council abruptly approved the borrowing of another $800 000 or so for the potentially impending election.

So, I do not know what they spent 2.1 million dollars on in 2005, if they in fact spent it. It looks like they probably spent at least $600 000 in salaries.

There was $560 000 in the budget for 2005 for salaries and benefits, not including another $75 0000 expenses for Council, Committees of Council, and ERCT (a hybrid committee that had staff members and Council members on it, and which morphed into the Management Committee.)

I dont know what the other 1.5 million went to in 2005. There is another 1.5 million coming in for 2006 from the Elections Fund, so presumably theres 3 million bucks between 2005 and 2006, minus paying back the election loan of $800 000, minus paying a staff budget of $600 000, so that leaves 1.6 million dollars in 05/06 that is being spent or was spent on, i dont know, stuff.

Someone's being too picky with this article. It's certainly easy to find lots of other sources like this thread in which lots of facts about the Wayne Crookes era in the GPC come to light.

Also do a blog search to find this by Chris Tindal and this from publiceye and this about libel chill and so on and so on. If you really want to read some fun source documents just join GPC-members yahoogroup. Crookes was also mentioned in some letters to politicians on the record, some of which detail various of his activities.

It's simply not justified to cut this back to a stub. The facts are easily verified.

Not all of them. The Vancouver Province article and rabble.ca apology don't seem to be indexed by google. They've been deleted due to Wikipedia:verifiability.

Some of the verifications come from firsthand sources. Since this party is not very well covered by the media, and since highly reputable journalists like Leslie MacKinnon and Michael Geist have stated that these situations are notable and important, and since former party chairs and leaders have had their views reported by reputable national papers like the Ottawa Citizen, effectively stating that the party under Crookes and Harris became "secretive", less "transparent", more "autocratic", less "democratic" and more "power-hungry", the article has more or less been restored. It could be cut back however to the comments from the Citizen, Geist, the CBC and Canadian Press, and anything the Vancouver Province said, as it seems to only be those sources that actually published anything about these issues.

The resignation letters don't say "gang" but the language comes very close, so the claim that this is related to the origin of the term in the lawsuit stands for now.

It's totally unreasonable to cut it back to a stub or claim that something so widely reported is not notable. Someone may be pushing a political agenda here. Crekshin