Talk:Judi McLeod

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents

Judi McLeod is anti-racist and has written articles fiercely attacking neo-nazis and neo-nazi beliefs, holocaust denial, racism, etc., and many articles on Canada Free Press and other papers she worked on before prove that.

She is not friends with Paul Fromm (she has never even had contact with him that I can find) or Ernst Zundel (and he was indeed harshly criticized in quite a few of her articles) and is not nor was ever a member of CFAR.

She also wasn't born in 1944 (I think she was born in either '48 or '49, if I recall correctly), but I'm not sure which. I know for a fact it wasn't 1944, though.

Political activist is also debatable and her activism stops at Canada Free Press, where she is editor.

This looks like a poorly done smear job to me.

Hobbes000 19:57, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Or an inconvenient truth. First off, 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." The Toronto Reference Library entry proves McLeod was born in 1944. 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 00:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I have put in a request to the editor who added this originally, who is a respected editor here, for his comment on this. Please be patient. Ground Zero 20:07, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi IanSeananthony 20:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Just corrected a few typos in my first post here on the discussion page. Hobbes000 21:07, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Most of the material in question was imported from the Paul Fromm article. I was not the source of the claims that Fromm was/is a C-FAR member or that Fromm helped her found Our Toronto. I do think those claims are credible, however, based on my own experience.

I do know for a fact that she was friends with Fromm in the late 1980s, I know it because I observed it myself at a Toronto Board of Education meeting I attended (which might count as original research) and I am a witness to the fact that she "covered" a school board meeting she did not attend and was fired shortly thereafter (original research?) but these personal observations do make me think that the claims about her links to Fromm are credible since those claims are consistent with my own observations. I received third party confirmation that this was the reason she was fired, but again, this hasn't been published anywhere so it may well constitute original research. Homey 22:53, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Frankly, I thought wikipedia frowned upon original research, especially such as loaded with bias, unsubstantiated and flimsy as a one-time personal observation as this. What you've done is a made an observation yourself, allegedly, that McLeod and Fromm once kibbitzed. In the 1980s. From this, you have concluded that they were friends and that he helped to start one of her newspapers? This looks to be a very vicious smear job, done by a group (seen on the link you provided before for me below) that has an obvious and virulent hate of Judi McLeod and Canada Free Press. I can provide verifiable evidence that they hire people of different creeds and colours, that they write quite a few articles trashing neo-nazis, etc. Just because they are right-wing does not make them a valid target for this kind of vicious slander.
You don't seem to be able to cite proper sources for these very serious allegations. Until you can, I am removing the following statements:
" She was fired in 1987 after skipping a Toronto Board of Education meeting in which a plan to hold a student conference on apartheid in South Africa was to be discussed. Her column was based on notes made by her friend, white supremacist Paul Fromm, but written up as if she had attended the meeting herself"
Not substantiated, original research (from a very biased source), massive inferral based upon one alleged observation and if it's untrue, which it certainly seems to be, libellous.
"and (allegedly) Paul Fromm" Alleged by you. Please substantiate.
"McLeod is a member of the far-right Citizens for Foreign Aid Reform (C-FAR) having met C-FAR founder Paul Fromm through their mutual friend Richard James, a close personal friend of Ernst Zundel."
Please substantiate. The paper verifiably (a google search will prove that) has a very low opinion of Ernst Zundel, whom writers refer to as a neo-nazi nutbar. I can't find any proof that she's a member of C-FAR, or that she's a friend of, or even had any contact with Paul Fromm.
Until I see substantiated, NPOV evidence to the contrary, including (in fact, especially) proper citations, I am removing these statements. I have problems with a few other parts of the article as well, but I shall leave those alone for now.
Hobbes000 15:06, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Are there other theories or explanations about why the Sun fired her?Homey 22:59, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Appreciated

Thank you very much. I really appreciate this. Also, I apologize for typos and poor etiquette. This is my first day here basically. So thanks again! ;)

[edit] NPOV Tag

Ok, this is still my first day and I'm still learning the ropes, so go easy on me if I did the wrong thing here. Anyways, until this is cleared up, I thought it might be appropriate to add the NPOV tag and then I'll leave it alone until tomorrow or the day after. Hopefully this is ok with everybody. Hobbes000 21:44, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I've changed it to a "factual accuracy" tag since that seems to be the essence of the objection. If that's not ok we can change it to "totallydisputed" (ie both facts and POV) but since what you're disputing is the allegation regarding her and Paul Fromm I think the accuracy tag is more, well, accurate. Homey 14:46, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok, thanks.  ;) New to wikipedia, so I have no idea how things work. I think the totally disputed tag is justifiable, given what we have, for the moment. I really appreciate you helping me out like this.

Hobbes000 15:06, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

If you like. I don't see how your criticisms are actually NPOV, though, particularly as they are isolated to the Fromm question. Homey 15:17, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, you would know what's appropriate more than I would, since I am only a poor newbie ;) , but if it's not too much trouble to ask, I think's it appropriate. I appreciate that we can agree on many of these issues btw.  ;) Wikipedia rocks. I should have joined months ago.

Hobbes000 15:24, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

There's an online reference to her firing here Homey 23:50, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, this blog has some links and info re McLeod. Not a first rate source but given that McLeod is unlikely to be the source of a book any time soon...Homey 14:44, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I checked it out. Interesting blog, but not a good source at all on this subject though I've seen the blog before and it's good for some things. Frankly, this seems to be a hate-fest that has little to no impartiality. There are only a few assertive statements there, beyond preferences of dislike and hate and calling her a "wingnut". And those assertive statements are unverifiable, unsubstantiated and very hard to take seriously.
Hobbes000 15:11, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but are there any useful links in the blog? Certainly the Rachel Marsden imbroglio merits mention (given the Western Report as a source) and the blog may be enough to justify us including some of the information as "allegations" (eg "McLeod's critics allege that....". Homey 15:15, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

The links aren't useful. I checked them out. I left the Rachel Marsden thing up, because I can substantiate that Judi did defend Rachel. I just googled it quick and found the article. I removed the 'right-wing' descriptor of Rachel, though. Which I think we can both agree is irrelevant since all relevant parties in dispute are themselves right-wing (McLeod, Marsden and the Western Standard). I also have a problem with convicted stalker, because it seems like an attempt to make her look bad, rather info relevant to the discussion, but for now, I will leave it up because that's a minor issue for me.
There's not enough on the blog to include it as allegations. It really is just unsubstantiated, baseless allegations.
Hobbes000 15:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Writing and sources

This is not a good article. I have tried to copy edit it, but it's virtually impossible because most of it needs to be removed as non-notable, and what's left needs to be rewritten and thoroughly sourced. We shouldn't be writing as though we dislike McLeod, nor as though we are praising her. Also, she is not notable enough for an article of this length, and most of it is reproduced word-for-word on Canada Free Press. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with you. While several of your comments and changes here and on the Canada Free Press page are worth considering, many are not. You remove valid and relevant information, in several instances for no good reason. You make crucial errors of fact, i.e. replacing the word "publication" with "website" when the articles in question appeared only in the print copy. It is only out of deference to your administrator status that I haven't reverted back to Samaritan's version. --Cyberboomer 21:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I removed a lot of nonsense, Cyber. Which parts would you say were valid and relevant? I'm certainly willing to reconsider. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Where does it say "website," when the article only appears in the print copy? And you said "crucial errors of fact". Can you list them, please? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Could we have a source for her winning the Edward J. Hayes Award? From what I can find online, it's a prize of $100 that goes to students. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Here is the source: "Gutsy" reporter McLeod gets the pink slip; William Johnson, The Globe and Mail. Toronto, Ont.: Mar 23, 1983. pg. 8 The award is part of the Ontario Newspapers Association (ONA) Awards Here is a link. --Cyberboomer 21:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Have you actually seen that Globe and Mail story? SlimVirgin (talk) 21:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes. I have read both articles. --Cyberboomer 22:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
These two articles provide the information you require:
Year after firing by (Brampton) paper (McLeods) help to publish rival; The Globe and Mail. Toronto, Ont.: Apr 3, 1984. p. M5
"Gutsy" reporter McLeod gets the pink slip; William Johnson, The Globe and Mail. Toronto, Ont.: Mar 23, 1983. pg. 8 --Cyberboomer 21:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
The articles were listed as sources in an earlier version. --Cyberboomer 21:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Cyber. I wonder why they were removed from the article. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Latest conspiracy theory

Read about it here http://thailandesl.chazzsongs.net/internet.wiki.htm. Alphax τεχ 05:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Alphax, I've de-linked the above because it's an anti-Semitic website. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Um, ok, whatever. So is someone going to add this, or isn't it important? Alphax τεχ 12:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd say it shouldn't be added. The CFP is not a particularly notable publication and it's not a notable story. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SlimVirgin's edits

Some of your changes have improved the article. You clarified the opening section. You rightly added an immediate link to the CFP. You have also polished some of the writing.

However some of your changes are ill-thought out and cross over into the ludicrous.

Your edits contain errors of fact.

  • You claim that the Toronto library link is broken. The link still works. I and third parties have checked it on different computers. The problem might be your browser settings.
  • "In 2005, McLeod and David Hawkins" is incorrect. They teamed up in 2005. A person reading what you changed might wrongly assume that the only articles they wrote together were in 2005.
  • "McLeod published nurse Cathy Crowe's home address and her photograph in Canadian Free Press is incorrect on two counts. It's the Canada Free Press, and not Canadian Free Press. The print version known as Toronto Free Press published the photographs, not the website. The revised version clarifies the statement.
  • You edited passages in the Canada Free Press article to claim that certain persons wrote for the website when in fact they wrote only for the print version. The original article made it clear that the newspaper has since become a web-only publication. HOTR corrected this error.

You claim that the article and the situation are not notable without explaining why. She is an award winning journalist who has written for many publications. Her profile is large as is her infamy. She played an integral role in the 1994 Toronto municipal election. Her influence got a veteran councillor defeated and changed the balance of power on Toronto City Council. It was that election's second biggest story.

I see that your contributions are mostly non-Canadian. Perhaps I could suggest that in future you tread more carefully in subjects you're not familiar with. Three administrators, HOTR, Bearcat and Zanimum, who is also a sys-op, have edited the article. Senior writers Samaritan has also edited the article. One of McLeod's own student writers, Hobbes000 edited the page and his contributions remain.

You removed the Antonia Zerbisias blog links for no good reason. Though it is a blog, it is owned and published by The Toronto Star, a prominent Canadian newspaper. Zerbisias herself is a prominent journalist. We weren't relying on the blog for third party sourcing. We included it because it was part of the story.

You removed the entire "Friends and enemies" subsection without explaining why. This is relevant to McLeod's history as a journalist. If Rush Limbaugh wrote a book defending the Clintons, converted to Liberalism, and smashed Dick Cheyney's political career, this would be noteworthy. In future, please explain why you want large sections removed without resorting to flip cursory explanations. You say you removed a lot of nonsense and call the article a "dog's breakfast". It helps - and as an Administrator you should already know this - if you explain your edits more thoughtfully. If a non-administrator did what you have done, editors would call it what it is: vandalism.

I'm surprised you had trouble researching the Hayes award. I had no problem finding information. In fact it appeared in a google search ahead of your find. The Proquest Canadian news index is available in all Canadian universities and it contained many citations. I have added a link to the article so that there is no further confusion.

Several changes you made to polish the writing improve the article and deserve to stay. Several must go.

  • runs the Canada Free Press website is a clumsy way of saying that she is a website publisher. I don't understand why you removed any introductory mention of her as a journalist. Whether one likes her or not, that is what she is. To reduce it to "runs a website" is missing the point and trivializes her importance.
  • In 2005 she engaged in a feud with the Western Standard over that magazine's criticism of Rachel Marsden's suitability to be a conservative columnist because she had pleaded guilty to a charge of criminal harassment, and was sentenced in 2004 to a conditional discharge with one year's probation. A 49 word run-on sentence. This is even worse than the original sentence, especially pleaded guilty.
  • McLeod fell victim to a hoax in 2006 when she believed she had been exchanging emails with Hollywood actor Mel Gibson through a blog purportedly run by the actor, which she later discovered was a satirical website. 37 words in a single run-on sentence. Requires two sentences.

You put the "Mel Gibson" hoax in the "Criticism" section for unknown reasons.

I have sourced The Globe and Mail articles at the bottom of the article per your request. The Globe and Mail and Now Weekly articles were "friendly" interviews.

Several source requests border on the ludicrous:

  • Rachel Marsden's legal troubles: The linked article covers this in depth. No need to verify it here when all the verification one needs - and then some - is available in the relevant article.

I will continue to do further edits, pare down items that belong in the CFP article, seek out and tighten unwieldy sentences, etc. In future it helps if you make writing style changes first. These are easier to assess and other editors often accept them without a fight. Also, if others disagree with your editorial cuts, but like your writing style, they can revert to your first revision.

I must note that David Hawkins, referred to in the article is, like you, a Cambridge graduate. He even won a Foundation Scholarship. I'm sure you'll be even prouder of your old school once you read his articles detailing the international Global Custodian conspiracy. You two should get together and swap Cambridge stories. (Yes, I'm teasing you.) --Cyberboomer 23:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

First, we need citations for the unsourced claims, because without citations those points have to be deleted. Secondly, you say this is an "award-winning journalist," but we've seen no evidence of that claim, and if you're referring only to the award mentioned earlier, it's a lesser known one. Articles should relate notable facts about notable individuals; if we include a huge amount of minor detail about marginally notable people, we risk turning the page into a boring puff piece. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
On the subject of notability, could you please explain or justify the length of the following Wiki article Paul_is_Dead? I'm certain you've never seen the article before, but I still want your opinion. --Cyberboomer 02:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
On the one hand, the article's a bit silly, and on the other, quite interesting. The key in deciding length is that we publish as much as good third-party sources have published. In the case of McLeod, that would be mainstream newspapers, news sites and so on, but not her own. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Please explain your reverts in further detail otherwise I will revert you again. If so, I will keep the additional source requests you made today. As for my compromise edit, I did provide sources. The Edward J. Hayes Memorial is awarded through the Ontario Newspapers Association. I don't see how that makes it a non-award. I don't understand how you think proper detail might turn the article into a boring puff piece. Do you even know what the phrase puff piece means? --Cyberboomer 00:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
And please don't slip a revert in as a (m) minor edit, which you now have done twice. --Cyberboomer 00:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
The rollback tool tags the revert as minor, not me. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
You're aware that rollback shouldn't be used except for vandalism? Alphax τεχ 04:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
You're mistaken. It doesn't say that anywhere. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I put this lot of comments in the wrong place. Wikipedia:Reverting#Rollback. Alphax τεχ 04:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. Please read it. Rollback is not only used for vandalism. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response

I've reviewed some of the disputed edits here. And while I will agree that some of the material does make more sense in the Canada Free Press article than it does here, I'm not too clear, for example, on why SlimVirgin seems to object to describing McLeod as a journalist and publisher. I'm not too clear on why SlimVirgin removed a significant number of the listed external sources, and then turned around and claimed there weren't enough citations. I'm not too clear on why SlimVirgin objects to mention of the award McLeod won at the same time as objecting to the description of McLeod as "award-winning". I'm not too clear on why the Rachel Marsden controversy requires extra sources here in addition to the sources already listed on Marsden's article. And on, and so forth. Bearcat 04:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The article looked like the vanity piece of a person of borderline notability, and to judge by the 90 edits Cyberboomer has made to the encyclopedia, [2] s/he may have a personal interest in it. I therefore got rid of some of the cruft (some of which was arguably defamatory) and I've requested citations for the most important points. A Google search sheds very little light on McLeod's bio and I can find no reputable third-party sources at all. The award, assuming she was awarded it (and so far only Cyberboomer has seen the source, because it isn't online), is a minor one that she received 23 years ago, in the same year that the newspaper she was allegedly working for at the time supposedly fired her, so to call her an "award-winning journalist" is a little misleading. As this page has been linked to on a few of the blogs that mention her, it's particularly important that we get things right, or else we'll be at the start of a long line of Chinese whispers. For that reason, I would like to see citations provided as requested, or the material will be removed in a week or so, and reputable third-party sources provided for all edits from now on, in accordance with WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:RS, and WP:BLP. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • s/he may have a personal interest in it Please avoid innuendo. Judging by some of your comments here and elsewhere [3], may I please suggest that you read WP:CIVIL?
I'll read that if you read all our other editing policies and start editing in accordance with them. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • "and so far only Cyberboomer has seen the source, because it isn't online" Not true. The person who originally added these references to an earlier version must have seen the articles in order to cite them.
No worries. I'll be checking them. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • "is a minor one that she received 23 years ago, in the same year that the newspaper she was allegedly working for at the time supposedly fired her, so to call her an "award-winning journalist" is a little misleading." An Ontario Newspaper Award is not minor. I don't see how being fired renders her award-winning status "misleading". She won the award after she was fired, not before.
It's a provincial award won, assuming it was, 23 years ago. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • "I can find no reputable third-party sources at all". If you can't access Canadian news databases, which are available in all Universities, perhaps you should defer to another administrator, preferably one who is familiar with Canadian matters. --Cyberboomer 21:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
There are very few third-party sources available and none that I can see that are recent. Yes, I can see why you'd like me to uninvolve myself. In the meantime, please indicate in the body of the text which references are being used as sources for which parts of the article. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

Which parts of the text are the newspaper articles listed in References supposed to be references for? They have to be cited in the article, or they're not much use. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lawsuit

Do we know what is meant by "She was fired in 1983 and sued for wrongful dismissal. McLeod maintained that local Conservative politicians had used their influence to get her fired after she wrote a series of articles about them. The suit was ultimately withdrawn"? In what sense did she sue if she withdrew the claim? How far did the case get? SlimVirgin (talk) 21:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Ontario Supreme Court judge Donald Steele ruled January 7th 1987 that the McLeods could raise press freedom ("freedom of the press") as an issue in a suit for wrongful dismissal against Canadian Newspapers Co. Ltd., owner of the Brampton Daily Times. "The McLeods' lawyer, Anita Lerek, said she does not expect the suit to reach the courts for another two years." No Byline. "Press freedom issue in suit" The Globe and Mail, January 8 1987, p. A9. McLeod has claimed elsewhere that the suit was withdrawn for lack of funds. --Cyberboomer 21:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
The McLeods? Was there more than one of them suing? SlimVirgin (talk) 01:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes. They both sued. Husband and wife. I take it you still haven't read the Globe and Mail articles I cited? Are you able to access any Canadian news database/index? --Cyberboomer 22:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Then why doesn't the article make that clear? What did the husband sue for? Why is this article being written in such an unclear way? Come on. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Eccentric" and "wacko news site" quotes

I'm not sure why SlimVirgin has quoted a rival journalist's opinion that McLeod is "eccentric" and the newspaper a "whacko news site." I don't think Antonia Zerbisias's personal opinion by itself belongs here and suspect that it's gratuitous and irrelevant. Zerbisias is a liberal so any opinion she has of McLeod is bound to be negative. My original edit contained a more relevant quote from McLeod complaining that Zerbisias's reportage was a "hatchet attack." OTOH, Kevin Grace's quote is relevant because he's conservative. --Cyberboomer 22:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Zerbisias isn't a "rival journalist." You have an odd view of McLeod's importance. Anyway, we don't use sources based on their political views, but on their reliability and notability. It was you who pointed out that the Zerbisias site is run by the newspaper, not by her, and she says on it that they check what she writes, so it counts as a reliable source. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
With all due respect you misunderstand my argument. I'll go into further detail after I've had the chance to collect my thoughts. --Cyberboomer 23:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proxytouch in URL

As a matter of interest, Cyberboomer, why are you posting links that include the URL of an anonymizer, as in http://proxytouch.com/cgi-bin/nph-proxy.cgi/010110A/http/www.rabble.ca/columnists_full.shtml?x=32805? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The link came from a third party website. Very sorry. I should have checked the URL first. Thank you for mentioning it. --Cyberboomer 22:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
For what it's worth... 27 February 2006 block --Cyberboomer

[edit] Letter

Hi Cyber, can you say exactly what the letter says? (McConnell, Pam. Letter to the Editor. Toronto Free Press. April 1997, p 3,4) SlimVirgin (talk) 22:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

It's a lengthy letter. McConnell explains that she contacted the police and spoke to Officer Bill Blair about the "harassing incident". --Cyberboomer 22:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Does it support every single word of "Toronto city councillor Pam McConnell complained to the police that McLeod had sent a photographer to wait outside McConnell's home and take pictures of McConnell's and neighbours' young children"? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Here is an excerpt from her letter: "A still unidentified man sitting in a car parked in front of an elementary school and my home took photographs of at least one and possibly both of my daughters as they went off to school at 8:30 a.m. this morning. This man spoke to one of my daughters but did not identify himself. I am not aware as to whether there were any photos taken of my younger daughter or of any of the young children going into the school next to my home. I take this incident very seriously particularly since young people were the target. The time and proximity of this incident to the arrival of school children is very alarming. I am asking the police to ensure that there is no danger to my children or to any children in the school." --Cyberboomer 22:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't support the edit, in that case. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Could you please be more specific? --Cyberboomer 23:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
The passage above doesn't say what the edit said. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
The quote is only an excerpt. We could avoid these misunderstandings if you could explain your edits in better detail. --Cyberboomer 23:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I asked for a source four or five days ago. You have now posted what I assume is a relevant extract. It doesn't mention McLeod and doesn't say the man took photographs of neighbors' children, which are two of the things our edit said. This article must be edited in accordance with WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:BLP. It should contain no criticism that isn't referenced to a reputable source. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
McConnell also writes, "Please confirm or deny with Staff Inspector Bill Blair of 51 Division at 808-5100 that your newspaper sent a photographer to my home today." McLeod's accompanying article in the same issue makes clear that she sent a photographer to take pictures of the co-op McConnell lives in. --Cyberboomer 23:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
You didn't say that before. Look, Cyberboomer, if you want to include this incident, go ahead, but you must stick exactly to what the source says, and without exaggerating. It's a very trivial incident, and people frequently complain about news photographers, so it really isn't notable. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Frank

The sources you provided don't say she wrote for Frank. Can you find third-party sources that say it explicitly if you want to re-add it please? SlimVirgin (talk) 01:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand your confusion. Here are the relevant quotes:
  • "Frank editors had decided to do a few cover stories, dateline T.O. During office hours, Woloschuk and I would work together on stories to be filed back to the Ottawa magazine."
  • "Local politicians were diving for cover when Fletch and Yours Truly collaborated on bold stories, like Married to the Mob and Frannie, get your gun."
  • "[...] were searching for a certain gravestone for a photo to illustrate Frank's upcoming Frannie, get your gun."
--Cyberboomer 22:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Note the careful wording: she is saying she helped the person who worked for Frank. At no point does she say she worked for Frank. I also couldn't find any instance of her describing her working on a story alone for Frank. It is always "A was writing for Frank, and he was staying with me at the time. I sat up all night helping to do X ..." etc. We need to find a reference, and preferably a third-party reference, saying explicitly that Judi McLeod herself worked for Frank magazine. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
"Worked for" as in "was paid by." Not just saying she helped someone who was paid by them. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I didn't say she worked for Frank. I said she contributed to the magazine. Note the wording. I don't think any version of this article has ever claimed that she worked for Frank. --Cyberboomer 22:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
That's what I mean. Worked for = contributed to == was paid by. Please read the references you provided on the page. They are worded too carefully. Please find a source who says "Judi McLeod (or I) worked for (contributed to, was paid by, was employed by, freelanced for) Frank magazine." SlimVirgin (talk) 22:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Worked for does not necessarily mean contributed. Are you aware what kind of publication Frank is? Had you ever heard of or read the magazine before you started editing this page? --Cyberboomer 22:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes I am, and yes I had. I have no idea what you mean now. If you do something (whatever you want to call it) for a publication, they pay you. You have a financial relationship with them. There is no evidence that McLeod ever had such a relationship with Frank.
Cyberboomer, I can't keep on posting three or four replies to you every time to explain basic points. I mean no disrespect, but please read the sources you use very carefully before using them. I'm not saying you're wrong about Frank and McLeod. I'm just saying we need an explicit source for it. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you that this is a very simple article and it shouldn't be prone to this degree of confusion. The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines contribute [4] as
  • transitive senses
  • 1 : to give or supply in common with others
  • 2 : to supply (as an article) for a publication
  • intransitive senses
  • 1 a : to give a part to a common fund or store b : to play a significant part in bringing about an end or result
  • 2 : to submit articles to a publication --Cyberboomer 21:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Can one of you email Frank, and as them to confirm or deny that McLeod worked for them? I know the former owner of Frank emailed Wikipedia once, but I can't find their contact in OTRS. -- Zanimum 00:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fired

This section is a mess of inconsistency. Was she fired (not in her view) or reassigned? Did she say local conservative or Conservative politicians had interfered? Was she on the city-hall beat or the municipal-affairs beat? SlimVirgin (talk) 23:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

At first the paper reassigned her. Her husband, the paper's managing editor, reinstated her. The paper then fired them both. Municipal-affairs beat and city-hall beat are the same. Please feel free to consult the Globe and Mail articles. This will make the verification and copy-editing process much easier. --Cyberboomer 00:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Please, I insist you take the time and read the Globe and Mail articles. Before this goes to mediation or WP:RFC. --Cyberboomer 22:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
No, please just write according to what the sources say, with no inconsistencies in the text, and then there won't be any problems. I'm sorry to write to you in this tone, but this is a very simple article and it shouldn't be prone to this degree of confusion. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Is it conservative or Conservative? You've written both. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
There's still something about the firing that makes no sense. The managing editor of a newspaper is the person who decides who is assigned to which beat. The editor-in-chief or publisher would normally only override the managing editor's decision in the case of misconduct. So who reassigned her in the first place if not the managing editor? And once the managing editor had assigned her back to the original beat (and how could he if someone else had taken over that responsibility), who overrode him? And for him then to be fired is very serious, much more serious than firing a reporter. I wonder whether there's something about this that we're misdescribing. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)