Talk:Conrad Black

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] 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. 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. --Saforrest 04:35, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)
Born in Canada, he was. . .definitely a topic for inclusion in "citizenship", d'ya think?Freiherrin 22:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Postnominals?

Should a British citizen really have the postnominal letters of a papal order appended to their name? I think this is probably wrong. 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 Ken Burch 02:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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 Lady Thatcher) and some whose surname isn't in their title at all (like Lord Glenamara). 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. Freiherrin 20:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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 NPOV way. 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)Freiherrin 21:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC) 19/7/07

[edit] Jerusalem Post

Doesn't Ravelston own the Jerusalem Post? Just wondering.Vincent 04:27, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC) not any longer. Freiherrin 21:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)19/7/07

[edit] 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 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/12.144.5.2 03:53, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

--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. Freiherrin 21:17, 19 July 2007 (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 attrack) will look elsewhere for his/her info. Student7 (talk) 22:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Telegraph take over antics

The earlier post "Telegraph take over antics" is incorrect in its details. It was 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. Darkmind1970 11:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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 [1]). 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? --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. 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. 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"). 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. 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?"

Hmmm17:44, 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. 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? 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. 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. Eleland 15:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, interesting suggestion! However, such things aren't appropriate in the lede. See the article on Lord Archer, who was convicted and imprisoned a while ago. 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. 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. 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 not Lady Barbara, as she has the right to the style only as wife of a peer.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.Freiherrin 05:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

LOL! On a slightly serious note 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), a new development that wasn't around when Black was being enobled, and the not very noble Lord himself. Timrollpickering 23:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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?

[edit] 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. Emeriste 22:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC) Please try reading it again; I've reordered & expanded material.Freiherrin 21:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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.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)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. Interactbiz (talk) 03:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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. 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) 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. Kevlar67 02:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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. Grantsky 04:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I took care ot this. 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) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.144.72.83 (talk) 03:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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? 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 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.Freiherrin 21:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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". Stevecudmore 01:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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? Blotto adrift 18:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree! I think it should be removed. --Niloc 01:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. 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.Freiherrin 21:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References out of whack

The order and formatting of the references need serious work!! The footnotes no longer link to the relevant material.Canuckle 20:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "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. 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. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 16:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I definitely agree. It's not an occupation, it's his reputation. Bluefox 16:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other controversies surrounding Black section needs citations

Every statement made in this section needs a citation under WP:BLP. 68.146.8.46 16:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed the section per WP:BLP. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 17:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Becoming a press baron

You can't 'gradually' become a peer. This section should read 'eventually'.

[edit] intro sentence

Shouldn't the intro say "Lord Conrad Moffat Black, Baron of Crossharbour (b. ..." ? 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. Peter symonds 13:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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. 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. Eleland 19:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Would you prefer "convict"? Type 40 20:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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 :) Maralia 23:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Christopher Hitchens

Apparently, there was a bit of a dispute between His Lordship and Christopher Hitchens. Link --78.16.1.237 13:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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. 142.104.197.74 19:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I think Black is often confused with being jewish because he often acts like a jew. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.158.102 (talk) 10:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

In my view "... because he often acts like a jew" is inappropriate and worthy of removal. Interactbiz (talk) 04:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Black is often confused with being a jew because he surrounded himself with jews and bought jewish things, i.e. his right-hand man, David Radler, is jewish; on the Hollinger board he had Henry Kissinger (jew), Richard Perle (jew), etc; and he of course bought the Jerusalem Post. Also, simply owning/controlling media companies is often considered to be something that jews do. And, of course, he married Barbara Amiel who is jewish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.139.97 (talk) 14:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

  • This discussion is of no value. If you want to warn the world about the biographical details of Conrad Black's friends and associates, find a forum that considers that information of relevance. It does not belong here and you waste the time of responsible editors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Interactbiz (talk NRF - North Vancouver Canada (talk) 10:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is, a lot of people confuse Conrad Black with being a jew - thus the erroneous listing of him under "Canadian Jews" which had to be removed. There is nothing wrong with explaining where this misunderstanding comes from. The fact of the matter is that he surrounded himself with jews, and loaded the board of Hollinger with jews (it's not just Kissinger and Perle, Black also loaded the board with Daniel Colson, Cyrus Freidhelm, and Shmuel Meitar). Thus, it's not surprising that people confuse Conrad with being a jew. You would do well to note this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.139.97 (talk) 11:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.100.162.185 (talk • contribs) 01:25, 19 July 2007.

That would be recentism. 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. Freiherrin 21:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lavish lifestyle

Somewhere we should put in that he's been noted and criticized for his lavish lifestyle. 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. 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.)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 colourFreiherrin 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. 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.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.Freiherrin 19:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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.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." --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.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." Timrollpickering 22:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Litgation and references: I see now that the cases were inserted 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. --G2bambino 15:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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. Britmax 16:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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. Student7 (talk) 13:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It actually isn't POV. He is variably an evil man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.45.183 (talk) 20:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

"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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.139.97 (talk) 14:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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. Student7 (talk) 17:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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. Student7 (talk) 15:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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! Student7 (talk) 19:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Your edits were an improvement IMO. Interactbiz (talk) 04:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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? 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. 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. 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. 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. Interactbiz (talk) 06:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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.Student7 (talk) 12:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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! 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.139.97 (talk) 14:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

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.Student7 (talk) 17:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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. 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. 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. 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. Student7 (talk) 19:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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. 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. Student7 (talk) 13:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Question

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. 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! Student7 (talk) 01:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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. 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Interactbiz (talk • contribs) 04:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


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. Student7 (talk) 18:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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?

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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!  :) Student7 (talk) 00:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "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?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.--NRF - North Vancouver Canada (talk) 06:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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." --Lo2u (T • C) 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. NRF - North Vancouver Canada (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.--Lo2u (T • C) 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. --Lo2u (T • C) 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. 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. --Lo2u (T • C) 20:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
He didn't invent anything (except fraud schemes) and fraud was his most definitely his occupation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.201.207.116 (talk) 06:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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.209.29.85.187 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 12:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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. 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. 99.231.128.251 (talk) 13:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)