Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:13, 22 March 2006

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 "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)

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! ;)

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.  ;) Misplaced Pages 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)

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 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 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 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 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 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 21:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Latest conspiracy theory

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

Alphax, I've de-linked the above because it's an anti-Semitic website. SlimVirgin 05:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Um, ok, whatever. So is someone going to add this, or isn't it important? Alphax  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 16:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

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. Homeontherange 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. Two administrators, Homeontherange and Zanimum, who is also a sys-op, have edited the article. Senior writers including Bearcat and Samaritan have 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.

• Her columns being highly critical of New Democratic Party school trustees who dominated the Toronto Board of Education at the time. This speaks for itself.

• 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 00:01, 22 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)

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)