Talk:Conrad Black

Black x Jeffrey Epstein
Are we just going to overlook his connections to Jeffrey Epstein? https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/07/jeffrey-epstein-high-society-contacts.html

That Black wrote a hagiography of Trump is pertinent
Every single RS that covers the Black pardon notes that Black basically wrote a hagiography of the man:
 * "glowing" book
 * "flattering" book
 * "hagiography"

This is crucial context that many RS deem so important as to put in the headline next to the mention of the pardon. Omitting this is a NPOV violation. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree. Who's omitting it? I just inserted "hagiographic" into the line I added a week or two ago about the book. YoPienso (talk) 14:30, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see; will restore. YoPienso (talk) 14:32, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I removed some language which stated that the pardon was "following the publication" of the book. The sources indicate that it was a year after the publication of the book. The original language would lead a reader to believe that the book was published and then perhaps a week later the pardon came down. So I've changed that to add more detail. Cosmic Sans (talk) 17:25, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * But in so doing you misrepresent the sources, all of which mention the biography, as demonstrated above. YoPienso (talk) 14:28, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I mentioned the biography. None of the sources, though, use the terminology that we had previously used in the lede. Cosmic Sans (talk) 19:25, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks like most of the sources use the word "flattering" not "glowing." By the way, none of the sources use the word, "fawning," which Snooganssnoogans origially edit-warred to try to keep in.  What gives, Snooganssnoogans? AppliedCharisma (talk) 16:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC)


 * An IP editor keeps edit-warring this out of the lead. It's obviously pertinent to his pardon that he wrote a hagiography of the President just prior. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:29, 6 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree that this is quite pertinent, and is mentioned in virtually all sources discussing the pardon, and have restored the content. --Neutralitytalk 18:19, 6 February 2020 (UTC)


 * It is reasonable to mention that Mr. Black wrote a biography of President Trump. It is also reasonable to mention that he was pardoned by President Trump about a year after the biography was published.  What is not reasonable is to make an unreferenced statement that the biography was fawning, glowing, or flattering without a citation to a reliable source.  More importantly, mentioning the biography and the pardon together in the lede implies causation and gives the statements undue weight.  Both the pardon and biography are discussed in the body of an article, and a reader can draw his own conclusions. GlassBones (talk) 18:52, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Facts in the lead don't have to be referenced if they're referenced in the body. "Glowing" is referenced in the lead and "flattering" in the body. I'll change "flattering" to "glowing" in the lead, and also join the two sentences, because the RSs are clearly linking Black's praise of Trump to the pardon. YoPienso (talk) 18:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)


 * In looking at your editing history, it occurs to me you may not understand that the lead introduces and summarizes what the article says. You seem to have the impression that if something is mentioned in the body, it doesn't have to be in the lead. Just the opposite it true: something heavily treated in the body should be in the lead. I recommend a look at WP:MOSLEAD, which says "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic." Best wishes, YoPienso (talk) 19:18, 14 February 2020 (UTC)


 * please revert your most recent edit to the lead. Please refrain from editing the article until you have discussed your issues here at talk and we have arrived at a consensus. Thank you. YoPienso (talk) 19:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm inserting the word "favorable" (to describe biography) into the lead because it's important the reader not assume the biography is objective. The press overwhelmingly refers to the book as "glowing" or "flattering"; "favorable" is the most neutral word I can come up with. ("Admiring" is another possibility.) I'm removing "a year later," because that's obvious from the dates given so closely together. I'm joining the two sentences because virtually all RSs connect the book with the pardon. Please see the 15 sources linked to above, as well as "Trump Pardons His Friend Conrad Black, Who Wrote Glowing Trump Biography Last Year" by Laurel Wamsley, published by NPR on May 16, 2019. YoPienso (talk) 19:10, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Style-wise, "biography favorable of" may be better than "favorable biography." YoPienso (talk) 19:14, 15 February 2020 (UTC)


 * The last sentence in the lead current reads: "In 2018, Black wrote a favorable biography of President Donald Trump; on May 15, 2019, Trump granted him a full pardon." That is implicit synthesis, implying that Trump granted the pardon because Black wrote a book about him and by implication the pardon was undeserved. That's a clear BLP violation for both Black and Trump and I will edit it. If any editor wants to state the connection it must be explicit and sourced. TFD (talk) 01:25, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Please take the time to read the comments here before summarily reverting. At the top of this section are 12 RSs (all 15 given except 3, 8, and 10) that explicitly link the pardon to the book. (Source #3 links the pardon to an earlier favorable column Black wrote about Trump; source #8 calls Black "a political ally and longtime associate of Mr. Trump’s," and source #10 is a dead link to a Time article.) At 19:10, 15 February 2020 I wrote, immediately above your comment, "I'm joining the two sentences because virtually all RSs connect the book with the pardon." YoPienso (talk) 01:54, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The source used (WAPO) does not make an explicit connection. Which of the sources explicitly say that Trump pardoned Black because of his book? The fact that Black and Trump were long term allies and associates (in fact Trump said Black was innocent when he was prosecuted) actually argues against the view that he pardoned him because of the book. Presumably if they were that close he would have pardoned him anyway. TFD (talk) 02:38, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The very first sentence of the WaPo article is "President Trump gave a full pardon to a longtime friend who last year wrote a glowing book about Trump’s successes." YoPienso (talk) 02:43, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The second source on this page says, "Donald Trump has pardoned Conrad Black, the former media mogul who owned the Daily Telegraph and the Spectator before being jailed for fraud, shortly after he wrote a book praising the US president." Etc. Twelve sources LINK the two events; I'm not sure if any show cause-and-effect. Neither does the sentence I've just restored to the article: just like the sources, it links them. YoPienso (talk) 02:46, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The sources do make an explicit connection, but do not explicitly say Trump pardoned Black because Black wrote that book. YoPienso (talk) 02:48, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * A number of the sources--which you can check out for yourself, btw--point out that Trump did not mention Black's biography of him when he explained why he thought Black deserved a pardon. The fact that the stories made a point of it is a suggestion that the sources suspect Trump was influenced by the fact that Black praised him in print. Here's what NBC said: "The White House statement did not mention that Black wrote what was described as a flattering biography of Trump published in 2018, titled Donald J. Trump: A President Like No Other." This was under a large-font headline, Trump pardons ex-media mogul Conrad Black, who wrote flattering biography of him, and a smaller-print headline right under it, The convicted fraudster is the author of "Donald J. Trump: A President Like No Other," which came out last year. YoPienso (talk) 02:59, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * What is the explicit connection made? I have posted a discussion to BLPN. TFD (talk) 19:42, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Ten hours before you did that, I removed mention of the book from the lead. I gave a full account in my edit summary--I don't think the lead has to give the complete date of the pardon (but year only) or the detail about the flattering book, which is covered in the body--but guess I should have also mentioned it here at talk. I assure you I want an article as unbiased as possible, forthcoming but not accusatory. YoPienso (talk) 00:30, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Flattering biography of Donald Trump
Should the lead note that Black wrote a "flattering biography of Donald Trump" and that he was pardoned by President Trump? Currently, the lead says Black was pardoned but it doesn't say by whom, and it doesn't include the context that Black had just prior to the pardon released a hagiography of Trump. (Original timestamp: 12:55, 13 May 2020) Snooganssnoogans (talk) 05:35, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Survey

 * Yes, include. Every single RS that covers the Black pardon notes that Black wrote a flattering biography of Trump, Donald J. Trump: A President Like No Other, in 2018:
 * "glowing" book
 * "flattering" book
 * "hagiography"
 * This is crucial context that many RS deem so important as to put in the headline next to the mention of the pardon. Omitting this is a NPOV violation. Furthermore, it's completely inexplicable that the lead can't mention that Black was pardoned by Trump. It is the most basic pertinent content that I can think of. There's not a single justification for just vaguely saying "he was pardoned", without clarifying by whom. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:59, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Support mentioning Trump, I think that's pretty relevant. I don't know if the other bit is necessary in the lede and I feel like "flattering" shouldn't be in Wikipedia's Voice. Maybe "positive" or something? I don't know. ~ HAL  333  20:01, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Not in lead the juxtaposition is presenting an OR and false impression of a quid-pro-quo, and just isn't a significant amount of the article so does not belong in lead per WP:LEAD.  That he had already served his time years before or that he wrote many books is not mentioned, although those are both clearly much bigger parts of his BLP life.   This seems just indulging some anti-Trump conspiracy theory and sensationalizing being given  UNDUE prominence, it's not something about *Blacks* life.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:44, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The juxtaposition is made by EVERY SINGLE RELIABLE SOURCE that covered the pardon. It's a grotesque NPOV violation to leave it out. It would be an egregious example of OR to exclude the content when EVERY SINGLE RS deems it crucial context.Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:53, 15 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, include. It is important for the lead to mention Trump in the Black's pardon. Idealigic (talk) 11:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Include but not in current configuration in lead. Anyone would draw a causal link between them and it's clearly notable, but putting the two claims next to each other puts us in the position of implying the causality by insinuation. This gives the impression of a lack of neutrality. A potential solution to this is to have a longer lead which refers to a number of books he has written, and then conclude with his pardoning by Trump. That way, both the pieces of information (noteworthy) are in the lead, but they are not placed together in such a way as to appear to violate WP:OR. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 13:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If you choose to pardon a grifter who just so happened to have a written a hagiography about you, then of course any rational person will draw a causal link between the two. That just stating the facts naturally lead most readers to assume a quid pro quo (which is not stated in the lead) does not mean we have to obscure the facts and omit what EVERY SINGLE RS deems to be absolutely pertinent information. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:41, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The question really boils down to: should we hide facts from readers that all RS report because we don't want readers to draw conclusions that the facts themselves might lead to? It's as if we were to hide that Robert F. Kennedy served in his brother John F. Kennedy's administration because readers will draw the inevitable conclusion that he only served in the administration due to nepotism. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:38, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * What are these facts that are being hidden? Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 22:36, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That he wrote a hagiography of Trump prior to being pardoned by Trump. Please pay attention to the RfC that you're voting in. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:40, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That fact is not hidden. The year of his Trump biography (2018) is in the article, as is the year of the Trump pardon (2019). That it's a "hagiography" is a matter of opinion. (Though if it's an opinion that many people share, that should probably be in the article too.) Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 04:43, 31 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Mention Trump but not biography - obviously the person who pardoned him should be mentioned. But mentioning the biography is an awkward attempt at synthesis and/or insinuation, as others have noted. Sure, a lot of sources have noted both things, but have any actually said that the pardon came about because of the biography? Is there any proof of that? Plus, this is an article about a someone with a successful, 50-year career in publishing - it's not clear that, even if the biography were the cause of the pardon, it would be an important enough fact to include in the intro. Let's remember that we're writing about Conrad Black, not Donald Trump. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 15:17, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This is not a trial where we have to prove anything. And there's not any causal claim being considered in the lead, so what is there to be proved? That he wrote a hagiography of Trump is a fact. Also, it's not SYNTH to state what every single RS has stated about the pardon. Rather than present the sequence of events as EVERY SINGLE RS has done, you are instead advocating that we omit completely relevant information so that readers purposely will not have the relevant information. That's the original research here: editors deciding to omit RS content just because they personally dislike that the facts on their own imply sycophantism and quid pro quo. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:41, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No, it's not a trial, but there still has to be some proof of everything; that's what all these references are for, after all. Again, there are two issues here: whether this juxtaposition should be mentioned at all, and whether it should be mentioned in the intro. The case for the former is weak, but the case for the latter is much weaker. These news articles that include this juxtaposition are articles about one specific episode in a man's long life and career, so they're not really relevant to decisions about the intro. Let me note, looking at the intro again, that it needs a lot of work. Almost half of it right now is about his legal troubles. Meanwhile, the intro says nothing about his life peerage, his political views, or his TV gigs, and mentions only one of his 10+ books (guess which one). Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 16:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, I just expanded the intro, though I kept that "all-important" reference to his biography of Donald Trump - which I think looks even more out of place now. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 14:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What "proof" could exist? Anyone who claims that they understand what's going on in Trump's head is mistaken. The only "proof" relevant to Wikipedia is the words of reliable secondary sources, who have their own ways of determining truth or reasonable provability. We can't relitigate the facts as if we are a newspaper because this is not the purpose of a tertiary source and we would be very ill-placed to judge this. — Bilorv ( talk ) 12:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, include I conjecture that it would be relatively related and helpful; at least based on my assumption! Ali Ahwazi (talk) 09:06, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, include - per Snooganssnoogans, we are following the story told by RS. Frankly it should even be extended that Trump is his friend.  starship .paint  (talk) 01:13, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No, don't include as phrased. It is the crudest kind of implied synth as currently phrased - quid pro quo, which is not anywhere near as bluntly put as that in the sources - some of which think that the pardon was inevitable long before the biography, given their backstory. What IS said in the sources very clearly is that the two have been personal friends for a longtime/ have had business dealings in the past/ CB has been a supporter of DT/ DT was due to be a character witness for CB's trial, but was not called. All this deserves to be recorded in the body and is probably a great deal more relevant than a biography that perhaps no one read, about someone who most people already have a clear opinion about anyway. Possibly the longterm friendship/support could be in the lead along with the pardon if concise wording for that can be found. Pincrete (talk) 09:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "It is the crudest kind of implied synth as currently phrased - quid pro quo, which is not anywhere near as bluntly put as that in the sources" – That is completely and utterly false (and the closer should judge this vote accordingly). The sources go further than the proposed text. The proposed text just lays out the facts. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:14, 25 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Support mentioning Trump but not friendship/biography in lead. Scanning through the Google News results for "Conrad Black pardon", it seems about half of the titles include the friend/biography aspect and half don't, while all mention Donald Trump. The connection between the pardon and their friendship/biography is not universally included in top-level info so isn't appropriate for the lead of his article here. Along the same lines, the lead should be a summary of the most significant elements of the person's life; my gut feel is that the pardon itself is significant enough to be included but the reason behind it is not and is more appropriate in the body. -M.Nelson (talk) 14:19, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Headlines are not generally reliable or how we determine due weight. I believe there's been significant recent discussion on this point and there's consensus that, for example, information or spin only present in the headlines of some sources is not reliable or significant critical opinion. — Bilorv ( talk ) 12:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support just mentioning Trump--obviously it's fine to clarify who pardoned him. However, Wikipedia, and especially BLPs, are WP:NOTGOSSIP. The provided sources only contain speculations--none of them provide evidence that Trump pardoned him due to his book. We don't include unconfirmed conjectures in BLPs, even if sources do. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 07:53, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, include. Sources provide ample coverage of the pardon and Black's laudatory book about Trump. Both are biographically significant, and many very high-quality sources explicitly draw a connection between the book and the pardon. Our job here is to reflect what the RS say. The comments asserting that the connection is "synthesis" are simply incorrect. Even a quick perusal of the sources makes clear that the sources draw a connection between the pardon and Black's consistent public praise for Trump. Neutralitytalk 22:38, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes - Seems pretty obvious to me, numerous high-quality sources explicitly draw a connection between the book and the pardon. By omitting this we would be failing to reflect what authoritative reliable sources say. Bacondrum (talk) 00:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, the connection is heavily covered by WP:RSes to the point where it's a big part of what makes that aspect notable and a major aspect of Black's bio. --Aquillion (talk) 13:36, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, include. Yopienso has summarized well how the sources present the book and the pardon. Sources do not say explicitly that Black was pardoned *because of* the book.  Yet, every one makes the implicit insinuation through the immediate juxtaposition of the book/pardon.  In a vacuum, I'd agree with TFD that we'd be improperly implying a causal relationship by mentioning both the book and the pardon so close together in the lede.  But the reliable sources here fill up the vacuum.  We follow the sources.  The predominance of sources mention both the book and the pardon in close proximity, and it seems hardly ever one without the other; so we should do that too.Moishe Rosenbaum (talk) 14:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No-The lead can say that Black wrote a favorable biography of Trump and that he was pardoned by Trump, but in order to avoid partiality, it should not imply without evidence that these two events are connected, as this version does. The word "flattering" has a decidedly inauspicious context and should be replaced. Display name 99 (talk) 00:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, include both. Most objections are based on willful misunderstandings of WP:NPOV (see WP:FALSEBALANCE) or WP:SYNTH. Reliable sources overwhelmingly show the significance of both facts, to the point where if either are omitted then the pardon must not be mentioned in the lead (which I believe no-one has advocated). — Bilorv ( talk ) 12:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes to both. Clearly relevant context to an important part of his life. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 10:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Include the fraud conviction, Trump biography, and pardon in the lead, but I'd suggest altering the text devoted to these issues. Called by bot. Snooganssnoogans has demonstrated that this issue has enough coverage that it should be in the lead. Some details present in the current text seem unnecessary however, while the fact that the Supreme Court heard his appeal is not mentioned. I'd suggest something like this:
 * I've placed brackets around the "Sun Times?" text because I'm not sure if those were the specific investors defrauded?
 * Lobbying from such noble characters as Henry Kissinger and Rush Limbaugh. With friends like these... -Darouet (talk) 15:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Lobbying from such noble characters as Henry Kissinger and Rush Limbaugh. With friends like these... -Darouet (talk) 15:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes: I haven't gone through every single RS link in the opener of the RfC, but the Washington Post article definitely mentions them in connection (as well as the interesting "Black, whose media company owned the Chicago Sun Times, at one time partnered with Trump to build Trump Tower in Chicago" -- wowzers!) and the NYT has this to say:
 * "The pardon of Mr. Black, a political ally and longtime associate of Mr. Trump’s, was the latest example of the president using one of the unilateral powers of his office to absolve a high-profile public figure whose case resonates with him personally, bucking the more traditional practice of sifting through thousands of pardon applications awaiting his review. [...] His pardon of Mr. Black, a personal friend and the author of pro-Trump opinion pieces as well as a flattering book, “Donald J. Trump: A President Like No Other,”"
 * While we can hem and haw about whether the pardon was connected specifically to his biography, it seems reasonable to say both that the pardon was probably due to a personal connection between the two, and that the sources are in consensus on the issue (even if the thing they're in consensus on is to say it as innuendo). I think that the best thing to put in the article would probably be a phrase with similar preterition. Here is what it currently says:
 * n 2007, he was convicted on four counts of fraud in U.S. District Court in Chicago. While two of the criminal fraud charges were dropped on appeal, a conviction for felony fraud and obstruction of justice was upheld in 2010 and he was re-sentenced to 42 months in prison and a fine of $125,000. In 2019, U.S. President Donald Trump granted him a presidential pardon.
 * Here is something that I think would be justified:
 * n 2007, he was convicted on four counts of fraud in U.S. District Court in Chicago. While two of the criminal fraud charges were dropped on appeal, a conviction for felony fraud and obstruction of justice was upheld in 2010 and he was re-sentenced to 42 months in prison and a fine of $125,000. In 2019, U.S. President Donald Trump, a former business partner about whom Black had written a "flattering" biography the year before, granted him a presidential pardon.
 * This doesn't really say it, because the articles being referenced also don't really say it -- because, well, how can you prove something like that is true? The involved parties have every incentive to just say that wasn't what was going on; obviously it's suspicious, but the only thing you can say with confidence is that it looks fishy. Saying more would be WP:SYNTH, but I think we ought to say at least that much. Darouet's version above also looks good to me. jp×g 19:02, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Since he was pardoned, is he still a criminal?
There has been some changes to the lead sentence that initially included "convicted criminal", was removed by an IP user and now has "pardoned criminal" in its place. I am sure there are lots of biographies on Wikipedia of people who have been convicted crimes, been to jail, but do not have criminal in their lead sentence. Are we justified in calling this man criminal, pardoned or otherwise? Is this a WP:BLP violation? See WP:BLPCRIME and WP:PERPETRATOR and post opinions here. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 17:43, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I found sub section in a WP:BPL/N discussion about Stephen M. Cohen at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive156 that seems pertinent. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:10, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * His conviction and pardoning are certainly worth mentioning in the article, but it seems odd and awkward to mention it in the second sentence, or put it in the infobox. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Black's being a pardoned criminal is one of the things that makes him notable. It shapes his role in the House of Lords, it shapes his legacy at the company where the fraud took place, and it shapes his continuing role in Canadian media and politics. Failing to include the description "pardoned criminal" in the introduction to the article seems like doing a disservice to readers. Remes (talk) 01:16, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * But the fact he was pardon of a crime is mentioned in the third paragraph, so I do not see the disservice. It does not seem like this guy is a career criminal; it seems like the desire to label this guy is politicly motivated. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 01:59, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Ohnoitsjamie tells me there's no consensus for "fraudster" in the lead, yet it's been there continuously since Nov. 19, 2021, except for their removal on Jan. 17, 2022, and has been in this article for years in some iteration. Here it is on Feb. 19, 2015 as "convicted felon". Looks to me that there's consensus to identify Black as a felon or fraudster, which he is, and is widely known for. We could call him a "pardoned felon" if that's better., let's engage on this. Nothing on this talk page supports removing it. YoPienso (talk) 21:33, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * There's already a paragraph about his felony conviction in the lede. The first sentence of the article should sum up what he's primarily known for. Other examples include Martha Stewart and Jesse Jackson Jr.; both were convicted of crimes, and in both cases that's mentioned in the lede but not the first sentence. In other cases, such as Bernie Madoff, it is mentioned in the first sentence because it's what he's primarily known for. OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:34, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Your edit summary reverting my restoration of an IP's removal of "convicted fraudster" in the lead says "there's no consensus for it to be in the first sentence." Yet is has been there for almost 10 years, having by removed a few times by you and maybe others but always restored. That is consensus by both default and by restoration after brief removals. Here's what I think is the first addition, on October 25, 2012. The onus is on you to give evidence that a long-standing descriptor should be removed. I would be open to "pardoned felon" or some such other iteration. Please do not edit war. Thanks, YoPienso (talk) 23:07, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * A single policy-based revert is hardly edit-warring. "Fraudster" doesn't belong in the first sentence unless that's what the individual is primarily known for, and as I noted we have numerous examples of that in action. The fact that "fraudster" has been in the the first sentence for stretches of time does not imply consensus, nor does it confer some sort of "tenure" on that content.OhNo itsJamie Talk 23:19, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi! Thanks for replying. I don't mean to be confrontational.
 * About edit-warring, I meant going forward. Also, I thought your revert of Aug. 18 was removing "fraudster," when in fact it seems to be restoring it. Why is that?
 * Black is known for several things, most recently for Trump's pardon. Beyond stylistic considerations, there's no limit to descriptors for a subject. We appropriately have "newspaper publisher, businessman, and writer" first. Just google him and you'll see how well known he is for his criminal conviction. Even Encyclopaedia Britannica--which I realize is not as eminent as it used to be--headlines his felony. It doesn't call him a felon, but it does have the felony in the lead paragraph, and gives it a great deal of weight and space in the article.
 * When a fact has been in an article for a long time and restored every time it's been removed, there's a consensus that it should be there. WP:EDITCON: "Wikipedia consensus usually occurs implicitly. An edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted. Should another editor revise that edit then the new edit will have presumed consensus until it meets with disagreement. In this way, the encyclopedia gradually improves over time."
 * If you feel Black shouldn't be described as a felon, fraudster, pardoned felon, or some such thing in the lead, please take it to talk. I'm not sure a lot of editors are watchin this page or caring much about it, so you may need to make an RfC. Happy editing, YoPienso (talk) 23:51, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Please take it to talk? Is there some other talk page I'm not aware of? I've created an RFC below; pinging User:Richard-of-Earth and User:Remes who participated in an earlier discussion. OhNo itsJamie Talk 23:55, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I hadn't actually read the preceding paragraphs, just the title, which I wrongly assumed meant exactly what it says.
 * You may find it odd that at least for now I'm not chiming in on the RFC, which I'm glad you started. I can see both sides of the argument. I was objecting to the abrupt removal of content that has had consensus for 10 years. Best wishes, YoPienso (talk) 00:25, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

RFC: Should the first sentence include the descriptor "fraudster"?
Should the first sentence of the article include a term such as "fraudster" or "convicted criminial"? OhNo itsJamie Talk 00:07, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No The third paragraph of WP:LEDE already summarizes his conviction, sentencing, and subsequent events, and as such it's not appropriate to label him in the first sentence. Black is not primarily known for his crime; similar to other articles such as Martha Stewart and Jesse Jackson Jr., we don't describe them as a criminal in the first sentence, but notable legal issues are noted later in the lede. For other individuals such as Bernie Madoff who are primarily known for their crime/conviction, it is appropriate to mention it in the first sentence. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 00:07, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No. My views are fairly close to that of Ohnoitsjamie, where if someone isn't primarily notable for it, a negative label should not be applied in the first sentence of an article. I'd also like to note that Ravelston sounds like a fake company run by an ancient vampire in an HBO prestige genre drama. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:20, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No. I guess this relates to a re-insertion by Yopienso. I mentioned Conrad Black in a 2020 discussion Applying controversial labels to people where it seemed to me that some participants were not in favour of emphasizing criminality thus. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:26, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * More technically, it's in response to OhNoitsJamie's assertion that "there's no consensus for it to be in the first sentence" after it had been there for a decade. (It was removed and promptly restored a few times during those nearly 10 yrs.) I agree it's best not to describe Black as a fraudster in the first sentence. YoPienso (talk) 18:47, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No - his legal issues are already sufficiently covered in the WP:LEAD. What I was most concerned with was that in reading the first sentence of "former newspaper publisher, businessman, and writer" I assumed he was a former businessman and former writer. I read further and realized that is not true. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:00, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No. It is one part of a biography, and warrants inclusion in the lead, but not a defining characteristic for the first sentence. I also don't think Infobox criminal should be used in Conrad_Black (which itself appears to itself be given disproportionate emphasis, with a sensationalist, play-by-play, breaking news, precise dates, WP:PROSELINE style; a full-blown case of WP:RECENTISM, even 10+ years later). Usage notes at Template:Infobox criminal inlude: This template is generally reserved for convicted serial killers, gangsters, mass murderers, old west outlaws, murderers, mafia members, fugitives, FBI 10 Most Wanted, serial rapists, mobsters, and other notorious criminals... Infobox criminal is rarely used where notability is not due primarily to the person being a convicted criminal. Its placement in an already bloated section appears little more than shoe-horning and piling-on by political opponents. Not even O. J. Simpson, who has at least two subsidiary articles on his trials and convictions ("a crime of the century"), has Infobox criminal anywhere. The fraud convction section should be given a comprehensive rewrite per WP:10YEARTEST, with trivial or out-of-date elements removed (do readers in 2022 absolutely need to know the exact date of every legal filing, and that "His next court appearance, where he might reapply for permission to return to Canada, was set for 20 September 2010?) I've said it many times: Wikipedians tend to be good compilers but poor editors. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:12, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Good point about the "criminal" infobox; I've removed it.OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:25, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No. They seem to be more notable for other things, so I think the lead calling them a criminal is libelous. @ CLYDE  FRANKLIN  02:08, 10 September 2022 (UTC)


 * No. The reasoning provided by OhNoitsJamie is completely sound. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 08:34, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Nickle Resolution
The Nickel resolution cannot "bans British honours for Canadian citizens". It provides policy guidance to the government, that's it. It hasn't the legal capability of banning such honours. 216.121.144.59 (talk) 20:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)