Talk:Conrad Black/Archive 1

Archive 1

Conrad Black as Historian

Having a Masters thesis hardly quantifies one as a Historian, if you consider that an MA in Econ does not make one an Economist. Usually that title is reserved for PhD holders -- learned Professors. Thoughts? --99.243.68.63 (talk) 13:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

He's written three books of historical biography that are each considered authoritative on their subjects (Duplessis, Roosevelt and Nixon), and each are well over a thousand carefully cited pages. If that doesn't make someone a historian, a PhD based on a single unpublished 200-page dissertation isn't going to do the job either. Geoff NoNick (talk) 20:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Generally someone is considered a professional member of their field if they have completed accredited professional training (i.e. a graduate degree) and have produced original scholarship in that field. Black meets both these criteria. To speak to your example, the economics field is actually rather unique in that, until recently, most economics programs haven't even offered a Master's level degree. The econ field has always been driven by the Ph.D. TomPointTwo (talk) 22:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

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)

BCameron54 01:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

His family was originally American--as was much of Canada's original social elite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.157.148 (talk) 08:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Cretien didn't force him - Black made a choice. He's not a Canadian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.183.184 (talk) 03:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Black was born two years before the Canadian Citizenship Act 1946 removed the status of also being a British subject so he was always technically also 'British' from birth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.43 (talk) 16:46, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

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)

Conrad and Barbara were married in a civil service at the registry office in London, England. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.125.46 (talk) 23:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

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)

English barons use Rt Hon. Computerjoe's talk 20:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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)

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)

Or, to put it in a less POV way, sought to change the values of the society. Not, inherently, a bad thing. 65.89.68.24 (talk) 15:48, 9 March 2009 (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 attract) will look elsewhere for his/her info. Student7 (talk) 22:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

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?" Hmmm 17:44, 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)

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?

Not that we don't trust and love you, but, can we get a citation on that?--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Citation: "A Life In Progress" - author: The man himself!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.125.46 (talk) 23:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

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)

Perhaps it would be more appropriate to ascribe any finding of guilt (implicitly to the courts) rather than to state guilt unreservedly as courts can make incorrect findings. Hence, possibly (if true - I do not personally vouch for its veracity): "Black was found guilty of diverting funds for personal benefit from money due Hollinger International when the company sold certain publishing assets and he was found to have obstructed justice by taking possession of documents to which he was not entitled." --TransitoryEd (talk) 03:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

In North American and British style justice, courts determine facts. Thus, a person charged with a crime is innocent until the courts convict. At that time, the person is deemed guilty. In Black's trial, the jury determined facts. After the trial, he was guilty of certain charges and innocent of other charges. There is no equivocation. He's not sort of guilty or sort of innocent on particular charges.--Norm, Vancouver, Canada (talk) 03:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

Someone added "prison inmate" to the Occupation box, which I removed because "prison inmate" is not an occupation, but a residence status. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.179.116.157 (talk) 17:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

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)

Becoming a press baron

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Same stripes are irrelevant, unless you are writing an opinion column. The man was an entrepreneur and built one of the largest newspaper companies in the world. He was a prominent member of Commonwealth society, respected in business and political circles, which - incidentally - entitles his show trial to be relegated to the end of the chronology and not made to seem like the most prominent aspect of his life. 24.162.131.206 (talk) 02:53, 2 July 2011 (UTC)SLW

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Question

I have a question... Lord Black is here in Canada on a Ministerial Permit to sue several Canadian newspapers for their possibly slanderous coverage of his US trials and incarceration. Does that permit allow him to legally work/earn an income here working in the media ie Zoomer Magazine and Zoomer TV ie his recent interview with Toronto Mayor Rob Ford? I'd be very surprised if he is, and if not why is he taking a job away from several other qualified CANADIAN candidates? Opinions? Springbreaker2 (talk) 23:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

Choosing to include lifestyle information is legitimate only insofar as it reflects the public controversy about this matter. Lord Black's personal tastes and market choices have absolutely no bearing on the company he built, the policies he enacted, and the crimes he may or may not have committed. The fact that this section is included clearly indicates POV. The public conversation and commentary about his lifestyle may have been relevant to his jury trial, as the prosecution used his opulence as a tactic. This information should be conveyed in that light, in THAT section. 24.162.131.206 (talk) 02:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)SLW

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?

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.

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

I am the editor that originally inserted the section about libel suits. I did research this week with the aim of updating WP. Some very complex actions are pending (or not) between Black, his associates, their corporations and other companies they no longer control (e.g. Sun-Times Media, formerly Hollinger International) and individuals such as Richard Breeden. There are huge claims and counter-claims but they seem stalled or abandoned. Accurate information with acceptable citations is hard to find. Black sued various parties involved in his deposition, seeking more than a billion dollars. He and associates were being counter-sued. Apparently, both sides agreed to postpone some actions until resolution of other actions in Delaware courts. The Delaware case was decided 4 years ago and the appeals period has expired since then. However, no move has been made to advance or dismiss the postponed civil suits. Are they abandoned or might they resurface if the Court of Appeals throws out all criminal convictions. Or, perhaps they were just an imaging ploy anyway. Since verifiable information about the cases is sketchy, I thought it better to remove the section completely. Better to have nothing on the subject than to have inaccurate information. --Interactbiz (Norm, Vancouver Canada) (talk) 04:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Reducing detail of criminal convictions

We now commit more than 1,000 words to the criminal charges, considerably more IMO, than necessary for this biography. Editors cannot examine all arguments of the two sides so it is questionable to include some and not all. I propose that we focus on that which the courts have written about as fact. Information concerning bail and its conditions are no longer important. Unsustained arguments made by the losing side of an appeal or someone's perception of an appeal judge's skepticism are not valid either.

Any comments from other editors about pruning this section? --Interactbiz (Norm, Vancouver Canada) (talk) 23:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Second article?

It's been suggested that there is too much material on the criminal fraud trial. Rather than simply remove material from the encyclopedia I think it would make more sense, and be more in keeping with wikipedia practice, to create a second article with a name like Conrad Black criminal fraud case. Reggie Perrin (talk) 07:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Conrad Black quote

I removed the following quote: "the ultimate colonial gesture by throwing away his citizenship in order to join an arcane, powerless British institution". This is a piece of rhetoric and it doesn't seem to provide any factual detail. This is someone's opinion and I can only think it has been included because someone felt the need to insult Lord Black. What it claims isn't especially true - calling the highest court and higher chamber of the British legislature "powerless" (a chamber that has frequently thrown out government legislation) is a little odd, don't you think? --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 11:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Peerage again

Can we have some detail on Black's peerage before going straight into the Nickle Resolution controversy? How was this odious man ever recommended for a peerage in the first place? The article currently says Tony Blair recommended him, but common sense and comments on this talk page suggest that Blair's involvement was simply to follow constitutional convention and pass on to the sovereign recommendations from other parties, who are entitled to their share of new peers. If Black renounced his Canadian citizenship in 2001 was he recommended for a peerage by Hague or Duncan Smith? What were they thinking? One of their names surely needs to be included in the article as the instigator of the whole affair. Rovaniemi-5 (talk) 22:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a witch-hunt and I'm not sure how relevant your personal opinion of "this odious man" is. What were they thinking? Well, Conrad Black was a prominent supporter of the Conservative Party who was thought suitable for a peerage. He hadn't been found guilty of fraud at the time so I really don't see that we should be alleging some sort of wrongdoing on the part of the leader of the party, unless of course you can find evidence that someone else has done so (I'm guessing not if you're unsure who the leader was). Anyway the article should read like a record of events and not an indictment. He received a peerage in October 2001, so it would have been Iain Duncan Smith who nominated him, Tony Blair who used his constitutional power to recommend the peerage and the Queen who bestowed it. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 22:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It was actually William Hague who nominated Black in the first place but the controversy and legal arguments meant that by the time the peerage was conferred Duncan Smith was now party leader. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Criminal infobox

I suggest swapping the current Officeholder infobox for a Criminal infobox so his penitentiary can be included. The Criminal infobox is appropriate (see Jeffrey Skilling and all others in the same class).--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good idea. Jeffrey Skilling's criminality is the reason for his notability: if he were not a fraudster, he would not qualify for an article. In the case of Conrad Black, this is just one aspect of his public life and the criminal template would be a serious breach of POV. After all, why not do the same for Ted Kennedy, Wesley Snipes or Martha Stewart? Why not examine the CVs of every subject on Wikipedia? --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 22:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Removal of "analysis"

I already explained the removal in my edit summary, but it was re-added and I was asked to explain further. There are multiple problems with the analysis ...

1. Biographical material about a living person must adhere strictly to all of our content policies, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research.
2. Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.
3. Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred.

If a reliable source can be found that provides a legal analysis of the situation, then the above issues would be resolved. Otherwise, it must be removed per Wikipedia policies and guidelines. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. For some reason, I am unable to see the edit summary. Marktunstill (talk) 18:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

PC(Can)?

Is Lord Black a member of the British Privy Council or the Canadian One. If Canadian, can we use PC(Can) to remove this confusion? Computerjoe's talk 20:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Nixon biography

Is there any difference between Black's "Richard Milhous Nixon: A Life in Full" and "Richard Milhous Nixon:The Invincible Quest"? I own the latter - a 1,152 page biography of Nixon. The tone of the book does seem to attempt to rehabilitate Nixon. Is it the same book?213.121.151.174 (talk) 19:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Infobox Criminal

I suggest removing the {{Infobox Criminal}}. An info box like this is useful in the the standard location (top/right for quick reference). By its current location, it's just a useless restatement of a few facts in box. It doesn't really aid the reader in the middle of the article. Black didn't become famous for being a criminal convict, so the criminal info box doesn't really belong in the article at all. Black could qualify for three infoboxes ({{Infobox Writer}}, {{Infobox Officeholder}}, {{Infobox Criminal}}), but I think one is sufficient.

I think it's a bit of a grey area. I objected when someone suggested replacing the officeholder template with the criminal one, which would be a serious breach of POV in the case of someone who is famous for a number of reasons and whose criminality would barely have been reported were he not. However, I tend to think it does no harm there. Strictly speaking though it should be removed because an infobox should only be placed at the beginning of an article: "Infoboxes contain summary information or an overview relating to the subject of the article, and therefore should be put before any text (though in actuality they will generally appear to the side of the text of the lede)." --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 00:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not useless since the actual charges have been removed from the article and are now in a sub-article (if there, I didn't look). The current position under the other box seems a better placement, keeping all the basics about Black together. I do think he became famous -- in the US, anyway -- as a result of his trial and conviction. That made his name a household word, whereas before nobody outside the news industry had heard of him. 75.56.50.45 (talk) 06:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

This Article IS Pure Garbage

It is clear that this article has been composed by Black's detractors. It is full a derogative quotations from left-wing pundits who, no doubt, the authors of this article admire. It is juvenile, the number of quotations used to degrade Black, and not a one of support.

Your hatred of Conrad Black is even clearer here, on the Wiki Talk Page, where clearly you 'name call' him. It is because of crap like this that Wikipedia will never, and should never, be taken seriously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.29.89.176 (talk) 03:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you have some citations? Jok2000 (talk) 17:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you give examples of the sort of quotations you're talking about? I removed a couple of the more egregious quotations myself but I do take what you say seriously. If you explain your objections you will probably find people take notice. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 02:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It's exactly the opposite, particularly the heavy quoting from the article that erroneously absolves Black for his CONVICTED behavior and improperly suggests prosecutorial and judicial misconduct with zero evidence. There is PLENTY of documented evidence from the trial that Black was self-dealing. That is a fraud. This whole article is a PUFF PIECE probably written by Black. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.177.34.104 (talk) 15:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Daily life in jail?

Maybe a few recent updates on his living conditions, relations with other prisoners, etc.? 86.155.209.111 (talk) 16:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I wanna know if the prison guards and prisoners refer to him as Lord Black.

Bot vandalism

The reversion using bot HG removed current, correctly cited, useful information, so I have put it back. I don't think these bot edits should be labeled "m." Yes, often an IP address adding links is vandalism, but sometimes they're not and labelling their removal minor makes it less likely the bot's work will eyeballed by a human. Fijagdh (talk) 02:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Pretty Popular Guy

This guy is more notable than Wayne Gretzky. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.205.220.232 (talk) 04:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Uhm, in which universe? Lord Black's fantasy universe or the one we're in right now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.183.184 (talk) 03:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Uhm, you're here commenting. You must be part of that fantasy universe of Lord Black that admire him deeply. Greetings! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.143.107.69 (talk) 23:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Legal Status: The Dude is Innocent

Innocent until proven guilty. The courts have failed to prove guilt of any crime against Black with the exception of the rather trivial offense of obstruction of justice. Obstruction of justice can be serious and is an offense that can stand on its own but not in this case. What crime has taken place, now that Black has been cleared of all other charges, that makes obstruction of justice a pertinent matter? It was in fact the prosecution and lower appeals courts that obstructed justice by applying an unconstitutional law against Black with wanton vigor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.143.107.69 (talk) 23:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Why is this law unconstitutional? References?

This leads to another question...

What Did He DO, Exactly??

The article is very unclear. Someone with a knowledge of the relevant laws needs to do a major re-write of that part of the article. 69.181.249.69 (talk) 06:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be an entirely reasonable question. 18 charges were tossed on appeal, leaving one charge of something to the tune of $600,000, plus removing cardboard boxes of files that had already been examined by the court. This after a multi-billion dollar enterprise was run into the ground by other actors. Can someone explain the nature these heinous crimes that were pinned on Black? There's a lot of energy going into attacking Black for these two items, but it's not clear (in spite of the venom of Black's critics) exactly what he was finally dinged for. For example, why was Black convicted of moving the cardboard boxes if the court was finished with them? Santamoly (talk) 06:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Just as you can't get a "little bit" pregnant, fraud and self-dealing are still fraud and self-dealing no matter the scale. Further, until the Supreme Court made new law and did away with honest services fraud (Wall Street thanks you, your check is in the mail "Justices"), he was clearly guilty of the other counts. These charges were NOT overturned because he was "innocent" they were overturned because the Supreme Court changed the rules after-the-fact to allow rich and powerful executives to get away with pillaging public companies for their own benefit. Surprise, surprise that much of public that is too busy or ignorant to look into the FACTS and now think that allowing wealthy people like Black to manipulate the rules is just fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.177.34.104 (talk) 15:41, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

So describe to me again the act he committed that was decreed to be fraudulent. Or describe it to me for the first time. I find no mention of it in the article. Rwflammang (talk) 17:39, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

"Black was found guilty of diverting funds for personal benefit from money due (to) Hollinger International, and of other irregularities." I admit that the other irregularities is vague, but the defalcation is pretty clear. —C.Fred (talk) 00:59, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

It should be made clear that monies were improperly diverted, and that he is actualy guilty of something. Some charges were dropped because, though he did them, the Supreme Court decided the applicable laws were too vaguely worded to stand. This should also be made clear, with appropriate citations - and without, of course, the wild assignation of malign motives to the Court in a post above.

In any case, I doubt he is wealthy now. And if, when he was, he had enough pull to influence the Supreme Court, quashing a little thing like this should have been easy. Wikipedia needs guarding against such tinfoil-hattery. 5.81.40.253 (talk) 13:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that statement about the Supreme Court is indefensible. If 'they' were going to crook the Court, 'they' could arrange to have Black cleared as well.

What seems to have happened, was that Black was guilty of several acts of fraud, but only one or two could be proven beyond a doubt. So he got the limit on that. Failure to convict is not an exoneration, but a protection of the public against the power of the state. The article should make this clear; also explain the technicalities on which each charge was thrown out. 86.148.53.121 (talk) 11:25, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Bilderberg Connection

Why is there no mention of his connections to the Bilderberg Group? He was in or still is in the inner core of the Bilderberg Group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.30.159 (talk) 11:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

It is part of a long-standing conspiracy against you, personally. 5.81.40.253 (talk) 13:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

WE prefer it so. 86.148.53.121 (talk) 11:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

This article in the press

"Mystery of the Wikifixer: who is the secret image-cleansing agent?", The Telegraph, 10 June 2011. Someone is astroturfing a series of Wikipedia articles on high profile wealthy Brits. --Green Cardamom (talk) 04:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, but it is a different Lord Black from this Wikipedia article that is mentioned in the press article. Brentwood vs. Crossharbour. Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 04:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

House of Lords

Can someone shed light on how he became Member of the House of Lords? Can a convicted criminals vote, say, on judicial matters? - BorisG (talk) 16:27, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

What was he convicted of? Do you have any idea? Amongst other things, he appears to have been convicted of moving some cardboard boxes. Is there anything more of any significance? Santamoly (talk) 05:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Lifestyle

The lifestyle section is a farce. There was public and editorial commentary ABOUT his lifestyle, but to report on his lifestyle as if it is relevant biographical information reveals POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.162.131.206 (talk) 02:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Criminal trial perspective

Can someone please include the drastic difference between what Black was accused of doing and what he was convicted of doing, as well as information about the multiple theories of the crime, the more plausible of which was ruled invalid by SCOTUS? As Black's friend the writer Mark Steyn points out:

"The US$400 million he was accused by Breeden of looting from Hollinger was down to US$60 million by the time the trial began in Chicago. He was found guilty of stealing US$2.9 million, which is less than one per cent of what Breeden accused him of, and indeed about 1.5 per cent of the US$200 million Breeden’s “investigation” had cost the post-Black regime at Hollinger by the start of the trial. Of the 19 original counts against him, Conrad was convicted of just four. The government lost on all the eye-catching tabloid fodder: Barbara’s birthday party, taking the corporate jet to Tahiti. The government won on three counts of “mail fraud.” But winning 80 per cent of the case isn’t enough. No matter how remorselessly it shrivelled from US$400 million to US$79 million to US$60 million to US$2.9 million, what was left was still enough to send Black to jail."

http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/07/08/oo-late-for-him/

24.162.131.206 (talk) 03:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)SLW

Mark Steyn is hus friend, and has his POV. But from NPOV, there is nothing unusual for the courts to focus on a very select counts rather than try to judge on all of them. Stealing $400 million or $4,000 is still a theft, and thus Black is a convicted felon. - BorisG (talk) 16:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

3RR Reversion of Conrad Black

The 3 times reversion of 18,000 bytes in this article by Vale of Glamorgan was extreme in all senses.

Vale wrote "- Main article: United States v. Conrad Black

{{Infobox criminal

- | image_name =

- | name = Conrad Moffat Black

- | charge = mail fraud, obstruction of justice

- | conviction_penalty = Sentenced to 6½ years imprisonment. Reduced to 42 months following appeal and resentencing.

- | conviction_status = Served 29 months before being granted bail pending a Supreme Court ordered review of his case.[17] Reported to the Federal Correctional Institution, Miami on September 6, 2011[18] to serve an additional 13 months as a result of re-sentencing.[19]

- | prison = Coleman Federal Correctional Complex

- | surrender date = 3 March 2008 11:52 am

- | inmate number = 18330-424

- }}

- Black was convicted in U.S. District Court in Chicago on July 13, 2007 for 3 counts of mail fraud and one count of obstruction of justice. He was acquitted of 9 counts. Lord Black was sentenced to serve 78 months in federal prison, pay Hollinger $6.1 million, in addition to a fine of $125,000."

POV pushing/unsupported by citation "The affidavits attempted to refute an outpouring of letters from Mr. Black's fellow inmates extolling Mr. Black's devotion to his tutoring and his many personal acts of kindness to fellow Coleman inmates. These affidavits were demonstrated to be false in submissions of June 8, 2011 and June 16, 2011 by Mr. Black's legal team. they were specifically found by Judge Amy St. Eve not to have been credible. Nevertheless, because of the publicity surrounding these false affidavits, the Bureau of Prisons elected not to send Mr. Black back to Coleman. "

I find these changes highly questionable and ask that you at least discuss them in Talk:Conrad Black first. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 00:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)"

and

"

Darrell, you are reinserting several questionable passages: Unsourced/POV pushing "The result of this action was that Mr. Black was unable to finance his first choice for his attorney, Brendan Sullivan of the prominent Washington D.C. firm of Williams and Connolly The actions of the United States Attorneys Office in seizing this money were later revealed to have been improper as following his trial, the jury acquitted him of any misconduct related to the sale of the New York apartment." POV pushing/advocational tone "Mr. Black was never charged much less convicted of any of these alleged corporate expenditures and anyone who knows Lady Black would have no doubt that she does not wear "jogging attire" and if she did it would not be the $140 Marks and Spencer variety." POV pushing/advocational "In connection with the one surviving mail fraud count, Lord Black received precisely $285,000 of the $600,000 that went to Mr. Black and the other defendants. He was convicted of that Count on the false testimony of David Radler who had orchestrated the non-compete payment idea in connection with the American Newspaper Division of Hollinger -- one that Radler oversaw and ran with little if any involvement by Lord Black. That is all that remains of the now demonstrably false and libelous contention that Lord Black presided over a $500,000 million corporate kleptocracy. Lord Black, by the time of his resentencing had paid Hollinger over $30 million in connection with the allegations against him."'

My reply is that the questionable passages comprise 10% of the material you deleted. Let's discuss why you removed the rest totally ignoring wp:preserve. Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 00:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Darrell, your reversion is also removing a large section of the article:

Darrell, you are reinserting several questionable passages:

• Unsourced/POV pushing "The result of this action was that Mr. Black was unable to finance his first choice for his attorney, Brendan Sullivan of the prominent Washington D.C. firm of Williams and Connolly The actions of the United States Attorneys Office in seizing this money were later revealed to have been improper as following his trial, the jury acquitted him of any misconduct related to the sale of the New York apartment."
• POV pushing/advocational tone "Mr. Black was never charged much less convicted of any of these alleged corporate expenditures and anyone who knows Lady Black would have no doubt that she does not wear "jogging attire" and if she did it would not be the $140 Marks and Spencer variety."
• POV pushing/advocational "In connection with the one surviving mail fraud count, Lord Black received precisely $285,000 of the $600,000 that went to Mr. Black and the other defendants. He was convicted of that Count on the false testimony of David Radler who had orchestrated the non-compete payment idea in connection with the American Newspaper Division of Hollinger -- one that Radler oversaw and ran with little if any involvement by Lord Black. That is all that remains of the now demonstrably false and libelous contention that Lord Black presided over a $500,000 million corporate kleptocracy. Lord Black, by the time of his resentencing had paid Hollinger over $30 million in connection with the allegations against him."
• Removal of sourced material without explanation "

Lifestyle

Born to a rich family, Black acquired the family home and 7 acres (28,000 m²) of land in Toronto's exclusive Bridle Path neighbourhood after his father's death in 1976. Black and first wife Joanna Hishon maintained homes in Palm Beach, Toronto and London. After he married Barbara Amiel, he acquired a Park Avenue apartment in New York which he and Lady Black painstakingly renovated at their own expense despite a promise from Hollinger that it would supply a portion of the costs of the renovation. When sold in 2005, based on allegations of fraud in connection with the sale of the apartment which were later to be rejected by the jury, the U.S. Department of Justice seized net proceeds of $8.5 million, pending resolution of court actions. Before Mr. Black returned to prison in September 2011, the United States Attorney's Office for the Northern District Of Illinois was obligated to return $6 million to Lord Black which was money the government was holding but to which they ultimately agreed they were not entitled to given the ultimate results of the case. His London townhouse in the Kensington district sold in 2005 for about US$25 million. Black's Palm Beach mansion was listed for sale in 2004 at $36 million. In late April of 2011 this Florida property was also sold by Black for approximately $30 million (USD).

According to biographer Tom Bower, "They flaunted their wealth." Black's critics, including former Daily Telegraph editor Charles Moore, suggested it was Black's second wife, Amiel, who pushed him towards a life of opulence, citing extravagant expenditures such as items billed to Hollinger expenses that included $2,463 (£1,272) on handbags, $2,785 in opera tickets, and $140 for Amiel's "jogging attire."Mr. Black was never charged much less convicted of any of these alleged corporate expenditures and anyone who knows Lady Black would have no doubt that she does not wear "jogging attire" and if she did it would not be the $140 Marks and Spencer variety. [6]

Black was ranked 238th wealthiest in Britain by the Sunday Times Rich List 2003, with an estimated wealth of £136m. He was dropped from the 2004 list.

Conrad Black is a former Steering Committee member of the Bilderberg Group.

Criminal fraud conviction and Supreme Court review==

Main article: United States v. Conrad Black

{{Infobox criminal

- | image_name =

- | name = Conrad Moffat Black

- | charge = mail fraud, obstruction of justice

- | conviction_penalty = Sentenced to 6½ years imprisonment. Reduced to 42 months following appeal and resentencing.

- | conviction_status = Served 29 months before being granted bail pending a Supreme Court ordered review of his case. Reported to the Federal Correctional Institution, Miami on September 6, 2011 to serve an additional 13 months as a result of re-sentencing.

- | prison = Coleman Federal Correctional Complex

- | surrender date = 3 March 2008 11:52 am

- | inmate number = 18330-424

- }}

- Black was convicted in U.S. District Court in Chicago on July 13, 2007 for 3 counts of mail fraud and one count of obstruction of justice. He was acquitted of 9 counts. Lord Black was sentenced to serve 78 months in federal prison, pay Hollinger $6.1 million, in addition to a fine of $125,000."

• POV pushing/unsupported by citation "The affidavits attempted to refute an outpouring of letters from Mr. Black's fellow inmates extolling Mr. Black's devotion to his tutoring and his many personal acts of kindness to fellow Coleman inmates. These affidavits were demonstrated to be false in submissions of June 8, 2011 and June 16, 2011 by Mr. Black's legal team. they were specifically found by Judge Amy St. Eve not to have been credible. Nevertheless, because of the publicity surrounding these false affidavits, the Bureau of Prisons elected not to send Mr. Black back to Coleman. "

I find these changes highly questionable and ask that you at least discuss them in Talk:Conrad Black first. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 00:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

References

3RR cont'd

Hi to the Vale of Glamorgan

1. You reverted the contributions of a newbie editor reducing the article from 59,504 bytes to 40,602 bytes with an inadequate edit summary.

2. You reverted the article 3 times in 24 hours ignoring wp:3RR

3. You disregarded wp:preserve

4. My point is the majority of the material you deleted is verifiable, sourceable, and worthy of inclusion. OK some of it needs fixing (which I was doing when you reverted), so let us do that. Would you please restore the material so it can be fixed? Thank you. Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 01:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

What about the specific insertions and deletions I pointed out in the previous section? Let's do it one by one then. How do you justify the insertion of the following unsourced paragraph which is not only POV but unsourced POV:

"The result of this action was that Mr. Black was unable to finance his first choice for his attorney, Brendan Sullivan of the prominent Washington D.C. firm of Williams and Connolly The actions of the United States Attorneys Office in seizing this money were later revealed to have been improper as following his trial, the jury acquitted him of any misconduct related to the sale of the New York apartment."

Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 03:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

http://www.nationalpost.com/Unjustly+incarcerated/348425/story.html

"Just before most of the charges were laid in this case, in October, 2005, these prosecutors seized the proceeds of the sale of our co-operative unit in New York, on the basis of an affidavit from an FBI agent, who signed that he was fully aware of the laws against perjury. The affidavit omitted any reference to the facts that the company had been obligated to pay for the renovation and decoration of the unit, and that I had done so, at a personal cost of more than $4.6-million.

The seizure was conducted ex parte, with no notice and no due process, under the Civil Assets Forfeiture Reform Act.

The jurors determined that that affidavit was mistaken (i.e. false). When we pointed out its deficiencies in our legal motion, the prosecutors laid the charges in this case, stayed other proceedings and froze almost $10-million owed to me. The action achieved its objective: Brendan V. Sullivan of Williams & Connally, one of America's most respected trial lawyers, who was my chief counsel, was unable to take this case, because I was unable to provide him, for a time, after the New York seizure, with the retainer he required."

Would you please note that two editors feel your deletions are inappropriate. The author and me. You have carefully manipulated the situation, by breaking the 3RR rule, so the material you dislike is deleted, and are sitting in sole judgement enforcing your POV. This is the reason new editors are driven away. Would you please restore the material so it can be fixed? Thank you.

Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 06:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

First of all, one of the editors is a Single Purpose Account that only edits this article. Secondly, the paragraph did not have a source as it existed in the article. The source needs to be given and second this seems to be Black's personal opinion so it should be stated as such and not as a neutral fact. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 13:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

What about: ""Mr. Black was never charged much less convicted of any of these alleged corporate expenditures and anyone who knows Lady Black would have no doubt that she does not wear "jogging attire" and if she did it would not be the $140 Marks and Spencer variety."

That sentence is unsourced opinion and the tone makes it sound like it was written by his defence team or friend of Black rather than a neutral party. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 14:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Please Update Net Worth

Apparently he is only worth ~$80 mill these days, see http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/10/conrad-black-201110 . (Not that the article makes him seem at all likable, but it does have an updated estimate of his net worth.) 68.108.234.122 (talk) 19:34, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Residence

What is the basis for listing Toronto as his residence? He doesn't reside in Toronto. He resides in Florida. The prison is his residence. It's pure speculation where he may live in the future. Where he lived in the past may be his "home town" but is no longer his residence. He doesn't yet have permission to return to Canada. Toronto is appropriately listed as his "home town". Just because a person retains ownership of place they lived in, does not mean that should permanently be listed as their residence. If the article keeps Toronto as his residence, it should cite a post-incarceration source that says that his current residence is Toronto. I can sorta understand London as a residence, since he has a legal right to live there (at least under British law). But, it seems odd to list a place where he has no right to reside as his residence. --Rob (talk) 04:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think we have enough information to really know his legal residency, so I think we should just remove it entirely.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:22, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

No longer an issue. Toronto is his residence. 208.65.73.105 (talk) 21:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Moot for Deletion - rather insignificant subject

Anyone else agree? About as important as that other HOL 'character' , Jeffrey Archer.212.139.96.62 (talk) 17:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC)twl212.139.96.62 (talk) 17:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Plagiarist?

This might be worthy of an additional note, although it might be contentious if not well sourced. His regular HuffPo column, on Language laws [[2]] used a very familiar funny few paragraphs on the English language in the EU without attribution. This was also published as his in a New York tabloid [[3]], at least, in 2013. It can be found elsewhere from years before, even in the Urban Dictionary [[4]] [[5]]. I recall it even from years before that UD posting (in 2005) as well, from the mainstream press. Often reprinted without attribution, and I doubt that he wrote it originally. There is a copyrighted document here [[6]] Thoughts?

BCameron54 01:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Conrad Black. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111028110335/http://www.vanityfair.com:80/society/features/2011/10/conrad-black-201110? to http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/10/conrad-black-201110

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Conrad Black. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.125.1106%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140202095633/http://www.bilderbergmeetings.org/former-steering-committee-members.html to http://www.bilderbergmeetings.org/former-steering-committee-members.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120403021210/http://www.macleans.ca/columnists/article.jsp?content=20070730_107322_107322 to http://www.macleans.ca/columnists/article.jsp?content=20070730_107322_107322

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:53, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

"He now spends his time attending charity events as a guest."

I have deleted this stupid and snarky (and unsourced) remark as falling under the Wikipedia rubric: "This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Take extra care to use high-quality sources. Material about living persons should not be added when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. See more information on sources. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous."

Given that Black has published several books, he clearly "spends his time" doing something besides "attending charity events," "as a guest." And, btw, how else does one "attend charity events" other than ""as a guest"? Is this snark supposed to imply that he's in need of charity? 107.77.219.114 (talk) 14:58, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Conrad Black. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/10/conrad-black-201110
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081219194500/http://www.spearswms.com/good-life/diary/4411/exclusive-conrad-blacks-jail-diary.thtml to http://www.spearswms.com/good-life/diary/4411/exclusive-conrad-blacks-jail-diary.thtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081219194500/http://www.spearswms.com/good-life/diary/4411/exclusive-conrad-blacks-jail-diary.thtml to http://www.spearswms.com/good-life/diary/4411/exclusive-conrad-blacks-jail-diary.thtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:42, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Unreadable mess

This article is an unreadable mess. Period. EEng 03:52, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. I feel that a massive edit needs to happen, and am going to proceed with it today. WayeMason (talk) 21:53, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Conrad Black. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111011071954/http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20070712/black_verdict_070713/ to http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20070712/black_verdict_070713/
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130129152240/http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/02/12/conrad-black-nineteen-years-with-my-perfect-valentine/ to http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/02/12/conrad-black-nineteen-years-with-my-perfect-valentine/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081012123615/http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=9715b6f8-36f5-4dbe-bda7-074dc7fb2a33 to http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=9715b6f8-36f5-4dbe-bda7-074dc7fb2a33
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130813043358/http://www.macleans.ca/business/companies/article.jsp?content=20070730_107327_107327 to http://www.macleans.ca/business/companies/article.jsp?content=20070730_107327_107327
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080528062358/http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/pr/chicago/2005/pr1215_01.pdf to http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/pr/chicago/2005/pr1215_01.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111020202125/http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20100719/conrad-black-bail-100719/ to http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20100719/conrad-black-bail-100719
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120708034228/http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/07/31/conrad-black-my-prison-education to http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/07/31/conrad-black-my-prison-education
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111019220933/http://www.macleans.ca/homepage/magazine/article.jsp?content=20070314_140206_9404 to http://www.macleans.ca/homepage/magazine/article.jsp?content=20070314_140206_9404

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:41, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Can someone archive all the old stuff on this talk page?

There's no point in having 12 yr old discussions clogging up the page. It's unwieldy. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:03, 16 May 2019 (UTC)