Talk:Conrad Black

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

text: But in so doing you misrepresent the sources, all of which mention the biography, as demonstrated above. YoPienso (talk) 14:28, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I mentioned the biography. None of the sources, though, use the terminology that we had previously used in the lede. Cosmic Sans (talk) 19:25, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

text: Looks like most of the sources use the word "flattering" not "glowing."  By the way, none of the sources use the word, "fawning," which Snooganssnoogans origially edit-warred to try to keep in.  What gives, Snooganssnoogans? AppliedCharisma (talk) 16:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

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

text: I agree that this is quite pertinent, and is mentioned in virtually all sources discussing the pardon, and have restored the content. --Neutralitytalk 18:19, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It is reasonable to mention that Mr. Black wrote a biography of President Trump.  It is also reasonable to mention that he was pardoned by President Trump about a year after the biography was published.  What is not reasonable is to make an unreferenced statement that the biography was fawning, glowing, or flattering without a citation to a reliable source.  More importantly, mentioning the biography and the pardon together in the lede implies causation and gives the statements undue weight.  Both the pardon and biography are discussed in the body of an article, and a reader can draw his own conclusions. GlassBones (talk) 18:52, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Facts in the lead don't have to be referenced if they're referenced in the body. "Glowing" is referenced in the lead and "flattering" in the body. I'll change "flattering" to "glowing" in the lead, and also join the two sentences, because the RSs are clearly linking Black's praise of Trump to the pardon. YoPienso (talk) 18:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

text:  In looking at your editing history, it occurs to me you may not understand that the lead introduces and summarizes what the article says. You seem to have the impression that if something is mentioned in the body, it doesn't have to be in the lead. Just the opposite it true: something heavily treated in the body should be in the lead. I recommend a look at WP:MOSLEAD, which says "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic." Best wishes, YoPienso (talk) 19:18, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  please revert your most recent edit to the lead. Please refrain from editing the article until you have discussed your issues here at talk and we have arrived at a consensus. Thank you. YoPienso (talk) 19:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm inserting the word "favorable" (to describe biography) into the lead because it's important the reader not assume the biography is objective. The press overwhelmingly refers to the book as "glowing" or "flattering"; "favorable" is the most neutral word I can come up with. ("Admiring" is another possibility.) I'm removing "a year later," because that's obvious from the dates given so closely together. I'm joining the two sentences because virtually all RSs connect the book with the pardon. Please see the 15 sources linked to above, as well as "Trump Pardons His Friend Conrad Black, Who Wrote Glowing Trump Biography Last Year" by Laurel Wamsley, published by NPR on May 16, 2019. YoPienso (talk) 19:10, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Style-wise, "biography favorable of" may be better than "favorable biography." YoPienso (talk) 19:14, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

text: The last sentence in the lead current reads: "In 2018, Black wrote a favorable biography of President Donald Trump; on May 15, 2019, Trump granted him a full pardon." That is implicit synthesis, implying that Trump granted the pardon because Black wrote a book about him and by implication the pardon was undeserved. That's a clear BLP violation for both Black and Trump and I will edit it. If any editor wants to state the connection it must be explicit and sourced. TFD (talk) 01:25, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please take the time to read the comments here before summarily reverting. At the top of this section are 12 RSs (all 15 given except 3, 8, and 10) that explicitly link the pardon to the book. (Source #3 links the pardon to an earlier favorable column Black wrote about Trump; source #8 calls Black "a political ally and longtime associate of Mr. Trump’s," and source #10 is a dead link to a Time article.) At 19:10, 15 February 2020 I wrote, immediately above your comment, "I'm joining the two sentences because virtually all RSs connect the book with the pardon." YoPienso (talk) 01:54, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The source used (WAPO) does not make an explicit connection. Which of the sources explicitly say that Trump pardoned Black because of his book? The fact that Black and Trump were long term allies and associates (in fact Trump said Black was innocent when he was prosecuted) actually argues against the view that he pardoned him because of the book. Presumably if they were that close he would have pardoned him anyway. TFD (talk) 02:38, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The very first sentence of the WaPo article is "President Trump gave a full pardon to a longtime friend who last year wrote a glowing book about Trump’s successes." YoPienso (talk) 02:43, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

text: The second source on this page says, "Donald Trump has pardoned Conrad Black, the former media mogul who owned the Daily Telegraph and the Spectator before being jailed for fraud, shortly after he wrote a book praising the US president." Etc. Twelve sources LINK the two events; I'm not sure if any show cause-and-effect. Neither does the sentence I've just restored to the article: just like the sources, it links them. YoPienso (talk) 02:46, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

text: The sources do make an explicit connection, but do not explicitly say Trump pardoned Black because Black wrote that book. YoPienso (talk) 02:48, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

text: A number of the sources--which you can check out for yourself, btw--point out that Trump did not mention Black's biography of him when he explained why he thought Black deserved a pardon. The fact that the stories made a point of it is a suggestion that the sources suspect Trump was influenced by the fact that Black praised him in print. Here's what NBC said: "The White House statement did not mention that Black wrote what was described as a flattering biography of Trump published in 2018, titled Donald J. Trump: A President Like No Other." This was under a large-font headline, Trump pardons ex-media mogul Conrad Black, who wrote flattering biography of him, and a smaller-print headline right under it, The convicted fraudster is the author of "Donald J. Trump: A President Like No Other," which came out last year. YoPienso (talk) 02:59, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

text: What is the explicit connection made? I have posted a discussion to BLPN. TFD (talk) 19:42, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Ten hours before you did that, I removed mention of the book from the lead. I gave a full account in my edit summary--I don't think the lead has to give the complete date of the pardon (but year only) or the detail about the flattering book, which is covered in the body--but guess I should have also mentioned it here at talk. I assure you I want an article as unbiased as possible, forthcoming but not accusatory. YoPienso (talk) 00:30, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  That Black wrote a hagiography of Trump is pertinent 

message: Should the first sentence of the article include a term such as "fraudster" or "convicted criminial"?  OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:07, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point about the "criminal" infobox; I've removed it.OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:25, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

text: No. They seem to be more notable for other things, so I think the lead calling them a criminal is libelous. @CLYDEFRANKLIN 02:08, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC: Should the first sentence include the descriptor "fraudster"?