Talk:Judi McLeod

message: Read about it here http://thailandesl.chazzsongs.net/internet.wiki.htm. Alphax τεχ 05:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alphax, I've de-linked the above because it's an anti-Semitic website. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, ok, whatever. So is someone going to add this, or isn't it important? Alphax τεχ 12:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say it shouldn't be added. The CFP is not a particularly notable publication and it's not a notable story. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest conspiracy theory 

message: Which parts of the text are the newspaper articles listed in References supposed to be references for? They have to be cited in the article, or they're not much use. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Do we know what is meant by "She was fired in 1983 and sued for wrongful dismissal. McLeod maintained that local Conservative politicians had used their influence to get her fired after she wrote a series of articles about them. The suit was ultimately withdrawn"? In what sense did she sue if she withdrew the claim? How far did the case get? SlimVirgin (talk) 21:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ontario Supreme Court judge Donald Steele ruled January 7th 1987 that the McLeods could raise press freedom ("freedom of the press") as an issue in a suit for wrongful dismissal against Canadian Newspapers Co. Ltd., owner of the Brampton Daily Times. "The McLeods' lawyer, Anita Lerek, said she does not expect the suit to reach the courts for another two years." No Byline. "Press freedom issue in suit" The Globe and Mail, January 8 1987, p. A9. McLeod has claimed elsewhere that the suit was withdrawn for lack of funds. --Cyberboomer 21:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The McLeods? Was there more than one of them suing? SlimVirgin (talk) 01:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. They both sued. Husband and wife. I take it you still haven't read the Globe and Mail articles I cited? Are you able to access any Canadian news database/index? --Cyberboomer 22:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why doesn't the article make that clear? What did the husband sue for? Why is this article being written in such an unclear way? Come on. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lawsuit

message: I'm not sure why SlimVirgin has quoted a rival journalist's opinion that McLeod is "eccentric" and the newspaper a "whacko news site." I don't think Antonia Zerbisias's personal opinion by itself belongs here and suspect that it's gratuitous and irrelevant. Zerbisias is a liberal so any opinion she has of McLeod is bound to be negative. My original edit contained a more relevant quote from McLeod complaining that Zerbisias's reportage was a "hatchet attack." OTOH, Kevin Grace's quote is relevant because he's conservative. --Cyberboomer 22:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Zerbisias isn't a "rival journalist." You have an odd view of McLeod's importance. Anyway, we don't use sources based on their political views, but on their reliability and notability. It was you who pointed out that the Zerbisias site is run by the newspaper, not by her, and she says on it that they check what she writes, so it counts as a reliable source. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With all due respect you misunderstand my argument. I'll go into further detail after I've had the chance to collect my thoughts. --Cyberboomer 23:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Antonia's hatchet is more likelyto be directed at some recalcitrant feta than someone like jmcl 65.94.117.142 (talk) 19:11, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Eccentric" and "wacko news site" quotes 

message: Hi Cyber, can you say exactly what the letter says? (McConnell, Pam. Letter to the Editor. Toronto Free Press. April 1997, p 3,4) SlimVirgin (talk) 22:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a lengthy letter. McConnell explains that she contacted the police and spoke to Officer Bill Blair about the "harassing incident". --Cyberboomer 22:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does it support every single word of "Toronto city councillor Pam McConnell complained to the police that McLeod had sent a photographer to wait outside McConnell's home and take pictures of McConnell's and neighbours' young children"? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is an excerpt from her letter: "A still unidentified man sitting in a car parked in front of an elementary school and my home took photographs of at least one and possibly both of my daughters as they went off to school at 8:30 a.m. this morning. This man spoke to one of my daughters but did not identify himself. I am not aware as to whether there were any photos taken of my younger daughter or of any of the young children going into the school next to my home. I take this incident very seriously particularly since young people were the target. The time and proximity of this incident to the arrival of school children is very alarming. I am asking the police to ensure that there is no danger to my children or to any children in the school." --Cyberboomer 22:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't support the edit, in that case. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you please be more specific? --Cyberboomer 23:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The passage above doesn't say what the edit said. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The quote is only an excerpt. We could avoid these misunderstandings if you could explain your edits in better detail. --Cyberboomer 23:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I asked for a source four or five days ago. You have now posted what I assume is a relevant extract. It doesn't mention McLeod and doesn't say the man took photographs of neighbors' children, which are two of the things our edit said. This article must be edited in accordance with WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:BLP. It should contain no criticism that isn't referenced to a reputable source. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: McConnell also writes, "Please confirm or deny with Staff Inspector Bill Blair of 51 Division at 808-5100 that your newspaper sent a photographer to my home today." McLeod's accompanying article in the same issue makes clear that she sent a photographer to take pictures of the co-op McConnell lives in. --Cyberboomer 23:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You didn't say that before. Look, Cyberboomer, if you want to include this incident, go ahead, but you must stick exactly to what the source says, and without exaggerating. It's a very trivial incident, and people frequently complain about news photographers, so it really isn't notable. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Letter

message: This section is a mess of inconsistency. Was she fired (not in her view) or reassigned? Did she say local conservative or Conservative politicians had interfered? Was she on the city-hall beat or the municipal-affairs beat? SlimVirgin (talk) 23:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At first the paper reassigned her. Her husband, the paper's managing editor, reinstated her. The paper then fired them both. Municipal-affairs beat and city-hall beat are the same. Please feel free to consult the Globe and Mail articles. This will make the verification and copy-editing process much easier. --Cyberboomer 00:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, I insist you take the time and read the Globe and Mail articles. Before this goes to mediation or WP:RFC. --Cyberboomer 22:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: No, please just write according to what the sources say, with no inconsistencies in the text, and then there won't be any problems. I'm sorry to write to you in this tone, but this is a very simple article and it shouldn't be prone to this degree of confusion. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it conservative or Conservative? You've written both. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's still something about the firing that makes no sense. The managing editor of a newspaper is the person who decides who is assigned to which beat. The editor-in-chief or publisher would normally only override the managing editor's decision in the case of misconduct. So who reassigned her in the first place if not the managing editor? And once the managing editor had assigned her back to the original beat (and how could he if someone else had taken over that responsibility), who overrode him? And for him then to be fired is very serious, much more serious than firing a reporter. I wonder whether there's something about this that we're misdescribing. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fired

message: Another fabulous example of a wiki fiddled article, and fiddled most likely by the subject of the article. And wiki wants to be taken seriously ???  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.93.96.10 (talk) 00:19, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  wiki fiddled article 

message: The "Work in Canada Free Press" section includes a paragraph of conspiracy theories which are both oddly formatted (a list with each item preceded by a hyphen and followed by a semi-colon) and cite no sources. Who decided CFP "can be best described as the Canadian version of the combination of FreeRepublic.com, InfoWars.com and Breitbart.com?" Are their sources for such vague theories as "Blacks are inherently violent, sub-intelligent people" or "The majority of Muslims are terrorists" or "Any Jewish person who isn't a rabid, neoconservative Zionist is a traitor?" I'd love to see a decent "criticism" section, but this doesn't pass muster. Sadiemonster (talk) 15:16, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree. If sources substantiating those claims can't be found, the material is just nonsensical. And just because Judi McLeod shows nothing but contempt for all people and things remotely "liberal," there's no reason to treat her article as poorly as she treats everyone to the left of Attila the Hun.Bart Vandelay (talk) 21:01, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  No sources for "conspiracy theories?" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Judi McLeod. 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/20060623050542/http://eye.net/eye/issue/issue_04.08.93/NEWS/cit0408.htm to http://www.eye.net/eye/issue/issue_04.08.93/NEWS/cit0408.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:01, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified